BarclayCard Fraud Services - AGAIN!!....

ShinyFSE

Hello everyone,

I am becoming so frustrated and annoyed, as for the third time now, my credit card details have been acquired and used fraudulently (some scumbag spending over £800 with a furniture company).

I have got to say that I am extremely impressed with BarclayCard in one respect - they seem to detect fraudulent transactions immediately and instigate the necessary investigations without delay.

What I am not impressed with is the manner in which BarclayCard treat their customers during said investigations.

In particular, I am a creature of habit, am extremely careful whenever using my card and follow all of the necessary advice in order to ensure that my details remain secure. Furthermore, as an IT Systems Engineer, I can without doubt confirm that the systems I use are secure while purchasing on-line.

Upon discussion with the BarclayCard, it becomes clear that the oneness or 'suspicion' is placed on the card holder in relation to how details have become compromised. While asking probing questions during this latest episode, it was clear that this stance is without just cause or evidence given that the operator was unable to provide;

a) Specific details as to how the fraudulent transaction had occurred
b) Specific and sound advice as to how such an event can be avoided in the future

My latest experience with BarclayCard has left me reeling. I explained with specifics all of the precautions that I follow to ensure security of my card details.

Despite this, the operator who I spoke with said ‘parrot fashion’ time and time again that I should be more careful in the future. She was however unable to give specific advice as to how I can take more care when pressed!!! I cannot possibly be more careful than I am already....

Why oh why oh why do credit card providers not feedback details of how security has been breached when investigations are complete in each instance of fraud? Surely this would be good practise in ensuring that such instances can be avoided by their customers in the future?

It seems ludicrous to me that providers seem unwilling to give security advice to their customers based upon fact rather than hearsay.

I personally suspect that credit card fraud is commonly committed by employees / ‘insiders’ of companies that obtain details legitimately from their customers in relation to any given transaction.

Card providers of course will never admit to this given that admission is testament that their systems are inherently insecure.... :eek:

I will be interested in hearing any one else’s thoughts on this subject?

camuk81

Shiny,

having worked in a bank a few years ago there are very strict procedures in place to stop this happening.

Yes it can happen. The bank I worked for had a strict lock screen policy. recorded all transactions including logging in. Recorded all phone calls/

i would say this would be same for most banks however I was forewarned on the lock screen error by one chilling story, and please I don't know any more details then what I put below but it could have been an urban legend!

Current employee (Person A )is training a new employee (person

Person A need toilet break leaves person B with the screen and does not lock the screen. Other party comes in takes over and tells the newbie/ Person B everything is ok.

Went into a family members account and transferred money out.

All 3 parties were disciplined or sacked for the above offence.

However this one of a handful of occasion and I hate to say it more often then not it was the customer who were . . . lets say careless.

i.e. wife sets up new security, bank asks her to make sure no-one else is in the room. Husband is, but she says she is fine to continue.

2 weeks later husband passes all details to mistress. Mistress clears out bank account!

Ouch!

Saints2011

It's more than likely your details have been circulated in the fraud market hence for it to keep happening

chexum

ShinyFSE wrote: »

Upon discussion with the BarclayCard, it becomes clear that the oneness or 'suspicion' is placed on the card holder in relation to how details have become compromised. While asking probing questions during this latest episode, it was clear that this stance is without just cause or evidence given that the operator was unable to provide;

a) Specific details as to how the fraudulent transaction had occurred
b) Specific and sound advice as to how such an event can be avoided in the future

You are computer literate, you should have heard about security by obscurity - banks are a great believer in this. By divulging more information about possible flaws, they would increase the chances of the same incidents happening again before they could be prepared to handle those better. Or they could be accused by violating data protection laws or guidelines by incorrectly blaming other companies, or staff leaking information, so they won't.

I'm afraid it's just the way they work.

However, there's only one stance you should take when you are implied to cause the issue - remind them that they you did not authorise those transactions and they must act on and only on your instructions. You will not be not responsible for any actions of 3rd parties, and they have to believe you until they can prove your negligence. The FOS will side with you, don't worry.

*Did you mean "onus?"

meer53

Banks don't know how your card has been compromised, so they won't be able to tell you where it happened. They are sometimes provided with a list of numbers from the Police who may have acquired them during an investigation but even then, they won't know where the compromise took place. I have seen cases of fraud where one particular retailer is suspected of being the point of compromise but we would never be able to tell our customers this information. For obvious reasons.

The only way to avoid card fraud in the future is to pay cash for everything. Wherever you use your card you run the risk of compromise. Not necessarily online either, supermarket, petrol station, restaurant, doesn't matter how security conscious you are online.

chattychappy

ShinyFSE wrote: »

Furthermore, as an IT Systems Engineer, I can without doubt confirm that the systems I use are secure while purchasing on-line.

As an ex-IT engineer, I would never have taken such a line.

But it is beside the point. You are not liable for transactions you did not carry out and the onus of proof is on them. Even if your systems were not secure, you are not liable. (Though in the case of gross negligence the lending code says that a CC can hold the cardholder liable, this is legally dubious.)

The fraud is on the CC, not you. Cardholders are sometimes involved in fraud. CCs must take a precautionary approach and this includes not telling you what happened. Indeed often they don't know. And as you say, sometimes staff are involved.

Just because you know about IT, doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to what they say on the phone. Their operators have to deal with all-comers and must follow a consistent approach. It seems you tried to drill them down beyond the level of the operator's knowledge or competence. Sorry to say, you have no business doing that.

Where I would criticise CCs is in the misrepresentation of the legal position to cardholders. This often misleads them into thinking they might have liability when they do not. FSA regs (the "treating customers fairly" initiative) catches this for many financial products, but CCs are regulated by the OFT and there is no direct equivalent.