Chip and PIN nightmare

MPH80

impy78 wrote:

I appreciate you explaining to me...but to me, and probably for a lot of other people, that seems very complicated and difficult to understand - why can they not just protect us when our money has been nicked????

Absolutely - I completely agree with you. Unfortunately - the Consumer Credit Act was framed when the thought of a debit card didn't exist. It's a shame they didn't take the chance to update it in 2006 when they did the rest. But I suspect an update to section 84 at that stage, or a redefinition of a 'credit token' to include a debit card when not issuing credit would have opened up a whole can of worms.

Basically - the layers of protection run - in order of importance:
Consumer Credit Act
Banking Code
T&Cs

As such - if you aren't covered by the CCA - check the BC - if the BC doesn't cover you - check the T&Cs.

Now - this particular lady - under the terms of the banking code should have been protected assuming she had not been grossly negligent. The issue here really stems from the fact the wording of the code was changed a couple of years ago from 'grossly negligent' to 'without reasonable care' - and while the intention was not to reduce the level of proof - that has been the effect.

As such - given she has been unable to get redress from the bank or the FO - should try to report it to the Banking Code Standards Board as a material breach. It might not get her money back - but it might stop others getting caught.

Having said all this - to make it clear - if you have been a victim of credit card fraud, or debit card fraud where your account was already in, or is now in (thanks to the fraud) its overdraft - the CCA should cover you for a maximum of £50 of liability provding you did not authorise someone to make transactions (although not necessarily the transactions you intended) and did not make them yourself.

M.

Hazzanet

MPH80 wrote:

As such - given she has been unable to get redress from the bank or the FO - should try to report it to the Banking Code Standards Board as a material breach. It might not get her money back - but it might stop others getting caught.

I just want to double check my understanding here: Even though the FO has ruled against her case, this doesn't prevent her from taking the case to court does it?

[Deleted User]

Hazzanet wrote:

You don't work for Currys Digital do you?

I had an incident at their Swindon Store where some dipstick wouldn't accept my C&S card, and I ended up escalating it to their Head Office, and sent a load of bumph from the C&P site showing how the transaction *should* be handled.

Needless to say, the admitted that 'they had got it wrong', and now my card is accepted no questions asked.

Hell no! I work a million miles away from that scammy company. And I'm more senior than just a 'till person'.

Store manager is going to check with the area manager as we seem to have no policies on Chip & Signature.

masonic

Hazzanet wrote:

I just want to double check my understanding here: Even though the FO has ruled against her case, this doesn't prevent her from taking the case to court does it?

It most certainly does not.

C_Ronaldo

marcellep wrote:

I dont think that is an option these days as many retailers do not accept debit cards unless you have Chip and Pin which is a pain in the rear.

surely theres people out there who dont have a chip and pin card and have a chip and signature card

Kilty_2

Do any of you with a Chip & Signature card know if they work in the self service tills in Tesco?

Hazzanet

Yes they do.

thesaint

Altarf wrote:

A quick way to get sued under the Disability Discrimination Act. I hope your employer has deep pockets.

All my cards are C&S and I have only ever had them refused once (in Game). I emailed their Head Office and the store manager was 'retrained'.

Is it possible to sue under this act if you are not disabled?
If it is such a quick way, why aren't people doing it?

MarkyMarkD

I think it's a shame that the banks, which brought in Chip & PIN as a valid means of reducing financial crime which has been successful, to an extent, have then gone overboard in the way they've passed the buck back to customers who have not been grossly negligent.

It is impossible, in practice, to avoid every chance of someone else seeing your PIN when using your card to pay in shops etc. I for one certainly wouldn't feel grossly negligent in those circumstances; I take sensible precautions with my cards.

"Grossly negligent" was meant to cover people who carried around their card with the PIN written on it, or a piece of paper with the number in their wallet along with the card.

James

MarkyMarkD,

I agree absolutely it is a shame that the banks have gone to these lengths to pass the buck on to the conusmer.

Pass the buck back - insist on a Chip and Signature Credit Card which = No Cardholder Liability.

Something that is never mentioned by the banks is 1st party fraud. Chip and PIN makes this very easy. It would seem it's probably a bigger problem than they'd care to admit, hence their attitude to OAP victims.