I see there are a couple of topics on this specific subject but they are never really resolved and the fact is, if the transaction was brought in by the bank feed and it was incorrectly tagged then detagging it shouldn’t delete it.
I’m now stuck in a position where I don’t know if the transactions will be brought back in by the overnight feed. I have no option to manually run the feed for Starling so in the meantime I have to leave my bank account incorrectly overstating the account balance, missing transactions and having to come back to this tomorrow and fix whatever it is Quickfile has done.
I have asked one of my colleagues to take a look at this for you.
If you could confirm your QuickFile account number/Company name then I can refresh the feed back to a specific date for you.
You can send a private message to @QFSupport with the details and just a note to say it’s for the Starling bank refresh and the date then we can sort this or if you’re happy to post those details on this public thread then either way is fine
They were pulled in on the feed from Starling, then tagged from the bank account as transfer to directors loan account (possibly by automatic tagging). However, for some reason they ended up tagged to the wrong DLA so I untagged them from the DLA and then the transactions were deleted from the Starling account.
I think there should be some sort of lock on accounts with bank feeds, nothing should be adding or deleting transactions from an account with an active feed.
In short - untagging a bank transfer will remove the matching entry.
If you untagged the entry in the Starling account, the DLA entry is removed.
If you untagged the entry in the DLA account, the Starling entry is removed.
Definitely a issue as this is all done without warning and not via a direct action from a user, i.e. I didn’t select anything that said “delete transaction from bank account”. If there was at least a pop up warning me that by untagging then I am also inexplicably deleting the transaction that was brought in on the bank feed I might think twice, but I wasn’t. The behaviour here should be the same as detagging an invoice.
This is specific to bank transfers. The idea is that tagging a bank transfer creates a contra entry on the other account. Detagging that transfer removes the entry on the other account (i.e. a reversal).
The issue here is that the detagging was done on the contra entry and we don’t record which of the two entries was the parent, therefore the other entry is by default removed. We could feasibly determine the parent and prevent this from happening by logging more informantion and carrying out additional checks. Otherwise for now I would suggest just detagging from the Starling account.
I can follow the logic, I see what happened and it does make sense looking at how banks work in Quickfile. However, the main issue I have is the bank transactions being removed. Rather than the more complex method of adding more logging etc to the ledger entries/nominal movements I think this would be a better fix and would prevent issues like this occurring when doing other things that interfere with a live bank account.
or if you’re happy to post those details on this public thread then either way is fine