nat west card cloned help please

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

There is a clue there then that something "suspicious" had already been detected?

Comment OP?

Not suspicious, just that the Bank are asking for the card back, could be that the card owner is massively over their limit, or any other reasons.

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Common sense is needed sometimes.

I was making a more subtle point than you credit.

Your suggestion is fine given access to a listed number for the (alleged) calling organisation, for example an issue which can be fulfilled by contacting the normal contact centre.

Perhaps the organisation should consider that to be the normal response rather than to encourage customers to "spill their security beans" to an unsolicited "number withheld" calller.

I don't think that is very smart "process".

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Not suspicious, just that the Bank are asking for the card back, could be that the card owner is massively over their limit, or any other reasons.

Well why not just decline?

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

I was making a more subtle point than you credit.

Your suggestion is fine given access to a listed number for the (alleged) calling organisation, for example an issue which can be fulfilled by contacting the normal contact centre.

Perhaps the organisation should consider that to be the normal response rather than to encourage customers to "spill their security beans" to an unsolicited "number withheld" calller.

I don't think that is very smart "process".

Why not ask them for a number to call back on when you speak to them ? If you're not happy to give your security details then thats fine, if it's not your bank who is calling you then you will find out when you return their call.

I've lost count of the number of times i've called a customer who has refused to go through security when i call them, and then end up complaining when i've stopped their cards because they've been compromised. We always give a number to call back on but some people just can't be bothered. We have to wait until the customer calls back when they're standing in Tesco on a Saturday afternoon, with a trolley load of shopping and their transaction has been declined.
And guess what ? It's always the banks fault.

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

Well why not just decline?

Because the issuing bank wants the card back. If they don't get it back, the cardholder can keep using it for transactions which don't need authorising, usually small amounts which are under the retailers floor limits. Plus there are occasions when a fraudster is using the card and not the banks customer.

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Why not ask them for a number to call back on when you speak to them ?:rotfl:

Rather defeats the objective...

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

Rather defeats the objective...

Why ? They need to speak to you, you don't want to speak to them on the phone as you don't know whether it's the bank ? Why would calling them back defeat the objective ?

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Why?

Because the unsolicited, "number withheld" caller provided the number.:(

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

Because the unsolicited, "number withheld" caller provided the number.:(

Then a phone call to that number will prove one way or the other whether it's your bank won't it ? If it's not then you need to report it to your bank as soon as possible.

zagfles

meer53 wrote: »

Why not ask them for a number to call back on when you speak to them ? If you're not happy to give your security details then thats fine, if it's not your bank who is calling you then you will find out when you return their call.

I can't see the point in "asking them for a number". That doesn't prove it's the bank calling unless the number given is a published bank's contact number. The customer would need to look up the number anyway to be sure it's the bank, so why not suggest they call back on the number published on the back of the statement.

Or even better, apply some common sense to the situation and prove you're really the bank. For instance by letting the customer ask you some security questions, like "what was the value of my last cashpoint withdrawal", "what date does my pay go in" etc.

If I phone the bank, they expect me to prove who I am. Fair enough.

Equally, if the bank phones me, I expect them to prove who they are before I divulge any security/personal details, which would be useful to a fraudster.

If I didn't, and gave security details to a fraudster posing as the bank, the bank would probably blame me. Yet it seems their staff expect customers to divulge security details without providing proof they are who they say they are, and not some fraudster.