Debit card fraud using pin

Azrael_1701

masonic wrote: »

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



See also:

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

Ahh right, I thought he was talking about Section75 cover, sorry, I was confusing myself.

agrinnall

meer53 wrote: »

Your sons bank will already know whether the PIN was used or not. The bank systems can tell whether a counterfeit card is used.

I agree that the bank would know if the PIN was used. However, can you explain how the bank would know that the card used was counterfeit, and if they do know that then why would they have authorised the transaction? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, and having worked with card authorisation systems I don't really see how that would happen.

meer53

agrinnall wrote: »

I agree that the bank would know if the PIN was used. However, can you explain how the bank would know that the card used was counterfeit, and if they do know that then why would they have authorised the transaction? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, and having worked with card authorisation systems I don't really see how that would happen.

When a card payment is processed, the banks systems can tell if the chip was read or the magnetic strip. If the chip was read then it can't be a counterfeit card. Counterfeit cards rely on the magnetic strip fpr processing.

Either he has "forgotten" what he spent, the bar staff have input the incorrect amount and he has then used his PIN to verifiy, or the transactions have been processed manually, using the old style paper vouchers which the customer has signed. There is always the possibility that someone has used his card and PIN without his knowledge, taking and then replacing the card. If they are PIN verified the OP will struggle to get them to treat it as fraud.

Casa_125

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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.

Thanks for reading, yes formal complaint is in. He is now vowing to never use a debit card abroad again.

Casa_125

ILW wrote: »

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

Hi, he destroyed the receipts whilst out there as they were bar receipts so did not need them, or so he thought at the time. They show on his statement with the bar name and all the same date 21 June.
Thanks for your reply.

Casa_125

masonic wrote: »

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



See also:

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

Hi, thanks so much for taking the time to post this, its really useful. The fact is that, the last fraudulent transaction for 1000 euros pushed my son's bank account overdrawn by £335.70. He did not have an overdraft facility on his account so surely that transaction at least should not have been honoured? Thats what we have put in the complaint along with denying my son was responsible for the 4 fraudulent transactions. Also, we are complaining that their anti fraud computer failed to spot an unusual pattern of spending. There were 6 transactions all at the same overseas bar, on the same date. Two of them were my son's legitimate purchases, and the other 4 were not. Do you think 1,540 euros on the same date at the same retailer is unusual? We certainly do and this is in the complaint too. Thanks again to one and all for your help and advice it truly is much appreciated

Casa_125

meer53 wrote: »

When a card payment is processed, the banks systems can tell if the chip was read or the magnetic strip. If the chip was read then it can't be a counterfeit card. Counterfeit cards rely on the magnetic strip fpr processing.

Either he has "forgotten" what he spent, the bar staff have input the incorrect amount and he has then used his PIN to verifiy, or the transactions have been processed manually, using the old style paper vouchers which the customer has signed. There is always the possibility that someone has used his card and PIN without his knowledge, taking and then replacing the card. If they are PIN verified the OP will struggle to get them to treat it as fraud.

Hi, well Santander are saying they were pin verified. We will fight this to the bitter end, even if to get them to agree that the last 1,000 euros should have been stopped for 2 reasons: first that it put his account overdrawn by £335.70 when he had no overdraft, and second that 6 transactions in one night at the same overseas retailer amounting to 1,540 euros is an unusual pattern of spending, so their anti fraud computer has spectacularly failed. Thanks so much for your advice.

Saints2011

Good luck poxy Santander haha

meer53

Casa_125 wrote: »

Hi, well Santander are saying they were pin verified. We will fight this to the bitter end, even if to get them to agree that the last 1,000 euros should have been stopped for 2 reasons: first that it put his account overdrawn by £335.70 when he had no overdraft, and second that 6 transactions in one night at the same overseas retailer amounting to 1,540 euros is an unusual pattern of spending, so their anti fraud computer has spectacularly failed. Thanks so much for your advice.

You might find that Santander will allow your son to go overdrawn due to an unadvised limit which most banks have. This is a set amount over and above an agreed limit (or even if there is no agreed limit) which allows for transactions to be authorised even if no funds are available. Customers don't usually know about this facility as the banks don't like to let people know it's there. Some banks call it an expansion limit. If your son had used his card in other places before the bar, the fraud detection system might have been slower to pick up on these transactions as it will have recognised that he was using the card abroad. As they were PIN verified this could be the reason why he wasn't called, the system gets suspicious if there are invalid PIN attempts, have you asked Santander whether these transactions reported on their systems ? Our fraud detection system would show these amounts and whether an alert had been created and if not, why. The other thing to look at is whether Santander had your sons mobile number to call him on and whether they could get through to him if they did.

bert&ernie

You have already confirmed that the first two of the transactions were genuine, its going to de difficult to argue that a further four are not, especially if the bank are insisting that they were pin verified.

That your son didn't have an arranged overdraft is not really relevant - assuming its a full service account, then the terms allow the bank to let the account go overdrawn by honouring your payment requests. Likewise, they are not obliged to decline transactions based on what you think is a fraudulent pattern, especially as they insist the transactions were pin verified and the card was not lost or stolen.

I do have some sympathy though because you only have the banks word that the card was chip read and pin verified. In theory, there should be cryptographic evidence of this, but in practice there is no means for this to be independently verified.

It seems that where people have been successful in challenging the authenticity of chip & pin transactions they have somehow been able to prove that they couldn't have authorised the transaction. This looks extremely unlikely in your sons case.

Good luck, but I fear he may have to chalk this one down to experience.