Card security - do the banks actually care?

oki25

Check with your CC provider's security department, a little birdie told me that you would only be liable if you denied leaving your pin and card together when it was stolen, and then got found out!

P.S, ring your banks/CC and ask for chip/signiture card, easily fixed over the phone, readily available if you ask the right person.

GeoffL

oki25 wrote: »

Check with your CC provider's security department, a little birdie told me that you would only be liable if you denied leaving your pin and card together when it was stolen, and then got found out!

But that's not what's been happening. See this YouTube video for some examples.

oki25 wrote: »

P.S, ring your banks/CC and ask for chip/signiture card, easily fixed over the phone, readily available if you ask the right person.

Thanks. I can only assume that I haven't yet asked the right person because I've phoned them on several occasions to request a Chip 'n Signature card and been turned down. However, I've only managed to speak with call-centre operators and their supervisors so far - and I suspect that they're all working from a script that doesn't cater for such requests. Can you advise who is the right person to speak with?

redpete

GeoffL wrote: »

FWIW, I have a way of jogging my memory for the PIN that gives me the biggest headache. Unfortunately, just like many methods suggested in this thread, my method (strictly) contravenes the T&Cs under which my card was issued and so (strictly) I could be liable for fraudulent transactions until I ask the provider to stop my card:- and that makes me feel uncomfortable.

So are you saying that you have written it down in a way that is recognisable to someone else? If so then you are and should be liable, if not then you have not gone against the condition you quoted that says you should not "write your security details in a way that is recognisable;"

GeoffL

redpete wrote: »

So are you saying that you have written it down in a way that is recognisable to someone else? If so then you are and should be liable, if not then you have not gone against the condition you quoted that says you should not "write your security details in a way that is recognisable;"

The condition says that you must not write it down in a way that is recognisable but says nothing about to who. So, if you have written something down that you, the cardholder, can recognise as the PIN then you have, by definition, written your security details in a way that is recognisable; and thus contravened that condition.

However, it seems that fraudsters don't even need to have your PIN and there is a fundamental flaw in Chip 'n PIN that may have already been exploited. I can't quite get my head around the theory, but this video gives some details. From that video, I understand that the law changed in November 2009 to put the onus on the banks to prove that the cardholder is negligent. However, they seem to have kept pretty quiet about that and I've heard stories from after the change where the banks have (at least initially) presumed customer negligence.

I guess that the money-saving tip here has to be not to accept a bank's refusal to reimburse where you've been the victim of card fraud as the law now says they have to prove that you were negligent.

redpete

GeoffL wrote: »

The condition says that you must not write it down in a way that is recognisable but says nothing about to who. So, if you have written something down that you, the cardholder, can recognise as the PIN then you have, by definition, written your security details in a way that is recognisable; and thus contravened that condition.

They would never force that interpretation on the condition. I could write down a pretend phone number where the middle 4 digits are my PIN number but with each digit shifted by 1, 2, 3, and 4 digits respectively. So 01258 496872 is my way of writing down a PIN of 8453. The bank would not be able to dodge their responsibility by claiming that this is "recognisable".

GeoffL

redpete wrote: »

They would never force that interpretation on the condition.

How do you know? Can you cite case law or ombudsman adjudication to support that assumption? Unless there's been a precedent set you cannot know; and even if there has been a precedent it's only necessary for them to show a material difference in your case for that precedent to be useless to you.

Put it this way, there have been more than a few perverse rulings - including some that ruled customers must have been negligent merely because their PIN was used.