Fraudulent use of cards with PIN - Can I get the money back?

INT1

Well it's funny how some of my cases are referred to the ombudsman and they rule in my (the credit card companies) favour?!
For info I have had a 100% success rate (18 cases todate totalling into the £££,£££

Not all cases I hold liability, like in the case of the OP, it would be at the discretion of the investigator and financial institution.

But don't start coming on here copy and pasting links and quotes when it is in fact not 100% true.

INT1

Oh, I am a fraud Investigator for a credit card company if you hadn't already guessed.
You will find most of my posts are credit card related.

hunnycat

neil9313 wrote: »

You have made £300 Not sure this post is a complete load of rubbish!

it does say in the orignal post that it was over £3000 taken;)

chattychappy

aldo wrote: »

Well it's funny how some of my cases are referred to the ombudsman and they rule in my (the credit card companies) favour?!
For info I have had a 100% success rate (18 cases todate totalling into the £££,£££

Unless you can tell us all the details of these cases and they are binding precedent, I don't see how this helps.

aldo wrote: »

But don't start coming on here copy and pasting links and quotes when it is in fact not 100% true.

But they were 100% true weren't they!

Good luck with the fraud investigations. It's a pity you tried all the " I know it's my job" nonsense. Your comment "IMO I really wouldn't post back on here what your bank decides to do with your case..." says a lot really.

INT1

How is it though happychappy?
Our legal and compliance team sign my letters off before being issued to customers. They get sent which states we are compliant to the law.

I don't need luck for the fraud investigations, I get paid very well thanks very much.

The whole reason I posted that was that you get people trying to screw the system and reading forums like these so they can get ideas on making money.
I'm only trying to prevent this from happening. I can't stop it.

We all pay for fraud one way or another, this was just a heads up thats all.

chattychappy

aldo wrote: »

Our legal and compliance team sign my letters off before being issued to customers. They get sent which states we are compliant to the law.

But the reality is you are only going to fight the cases where there is a prospect of success. Your team will know the kinds of cases where the ombudsman will uphold the bank's position. In the case of the OP, it appears that the bank thought otherwise on the facts.

I'm a lawyer. I sign letters - this just means we are asserting a position in fact or law, or both. It doesn't mean our clients are "compliant to the law".

MPH80

You've still yet to explain to me what law overrides section 84 of the Consumer Credit Act and allows companies to use negligence as an override.

When you do that I'll back down.

Otherwise - what I'm seeing is the law, which I've posted in the link from my original post - and examples provided by the financial ombudsman that back up that position.

What you're providing are assertions, without any published evidence, to the contrary.

INT1

Ok,

Whats started from me typing IMO is now turning in to whats law and what isn't.

I'll give this as an example. I will refer to Credit not Debit as that is whats being quoted.

Your card is stolen
You wrote your PIN number down and this was in your purse/wallet
£500 for eg is withdrawn cash
£1000 spent retail (Chip+PIN verified)
What your quoting is that the customer is not liable as per the CC 1974 etc etc?
I have held customers liable for this sort of negligience
I have done this by confirming it in writing to them
my letter and final paragraph mentions their right to refer to the FOS
My letter is signed off by our compliance legal team (this suggests to me that we are operating within the law and as per the terms and conditions set out by us and the consumer credit act)
The customer chooses to go to the FOS
They request any further evidence from us or the customer if they need any
They rule in our favour as the customer has acted negligient
Customer is held liable

So your saying that the customer would not be liable

The financial company says they are

The FOS says we are

Above is just an example, an experienced investigator can tell the difference (most of the time) if a claim is true or not.
My original post is to stop giving the low lifes ideas on how to stop coming up with ideas on how to screw over the banks and leads us innocent to pay for it through other means!
It also makes our line of job more suspicious on genuine claims.

Does the above make any sense and is it more clearer?

Banks/Credit card companies are hated on here, which is why I tend not to disclose what I do, so I am not entirely surprised by the replies I am getting. I do try an help though and I have done on various threads where people have had fraud.

We use this forum as a tool, just like fraudsters also use various discussion forums as tools to gain ideas on howe to commit fraud.

izools

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I have never heard of any current account debit card with a daily withdrawal limit of £1000.

Me either. The most I've seen is £750, and the limit cannot be "Set", the limit is a "FACT" of the type of account it is and which bank it is.

MPH80

Then the example you've provided flies in the face of the Ombudsman's own documentation - so it would be good to know the detail of the case so that we can understand whether the Ombudsman is acting inconsistently (they are human after all!) or whether there are other circumstances around it.

Tell you what - on Monday morning why don't you have a chat with the legal department at your place, tell them you've seen section 84 of the CCA (have you actually read it yet?) and you'd like to understand why you're allowed to use the negligence clause, because you don't appear to have the right in law. Then you can come back and inform the rest of us what they say.

This isn't about allowing fraudsters another way to screw the system - there is plenty of cover for that (e.g. they give someone else the card and then claim back) - this is about people knowing their legal rights. And, from what I can see (and remember - IANAL), that is that if you use a credit card, negligence with a pin is not, in itself, a reason to make the owner of the credit card liable for fraud.

Let me give you an example - let's say a company writes into their terms and conditions "You can return items within 7 days for a full refund providing you haven't told anyone that you're going to do it". If you took that to court - the company would lose - the Distance Selling Regulations require that companies accept back an item within 7 days of receipt. They can't simply add a an additional requirement to this that the law doesn't allow for.

Just because a legal department of a company agree with something being sent out does not mean the company are acting within the law. There are plenty of examples of companies writing into terms and conditions things that simply aren't legally compliant.

M.