Defrauded! No help from CC company

bengal-stripe

Let’s take the story at face value. - The OP’s opening post is contradictory.

diamonddogsuk wrote: »

.....we agreed we'd deal with it as the debt was manageable for the family member to repay. The card was cancelled, with the promise of another new card in the post.

.......when we first reported the fraud, in spite of there being history of the card previously being used fraudulently.....

I read from the first quote, the case was not reported as fraud: "Let’s keep ‘shtum’, get the family member to repay it and ask for a routine replacement of the card."

Later on the OP refers to reporting it as fraud. What is it?
　

chattychappy wrote: »

Or maybe they did change the PIN and the advice was sent in a way that could be intercepted. Whilst this might have been foreseeable, I do not see how you could have been gross negligent in allowing this to happen.

We haven't been told who this family member is. He might well live in the same house and has access to the mail when it arrives. In this case, not making alternative arrangements, seems to me rather careless. How is MBNA to know, they needed stricter security then is their usual practice?

chattychappy wrote: »

Irrelevant. MBNA issued the card and it was used before it was received by the cardholder. It is for MBNA to ensure adequate procedures are in place. Clearly those procedures failed and this exposed them to risk.

Now, has MBNA been told or have they not been told about a thieving family member and asked to add extra security measures?

Degenerate

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Why do these extraordinary tales only happen to new posters?!?

"Curioser and curioser" said Alice.

Because people in difficult situations often turn to the internet for information when they had no reason to post in a forum such as this before. The way you keep repeating this totally spurious "new poster = troll" insinuation verges on spam.

Degenerate

opinions4u wrote: »

I don't know why the police are involving you in prosecution options. MBNA will, eventually, be recorded as the victim of crime here, not you.

And therein lies the rub. Both MBNA and the police are giving the OP the option to deal with this family problem in their own way, and their response is to be lenient.

Diamonddogs, if that's what you want then fine, but you can only make that choice if you are the victim taking the loss. You can't expect to have it both ways by ways by having MBNA eat the loss whilst you get your say on the action taken. MBNA will rightfully expect this matter to be pursued to the full extent of the law if they're down £2K on the situation.

chattychappy

bengal-stripe wrote: »

We haven't been told who this family member is. He might well live in the same house and has access to the mail when it arrives. In this case, not making alternative arrangements, seems to me rather careless.

Actually I understood that the family member was in the same house. The test is "gross negligence" - even "rather careless" is not enough for the cardholder to incur liability.

bengal-stripe wrote: »

How is MBNA to know, they needed stricter security then is their usual practice?

Doesn't matter "how they know" - this is their problem. They must risk assess - ie decide what level of security is needed (or even whether to issue a card) based on the risk presented to them. They take the chance.

I've had banks insist I collect cards from branches. MBNA don't operate branches - so they save on this - but perhaps the risk is higher. I've even had cards sent in bizarre boxes so as not to appear as cards. Perhaps the security questions could have been tougher. We don't know what they did, and we don't need to know what they did. It's not a question of "given who knew what, who should take the risk of it going wrong" - the risk is with MBNA, unless there is "gross negligence".

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Now, has MBNA been told or have they not been told about a thieving family member

If the full story wasn't told, would it be careless? Maybe. Negligence? Possibly... But MBNA would have to demonstrate that it was gross negligence. The OP might be reasonable to assume that they'd "done enough" by getting the card cancelled and re-issued, assuming that activation procedures would offer protection. Gross negligence usually means something like writing your PIN on the back of the card. I agree there is an argument here - but I got the impression MBNA were alerted to the problem. So they were on notice.

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Now, has MBNA been ... asked to add extra security measures?

It's not for the cardholder to ask for extra security measures, though to have done so would help rebut an accusation of gross negligence if MBNA ignored the request.

chattychappy

Degenerate wrote: »

And therein lies the rub. Both MBNA and the police are giving the OP the option to deal with this family problem in their own way, and their response is to be lenient.

If this is what the OP meant, then I agree. If the OP is being given the option if dealing with this "in the family", then ultimately the OP will have to cover the debt.

But I took it that it was just the police offering this option and MBNA were rather stepping back and saying unless we see a conviction, you're liable. MBNA aren't really giving much of a choice to the OP. Now if they were saying "we'll ask to press charges unless you want to take over the debt" - well that would be different.

diamonddogsuk

Degenerate wrote: »

And therein lies the rub. Both MBNA and the police are giving the OP the option to deal with this family problem in their own way, and their response is to be lenient.

Diamonddogs, if that's what you want then fine, but you can only make that choice if you are the victim taking the loss. You can't expect to have it both ways by ways by having MBNA eat the loss whilst you get your say on the action taken. MBNA will rightfully expect this matter to be pursued to the full extent of the law if they're down £2K on the situation.

Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding here - we HAVE reported this to the police; it's the POLICE have offered us these options. We don't understand why we're even involved here as we've expressed our wish for the family member to be prosecuted to both MBNA and the police, so how is this being lenient? I'm just very confused as to WHY we have to make a decision. We'd assumed that once the police were involved that would be the end of it as far as we were concerned, out of our hands and all that. We didn't ask for or want any say on the action taken.

My reason for coming here was to try and make some sense of this, because it seems to have been thrown back to us by the police, with the officer asking US what WE want to do. I stupidly assumed that if the card people said report it to the police, the family member (since Bengal-stripe needs to know who it is for some reason, it's my stepson - it's not a secret, no hidden agenda) would be arrested and taken to court, and the debt would be wiped. This assumption came from the conversation my OH had with MBNA, who told him the only way we wouldn't be liable for the loss would be to report the incident to the police, which is what we did.

What I didn't expect was to be accused of trolling, dishonesty, carelessness and anything else that's been levelled at me.

diamonddogsuk

chattychappy wrote: »

If this is what the OP meant, then I agree. If the OP is being given the option if dealing with this "in the family", then ultimately the OP will have to cover the debt.

But I took it that it was just the police offering this option and MBNA were rather stepping back and saying unless we see a conviction, you're liable. MBNA aren't really giving much of a choice to the OP. Now if they were saying "we'll ask to press charges unless you want to take over the debt" - well that would be different.

LOL thanks - you've managed to say in one paragraph what took me half a page to say!

Point is, we tried to keep it in the family and he did it again so we said enough's enough, kicked him out and called the police in.

chattychappy

Well good luck getting it sorted. Based on what you say, I stand by the advice in my first two posts.

I should focus on writing to MBNA - state that the transactions are fraudulent and give details of the police investigation. No need to defend your actions - if they want to go the "gross negligence" route, then it's for them to raise this first. If the response isn't satisfactory then you have the ombudsman.

diamonddogsuk

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Now, has MBNA been told or have they not been told about a thieving family member and asked to add extra security measures?

If you read my OP properly you would know that the first indication there was a problem with the account was when THE CARD ISSUER alerted my OH that "unusual activity" had taken place on a previously unused credit card, and that card was cancelled and reissued as I presume is standard practice, so yes, I think we can assume they were aware of a thieving family member, hmmm?

Degenerate

diamonddogsuk wrote: »

Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding here - we HAVE reported this to the police; it's the POLICE have offered us these options. We don't understand why we're even involved here as we've expressed our wish for the family member to be prosecuted to both MBNA and the police, so how is this being lenient?

Reading back, I did misread your original post. I thought you had opted not to press charges, when I see that you actually have yet to decide.

I'm just very confused as to WHY we have to make a decision. We'd assumed that once the police were involved that would be the end of it as far as we were concerned, out of our hands and all that. We didn't ask for or want any say on the action taken.

It's true that it's not technically your decision, but MBNAs. However, the decision effectively falls back to you in that you have the option of taking on the loss personally, which would satisfy MBNA. Unfortunately, you can't just report it and wash you hands of it, as you are the main witnesses.

I'd say the chances of securing a conviction are fairly high, but this will probably mean you and your husband standing up to testify against your stepson in court. Given what this means for a family, I can see the logic of the police giving you other options as a way of asking asking "Are you sure?" Many of these sorts of cases fall through when relatives have second thoughts. Once a prosecution is set in motion costs start to be incurred.