I predict the Y2K bug will rear its head on an annual basis…

Here’s why:
A popular Y2K “solution” in enterprises with large quantities of legacy code and legacy data was (and remains) the “windowing solution”.

The “windowing solution” reads a two digit date (YY) from a database and prefixes it with a century (either “19″ or “20″), thus returning a four digit date.

There is a “window” of just 99 years… and the “window” was set to many different ranges.
in 1999, a “window” may have been set as follows:
Prefix years “10″ to “99″ with “19″ (giving 1910 to 1999).
Prefix years “00″ to “09″ with “20″ (giving 2000 to 2009)

In the above scenario, when the new decade dawned, the windowing solution went from “2009″ to “1910″… need I say more?

“Advanced” forms of the windowing solution may include automated adjustment of the window – but I doubt there are many of those.

You are probably correct in your suspicion that people assumed that the system(s) would have been replaced before 2010…

The reality is that “Old hardware goes into museums, while old software (and old databases) go into production every day, and every night “.

Rgds Ken

Here it is:

When BoI receives an authorisation request from a retailer, a ‘hold’ is placed on those funds until the actual transaction is presented for payment. The transaction is posted to the customer’s account on receipt from the retailer.

Relative to the number of transactions processed there are a very small number of instances where a transaction may appear twice. For example these may occur if the retailer inputted the wrong amount and then re-input the correct amount or the transaction is sent in error twice for authorisation. These types of transactions are not errors or a system issue created by the Bank. The Bank receives an authorisation request and subsequently places a hold on those funds. These types of transactions are not unique to Bank of Ireland.

Bank of Ireland responds to all customer queries raised in connection with above.