N&P to charge fraud VICTIMS £50 - anyone else?

chris1

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society (N&P) have just reissued their Ts&Cs which now include the following (my highlighting)

"22. If our investigation discloses that you have not
• acted fraudulently nor
• deliberately or with gross negligence failed to comply with these Conditions relating to the use of the Service and security of your Login Password or Telephone Password or other security details nor
• failed to maintain the security of your personal computer
you will be liable only for losses incurred up to a maximum of £50 and we shall refund the amount of the unauthorised transaction to your Account (after deducting the £50)."

Have I read this correctly? Does anyone else do this?

opinions4u

It doesn't say that they will enforce the condition, but it does appear to allow them to should they choose to.

Halifax also have a similar clause included (this is from their Guaranteed Saver T&Cs):

If you lose your card, it is stolen or you think someone else might use it, or if you think that someone else knows your pin, the most you will have to pay us for any loss we suffer because of the use of a card or pin will be £50. The £50 limit applies for the period until:

• you or someone acting for you has given us notice under condition 12.1; or

• you get the card back.

They never enforced it when I was a branch manager there.

It also fits with the wording of the Banking Code (P22) that reads:

Unless we can show that you have acted fraudulently or without reasonable care, your liability for your card being misused will be limited as follows.

• If someone else uses your card, before you tell us it has been lost or stolen or that someone else knows your PIN, the most you will have to pay is £50.

In other words the customer has no liability for any loss that occurs after they have reported the card missing.

Baldur

chris1 wrote: »

Have I read this correctly? Does anyone else do this?

It's a standard clause, according to http://www.lovemoney.com/news/manage-your-finances/how-to-stop-identity-and-card-fraud-1893.aspx

...However, I believe that identity-theft and card protection insurances are of negligible value to most people. This is because of these basic rights:

• Credit-, debit- and charge-card issuers must bear the cost of fraudulent use. In some cases you have to pay for part of the loss, but this is limited to £50. The exception is if you're grossly negligent, e.g. if you write your PIN on your card....

LongTermLurker

Yes, it's been in various banks' Ts & Cs for a long time.

I think they would enforce it if you waited an undue length of time before telling them.

chris1

opinions4u wrote: »

It doesn't say that they will enforce the condition, but it does appear to allow them to should they choose to.

Halifax also have a similar clause included (this is from their Guaranteed Saver T&Cs):
They never enforced it when I was a branch manager there.
It also fits with the wording of the Banking Code (P22) that reads:
In other words the customer has no liability for any loss that occurs after they have reported the card missing.

I have come across it with credit cards, such that if you lose your card you will be liable for up to £50, but that seems a bit more acceptable if you take some responsibility yourself for losing your card.

This however is a straightforward internet savings account...

Baldur

chris1 wrote: »

This however is a straightforward internet savings account...

If you fail to take adequate precautions to protect your computer from virus/malware infection, it can be argued that you must equally take some responsibilty.

chris1

Baldur wrote: »

If you fail to take adequate precautions to protect your computer from virus/malware infection, it can be argued that you must equally take some responsibilty.

But my point is that they plan to charge £50 if you are NOT guilty. If you are guilty of failing to take adequate precautions you will receive no refund at all.

oldfella

are you sure this term refers to savings accounts ?

seems draconian if it is

what precisely is the definition for "failure to maintain the security of your computer" - and who and how is it decided ?

LongTermLurker

Oldfella - OP's posted terms are all "NOT"s - ie, if you have not failed to maintain the security of your computer your liability will be limited to £50.

If you HAVE failed to maintain it, you'll be fully liable for all losses.

chris1: But my point is that they plan to charge £50 if you are NOT guilty.

I agree, it's OTT, and personally I avoid cards that include this possibility - it's the first time I've heard of a savings account doing it. My answer would be to vote with your feet and go to a bank that doesn't include the possibility.

p00hsticks

chris1 wrote: »

But my point is that they plan to charge £50 if you are NOT guilty. If you are guilty of failing to take adequate precautions you will receive no refund at all.

I don't read it exactly that way - as I see it they're not saying that they WILL charge you £50, just that they MAY.... I think all the accounts I have contain similar wording and always have done.

oldfella

If you HAVE failed to maintain it, you'll be fully liable for all losses.

---

the point I was trying to make was the wording is extremely loose - as it stands if you get a trojan or any nasty then you have failed to keep your computer secure

if your firewall or anti-virus fails your have failed to keep your computer secure

T&Cs like this are written to make life easy for the banks and BSs - they should be avoided.