Check your statements!

jonesMUFCforever

Ben8282 wrote: »

Perhaps not daily but always regularly. I can't imagine my account being over £300 short for 3 months or more. But perhaps you have more money than I do and to you £300 is nothing ...

Fraud is a criminal offence. How can a 90 day time limit apply to the investigation of a criminal act?

You don't give any information as to the nature of the fraudulant transaction. Without this it is not easy to suggest a possible solution.

After 90 days you have been given sufficent time to look at your statement and have deemed to accept any transactions unless you dispute them. So here there has been no fraud as OP did not tell his bank about them - simples really;)

Ben8282

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

After 90 days you have been given sufficent time to look at your statement and have deemed to accept any transactions unless you dispute them. So here there has been no fraud as OP did not tell his bank about them - simples really;)

I accept your point.

But could the OP then go to the police and report the crime as the bank is refusing to investigate? (Assuming of course that this is genuinely a case of criminal fraud).

jalexa

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

After 90 days you have been given sufficent time to look at your statement and have deemed to accept any transactions unless you dispute them.

Not so fast. The account condition cited by YorkshireBoy says "...this notification must be provided as soon as you become aware of the error...". There is no "deemed" about it (as far as that account is concerned).

I share a general bewilderment that some people cannot spot "rogue" transactions, (or continuing direct debits), but the burden of proof is on the bank to prove the account holder had prior knowledge to the assertion.

As for "so here there has been no fraud as OP did not tell his bank about them - simples really", that is a completely absurd statement. Whether there has been "fraud" is one thing, the (refund) treatment by the bank is something completely different.

pqrdef

irrationalactor wrote: »

Yesterday the Bank of Scotland informed me that since the fraudulent payment was more than 90 days ago, they are not willing to help me.

What do they mean, "help you"? They're the victims, not you. They have no authority to debit money from your account unless they can show that you authorised the transaction.

You haven't done anything wrong and you aren't responsible for your bank's lack of security. There is no reason on earth why customers should carry any part of this risk, and the bank is completely out of order in suggesting that you do.

jonesMUFCforever

pqrdef wrote: »

What do they mean, "help you"? They're the victims, not you. They have no authority to debit money from your account unless they can show that you authorised the transaction.

You haven't done anything wrong and you aren't responsible for your bank's lack of security. There is no reason on earth why customers should carry any part of this risk, and the bank is completely out of order in suggesting that you do.

He FAILED to check his bank statements - that's what he did wrong.
Why should the bank lose out because he was lazy?

Plxply

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

He FAILED to check his bank statements - that's what he did wrong.
Why should the bank lose out because he was lazy?

It doesn't matter, he reported it as soon as he noticed that the fraud occured. HSBC automatically signed me up to getting statements quarterly, if I didn't use internet banking I would only get my statement every 3 months and they even allow biannual and yearly statements.

Although I agree that he should have been checking his statements more, but even if he did, how do we not know they happened over the space of 3 days or a week? That would be impossible to detect with a normal amount of statement checking (not my paranoid or other MSE member checking). The bank lost money because they didn't secure their accounts well enough. Unless he was negligent then the bank is responsible.