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

INT1

But if your saying their legal rights is that they are not liable for the transactions, that would straight away assume that a customer would be refunded even if they were involved or not?

I appreciate where your coming from within consumer/legal rights, afterall that is the whole point in this website, in reality though it doesn't ring true.

I'm not sure where else I can go in this convo, until now we have been doing what we are doing, no one has said otherwise in either entities.

I will agree to disagree if that makes sense.

MPH80

But if your saying their legal rights is that they are not liable for the transactions, that would straight away assume that a customer would be refunded even if they were involved or not?

No - I'm not - If someone is involved then they will have either a) committed the fraud themselves - which means the card was in their posession and used by them making them liable or b) allowed someone else to take possession of the card - which is under the provisions of the law a reason to make them liable.

Please go back and read my original post and the FO examples again.

I appreciate where your coming from within consumer/legal rights, afterall that is the whole point in this website, in reality though it doesn't ring true.

Wow ... that's a bizaare thing to say ... effectively you just wrote people shouldn't be made aware of their legal rights. You know - there's a lot of fuss at the moment about photographers and their legal rights. They can actually, legally, take photos anywhere on public land they like - but are being stopped, searched and having photography equiment confiscated by police under the terrorism act. If their weren't people aware of their legal rights - a fightback wouldn't be happening. That pressure caused this ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-uturn-on-photographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html

I'm not sure where else I can go in this convo, until now we have been doing what we are doing, no one has said otherwise in either entities.

Why not follow my suggestion above and have a chat with your legal department and post what the result is? I'm sure it'd be informative for us all. It also wouldn't, which is your concern, open up new routes for fraudsters, becuase providing they confirm your position - the situation will be as per T&Cs.

M.

INT1

Yeah we have discussed in the past on this sort of query and we are standing by what we do.

I think whats being confused is that people do pull scams. You have genuine claims and bogus claims.
With regards to holding liable, if we have strong grounds to hold liable, we will.

Discretion is used in some cases, we don't hold everyone liable.

Simple story, just don't disclose your PIn to anyone!

MPH80

aldo wrote: »

Yeah we have discussed in the past on this sort of query and we are standing by what we do.

But have they told you the legal basis they are doing it on? Ask them for that - this is the information that's going to make me back down.

I think whats being confused is that people do pull scams. You have genuine claims and bogus claims.

I'm not disputing that - but you have the tools already to fight against them.

With regards to holding liable, if we have strong grounds to hold liable, we will.

That's fine - but I'm trying to explain - that from what I can see - pin negligence is not, in itself, strong grounds to hold someone liable.

Discretion is used in some cases, we don't hold everyone liable.

Why not? If they've been negligent with their pin - and that's your policy - why not follow it?

Simple story, just don't disclose your PIn to anyone!

It's good advice - you'll have less chance of having fraud committed and less chance of having to go through all this.

M.