natwest charges for fraud case

meer53

jalexa wrote: »

This might seem stupid but are you sure you have been dealing with Natwest and not a scam associated with the original order?

Where did you obtain the Natwest contact details?

You could be right, i don't know any fraud departments that are open 24 hours.

Ben8282

I don't believe that a bank would charge a customer to investigate a fraud.

Equally I don't believe any 'fraud' (or even suspected fraud) took place here and I can't really understand the involvement of the fraud department. Simple non-receipt of goods would not constitute fraud. The cardholder did not deny the transaction, only complained about non-receipt of goods.

It would look as if the bank raised a dispute, the company realised their error and dispatched the goods.

meer53

I wonder if the OP was refunded when the investigation started and has now been redebited ? Maybe they never noticed the credit ?

pvt

Yasmin,

My take on this is that NatWest probably felt you did not do enough to resolve this yourself directly with the supplier, and went straight to them crying "fraud" and expecting them to resolve it.

Look at it this way: NatWest didn't make any kind of mistake or fail to meet any obligation under your card agreement. But they had to invest significant effort resolving the dispute between you and the supplier, which had a real cost to them. So why do you feel that they should suffer that cost rather than pass it on?

And I am still struggling with the description of this as "fraud". Cases of fraud do not usually get resolved by the original supplier sending the goods to the customer.

If you feel the whole fault lies with the supplier and their intransigence to resolve it, and that the involvement of your bank was necessary to get them to resolve it, then I suggest you approach them and ask them to foot this bill - and if they won't, and your case is strong enough, consider making a small claim (MCoL) against them.

auto-man

pvt wrote: »

My take on this is that NatWest probably felt you did not do enough to resolve this yourself directly with the supplier, and went straight to them crying "fraud" and expecting them to resolve it.

Look at it this way: NatWest didn't make any kind of mistake or fail to meet any obligation under your card agreement. But they had to invest significant effort resolving the dispute between you and the supplier, which had a real cost to them. So why do you feel that they should suffer that cost rather than pass it on?

doesnt matter its not for the bank to charge this outrageous sum.

The bank are ultimately fighting for our business and charging for fraud cases will be met with severe comensation payouts by the FOS..

I would complain in writing to the bank and then consider the FOS who will tell the bank to refund this cash of yours.

Ben8282

Whilst maintaining that I don't believe this and instead think that the charge of almost £200 shown on the statement as 'CN/Representment' actually represents something else, I was just wondering what the amount of the original purchase was and how proportionate such a charge would have been to the value of the original purchase under investigation.

I'm also thinking that if the OP has actually been charged for this investigation, it is logical to assume it is because she was found to be at fault (i.e. wasting the banks time).

And what does 'CN/Representment' actually mean anyway. Any ideas?

meer53

A representment is when a chargeback has been actioned (for a dispute such as non receipt of goods) and it has failed. As the customer has received the goods, then the amount (which would have been credited initially) will be redebited. I think the OP has got completely the wrong end of the stick here.

jalexa

Ben8282 wrote: »

I was just wondering what the amount of the original purchase was

The OP posted "about £75" which is about what I believe "good fakes" may go for. The £200 is about what genuine Uggs cost.

Not sure we have yet had the full story.

lcharm

meer53 wrote: »

You could be right, i don't know any fraud departments that are open 24 hours.

Of course they are open 24 hours as they would be the same department that deal with card blocking when it's used internationally.

When I tried to withdraw cash in Hong Kong a few years back I got a call from Natwest fraud dept. straight after to confirm I was actually there. It would have been about 3-4 am in the UK at the time they called me!

meer53

Th people who carry out security checks are usually not the people who investigate fraud and disputes. A lot of fraud detection departments are based abroad. Investigating the fraud cases is much more complex than calling a customer to ask a question then stopping a card.

I can only speak from my own experience of the fraud department i work in though, but from other posts on the forum it seems to be similar in a lot of banks. Our fraud detection team work from a script along the lines of, "have you lost your card ? do you recognise this transaction ? If not, i will stop your card and the fraud team will call you as soon as possible." It's then down to our team in the UK to follow this up.