Chip and PIN nightmare

impy78

MPH80 wrote:

And the mugger standing behind you in the queue ... thinking to himself "Damn it - I only got 1 number out of the last guys PIN ... couldn't get his card with out it - maybe the next one" ... spots you signing in a C&P shop and thinks

"HOT DAMN! All I have to do is nick this guys card - I practise his signature for 2 seconds and I've got a working card until he notices and if I pick his pocket right that won't be for hours! The shop won't check the signature anyway ... wow ... easy target huh!"

M.

And then your bank will give the money back, as he has forged a signature....this is in relation to a feature on chip and pin on watchdog. Where thieves don't even have to look to steal your pin, they can do it by computer.

And then the banks refuse to pay out, as they say that you were negligent.


Please find out the context of the thread before dismissing people's posts.

MPH80

Where thieves don't even have to look to steal your pin, they can do it by computer.

Have you thought about the practicalities of the watchdog scheme?

One: The thief has to replace a valid chip and pin machine with a tampered one. This means they must either own the property or have several people in it

Two: They have to have an acomplise who is making a transaction at the precise moment you are.

Three: They have to have a wireless system which is broadcasting with sufficient power to reach the other terminal without interfering on official spectrums. Given the space between most shops on a high street - that means fraudulent transactions will soon be traced because the transactions can take place within a limited range.

Four: They fail to produce a receipt. That should ring alarm bells in itself. Or if they do - then you have proof that two transactions using the same card were done within seconds of each other. Or you can prove that you didn't authorise the second transaction because your receipt clearly shows the first one and the amount - along with the authorisation code - which would be unique between the two transactions assuming they were different.

Five: What watchdog are highlighting is that the banks aren't obeying the banking code. They can be brought to heel by the Banking Code Standards Board which investigates breaches of the code.

If my thief spends two minutes practising your signature - I'd bet they can forge it pretty well. Assuming you put your signature and his forged one side by side and there were only minor variations - which you'd make anyway through different pens/different textures on paper - please prove you didn't make the transactions.

M.

impy78

However, if I am over the other side of the country on that day, as was the lady on the programme, it would be quite easy for me to prove that i didn't sign it.

Unless I was Dr Who.

MPH80

However, if I am over the other side of the country on that day, as was the lady on the programme, it would be quite easy for me to prove that i didn't sign it.

And in which circumstances you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman who offer fairly clear advice on what does and does not consitute negligence:

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

If the losses were caused just by the cardholder’s negligence, then we would generally expect the card issuer to refund them (possibly with the exception of the first £50). But if the card issuer believes that the cardholder carried out the transactions, or authorised someone else to do so, then we would expect the firm to provide us with the reasons for that belief, and any supporting evidence.

M.

impy78

MPH80 wrote:

And in which circumstances you can complain to the FSA who offer fairly clear advice on what does and does not consitute negligence:

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



M.

The woman did, and the ombudsman found in the bank's favour....

MPH80

impy78 wrote:

The woman did, and the ombudsman found in the bank's favour....

Whoops - wrong button - didn't mean to press thanks ...

Never mind.

Anyway - my point is simply that - from the FO's own publications - that suggests there is more to this story than simply "I didn't do it and I didn't write the pin down" (this is from a complaint rejected):

It was, of course, arguable that Mrs G had been grossly negligent. But that, of itself, would not have been enough to make her liable for the unauthorised transaction – because the Act would have limited her liability to £50. The reason Mrs G was liable was because Mr D had the card with her permission; the card terms said that she would be liable for all losses arising in such circumstances.

Basically - she was liable because she'd given others permission to use her card. I don't know the circumstances of this particular person - I didn't see the watchdog programme (and I doubt you had the full story myself).

Before you jump on me about the C&P attack - I've seen it before - the idea was mooted several years ago.

M.

impy78

No, I'm not jumping on anyone..but the woman on the show had not given anyone her pin number or her card, but was accused of doing so because a pin had been used.

The ombudsman's ruling was that if a pin is used it MUST be negligence on the part of the customer.

Chip and pin isn't 100% safe. that's all I was saying, and banks should not be in denial about this.

[Deleted User]

In the shop where I work it is company policy not to accept signatures anymore for card payments - PIN only.

impy78

Deleted_User wrote:

In the shop where I work it is company policy not to accept signatures anymore for card payments - PIN only.

But if it is a chip and signature card, you wouldn't know until it had been put through epos, and it printed off a receipt.

MPH80

impy78 wrote:

The ombudsman's ruling was that if a pin is used it MUST be negligence on the part of the customer.

Then it *must* have been a debit card and in credit or she must have authorised the transaction.

This is from Tony Boorman - principal ombudsman of the FO - when interviewed on MoneyBox on 20/01/2007:

But actually it doesn’t stop there because if you’ve been using a plastic card as a credit card actually the limit is on just for £50, the first £50 of anything that’s happened, unless you actually yourself have authorised the transaction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/money_box/transcripts/07_01_20.txt

It's as simple as that.

M.