Debit card fraud using pin

Casa_125

baza52 wrote: »

my first thought was what kind of bar was it?

Hello, thanks for reading...it was just a regular bar, nothing fancy and not a lap dance club.

Casa_125

davetrousers wrote: »

There was a very similar sounding thread to this a couple of years ago, might be worth trawling through the forum to find some help.

Hi - I found it! A guy in a bar in Majorca, in June 2010. He never posted whether he was refunded - dying to know!! Thanks.

hillcats

Interesting thread, but just a thought...
did the bar tender chance his arm and when payment was offered by card did he state the correct amount verbally, but then enter a massively different amount into the machine (that maybe wasn't checked by your son) that was then verified by the pin input ?

Just a wild guess, not accusing etc.

Casa_125

hillcats wrote: »

Interesting thread, but just a thought...
did the bar tender chance his arm and when payment was offered by card did he state the correct amount verbally, but then enter a massively different amount into the machine (that maybe wasn't checked by your son) that was then verified by the pin input ?

Just a wild guess, not accusing etc.

Hi, thanks for reading and yes we did think that could be possible. Problem is, there were 3 transactions for 100 euros and then 1 for 1000 euros. So that means the card would have to have been inserted 4 times with the last one being the biggie. My son had made 2 transactions in the bar, 1 for 40 euros and then another for 100 euros which was 2 bottles of champagne as a treat as his brother had recently annouced his engagement and was with the party of friends. Then the 4 fraudulent transaction, as described above, went through. The formal complaint he has sent off today is asking for the TIMES of the transactions, I suspect they were all very close together and must have been done at the point of sale of the champagne. It really is a guessing game, very very frustrating to say the least. Its a hell of a lot of money for him to lose and we will just have to wait and see what the bank decide I suppose. Cheers

masonic

I don't see that this has been mentioned before now, but I was under the impression that the 1000EUR transaction would be covered under the Consumer Credit Act, since it took your son into an overdraft. That would mean the bank cannot use a claim of negligence to shift liability onto your son. The maximum cost they could pass on for that transaction is £50. Only for the 100EUR transactions, which were applied against a credit balance, the bank could claim negligence and refuse to refund the money.

Saints2011

Is it possible that your son did pop his pin in but the bar staff put a higher amount either on accident or purpose and your son didnt check the transaction amount before entering his pin, happened to me before.. easily done.

Try contacting the bar for any CCTV.

WhiteHorse

Banks routinely try this line. Make a formal complaint.

I tend to avoid using a debit card, preferring a credit card instead. I like there to be space between the person taking the money and my main account.

ILW

Has your son got the recipts for the transactions he did make, do they show on the statement?

Azrael_1701

Ignore this

masonic

Azrael_1701 wrote: »

Sorry, but no.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm

Not true when the debit card transaction takes you into an overdraft. It is then classed as a credit token and subject to the CCA. for example:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

In many of the complaints we see involving disputed card transactions, the card was used to obtain credit – in other words, it was used as what the Consumer Credit Act calls a "credit-token". Many firms appear uncertain about how to deal with disputes of this type, so this article explains our approach.
<snip>
Some firms think that if cardholders were grossly negligent in their care of a card and/or PIN, then they can always be held liable for the full amount of any transactions made with that card by a fraudster. But that is not the case. There must be an appropriate provision in the card’s terms. The lack of care must have been the cause of the loss. And even then, the consumer’s liability may be limited if the card was used as a credit-token. If it was, the effect of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that:

• Cardholders are liable for withdrawals that they have made (or that somebody acting as their agent has made).
• Cardholders can be made liable to a maximum of £50 for losses arising from the use of the card when it was not in the possession of someone authorised to have it (the act does not say in what circumstances, but we will look to the card terms in each case.)
• Cardholders can be made liable for losses arising from the use of the card by someone who has possession of it with the cardholder’s consent (again, the Act does not say in what circumstances.)
• Cardholders are not liable at all after they have told the card issuer that the card has been lost or stolen.
• These provisions cannot be excluded by the account terms.

See also:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-1620057/Bank-fraud-when-it-pays-to-be-overdrawn.html

Every month, the Financial Ombudsman Service handles about 100 complaints from people who have had claims for cash machine fraud rejected by their bank. In a recent case it ruled in favour of 'Miss G' - a bank customer who was surprised to discover she was more overdrawn than expected following an unexplained £250 cash machine withdrawal. The FOS said: 'She contacted her bank to say she was certain she had not made the withdrawal herself and could not understand how anyone else could have done so. The bank insisted Miss G must have been negligent in the care of her card or Pin. So it said that, under the terms and conditions of her account and the provisions of the Banking Code, she was liable for the transaction.'
After making its own inquiries, the Ombudsman found in favour of Miss G. The FOS said: 'Our investigation led us to conclude that one of Miss G's work colleagues had probably taken her cash card from her handbag – without her knowledge – and had later replaced it.
'On several occasions the colleague had gone shopping with Miss G during their lunch break. We thought it likely that the colleague had been able to obtain the Pin by carefully watching Miss G entering the number when she used her card in a supermarket near their workplace.'
It added: 'Because Miss G's account was overdrawn, the transactions had been made from credit. This meant that the relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 applied.' Because the Act is a statutory safeguard for consumers, it takes precedence over the Banking Code.
'So we said Miss G should not be liable for more than the first £50. We also said the bank should refund the overdraft interest charged on the £250, and pay Miss G £75 for the inconvenience it had caused her by its poor handling of her complaint.'