PIN Money

p00hsticks

Plxply wrote: »

It's never as simple as that, it's either got to be 1234 (or something else ridiculously simple) or they will never remember it.

It doesn;t have to be 'ridiculously simple' though - there are plenty of options for things that can be easy to remember, even for those without a good memory, but are not as obvious as '1234' - for example, things like the year they were born or got married, or the day and month of someones birthday. Or there are sets of numbers on the ATM card itself you could make use of as your pin (any of the four digit blocks of numbers making up the card number itself, the expiry date etc) which would give you a fairly random number that you don't have to actually remember as you will have it to hand without actually writing down yourself.

missile

p00hsticks wrote: »

... there are sets of numbers on the ATM card itself you could make use of as your pin (any of the four digit blocks of numbers making up the card number itself, the expiry date etc) which would give you a fairly random number that you don't have to actually remember as you will have it to hand without actually writing down yourself.

What a good idea :A

missile

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if it was my mother (and she is getting old, but not quite 80's old!) then I'd be seriously talking to her about a grant of power of attorney, as it sounds like she is getting to the stage where she is no longer capable of looking after her own financial affairs.

That seems a OTT. It is not only old people who have difficulty remembering their PIN.

chattychappy

You are NOT responsible for fraudulent transactions unless you are involved with the fraud except (possibly) to the extent of £50.

This applies even if you are grossly negligent.

The banks love to draft brochures/T+Cs/codes to suggest you will be liable. People often assume that because you sign something you've agreed to what is written. Also common sense suggests you would be liable.

So she was not lucky. The law was correctly applied.

Plxply

chattychappy wrote: »

You are NOT responsible for fraudulent transactions unless you are involved with the fraud except (possibly) to the extent of £50.

This applies even if you are grossly negligent.

The banks love to draft brochures/T+Cs/codes to suggest you will be liable. People often assume that because you sign something you've agreed to what is written. Also common sense suggests you would be liable.

So she was not lucky. The law was correctly applied.

This doesn't sound correct, if so it would mean that I can leave all of my internet banking details on a piece of paper along with the PIN for my HSBC Secure Key (and the key itself) so that anyone can transfer money wherever they like.

For once this actually sounds unfair for the bank as it's impossible to fully secure an account unless you require the person to go in branch and show a passport or drivers license for every single transaction. You can't use a card and PIN of course to authenticate them as it might have also been written down on the piece of paper that was left laying around. Even if I don't benefit from the fraud as I said you can't possibly run a bank in a way to ensure that every transaction is made by the account holder.

chattychappy

See http://www.fos.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/plastic-cards.htm

I don't know if there have been any more recent cases. Of course this is just the FOS's interpretation.

(The case concerned a bank card used to increase an overdraft, but the application should be the same.)

It could be one of those areas of law that hasn't been widely appreciated. Later if discovered something will have to change (perhaps a challenge in court). Unsustainable as it is, IMHO.

scottishblondie

chattychappy wrote: »

You are NOT responsible for fraudulent transactions unless you are involved with the fraud except (possibly) to the extent of £50.

This applies even if you are grossly negligent.

The banks love to draft brochures/T+Cs/codes to suggest you will be liable. People often assume that because you sign something you've agreed to what is written. Also common sense suggests you would be liable.

So she was not lucky. The law was correctly applied.

Looking at that case study you quoted I think you have misunderstood it. Miss H did not get back the £250 of credit she had in her account, and was still held liable for £50 of the OD amount because she had been grossly negligent. The only reason that this liability was limited to £50 was because the card was used to "create or increase an overdraft makes it a credit token for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

So following that case study, if you had £2000 positive balance in your account which was lifted because you had left your PIN written down with your card, then bank is NOT liable to replace your £2000. If then a further amount, say £1000, was taken which put the account overdrawn, THEN the account holder's liability would be £50 for the overdrawn amount.

chattychappy

scottishblondie wrote: »

Miss H did not get back the £250 of credit she had in her account, and was still held liable for £50 of the OD amount because she had been grossly negligent.

I agree.

scottishblondie wrote: »

The only reason that this liability was limited to £50 was because the card was used to "create or increase an overdraft makes it a credit token for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

I agree. She had a current account, so going overdrawn meant the card was a credit token and brought it within the ambit of the act.

CCs are always credit tokens because you are obtaining credit. (Unless, I suppose, you have pre-loaded or have had refunds leaving you with a positive balance.)

scottishblondie wrote: »

So following that case study, if you had £2000 positive balance in your account which was lifted because you had left your PIN written down with your card, then bank is NOT liable to replace your £2000. If then a further amount, say £1000, was taken which put the account overdrawn, THEN the account holder's liability would be £50 for the overdrawn amount.

Yes.

So we have the same understanding. What I am saying is that because CCs are being used as credit tokens, then you are not liable for transactions you didn't undertake except to the extent of £50, regardless of what the T+Cs say about negligence and whether you were, in fact, negligent.

rb10

chattychappy wrote: »

What I am saying is that because CCs are being used as credit tokens, then you are not liable for transactions you didn't undertake except to the extent of £50, regardless of what the T+Cs say about negligence and whether you were, in fact, negligent.

It is my understanding that what you say here is correct.

However (I believe) this does not apply when (as in this case) it is a positive balance from a current account that is withdrawn.

In this case, I believe the bank would be allowed to reject a fraud claim in full if the customer has been negligent (e.g. writing down their PIN).

scottishblondie

chattychappy wrote: »

I agree.



I agree. She had a current account, so going overdrawn meant the card was a credit token and brought it within the ambit of the act.

CCs are always credit tokens because you are obtaining credit. (Unless, I suppose, you have pre-loaded or have had refunds leaving you with a positive balance.)



Yes.

So we have the same understanding. What I am saying is that because CCs are being used as credit tokens, then you are not liable for transactions you didn't undertake except to the extent of £50, regardless of what the T+Cs say about negligence and whether you were, in fact, negligent.

Yes, but from the wording of the post it seems that the OP's mother had her bank account emptied, not a spending spree on her CC (even tho this is the CC board, that's just the way it sounds to me.)