natwest charges for fraud case

stclair

lcharm wrote: »

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!

Natwest have 24 hour fraud team based in Manchester.

Ben8282

lcharm wrote: »

.

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!

Lucky you! At 3 - 4 am as well. Very unusual.

When I have been in a similar situation the cc company simply declines the ATM withdrawal and waits for me to contact them for the simple reason that if they suspect my card and PIN have been stolen and taken to Hong Kong or wherever, then it is quite possible my mobile has been stolen as well.

pvt

auto-man wrote: »

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.

Off we go, saying it's a fraud case again when the OP actually received the goods!

Here's another take - the OP ordered the goods and chose surface mail from China (where £75 Uggs come from in general) and whilst they were in transit she demanded a cashback, which the bank duly obliged with, only to be met a few weeks later with a fierce rebuttal by the vendor via their bank, along with proof of delivery by a courier with the OP's signature on it, as the goods had since arrived. At this point the bank might be excused for surmising there's fraud involved, but might not think it's the vendor that's guilty of it! -

Not saying that's what happened, just observing that we don't have all the facts, either way

auto-man

pvt wrote: »

Off we go, saying it's a fraud case again when the OP actually received the goods!

Here's another take - the OP ordered the goods and chose surface mail from China (where £75 Uggs come from in general) and whilst they were in transit she demanded a cashback, which the bank duly obliged with, only to be met a few weeks later with a fierce rebuttal by the vendor via their bank, along with proof of delivery by a courier with the OP's signature on it, as the goods had since arrived. At this point the bank might be excused for surmising there's fraud involved, but might not think it's the vendor that's guilty of it! -

Not saying that's what happened, just observing that we don't have all the facts, either way

If you look at when I post my reply it was based on her not receiving goods.

if your take was true then of course I agreed with you. The customer should always try speaking to the seller first. If she did jump the gun and chargeback to early then I guess the bank need to reverse the original chargeback. they cant just go and treble the amount.

pvt

auto-man wrote: »

If you look at when I post my reply it was based on her not receiving goods.

But she did receive the goods. And not receiving the goods is surely not immediately a "fraud", it could be a mistake, or goods lost in transit.

if your take was true then of course I agreed with you. The customer should always try speaking to the seller first. If she did jump the gun and chargeback to early then I guess the bank need to reverse the original chargeback. they cant just go and treble the amount.

But let's just imagine (always dangerous) that the OP was advised by her bank to wait a little longer, or attempt to resolve it directly, but she dogmatically insisted they do a chargeback for them. So they do. And a few months later the bank get lots of correspondence and proof from the vendor that the goods arrived. And the bank contact the OP and ask what's going on. And the OP says "Oh, yes, the Uggs did turn up a few days later, I did mean to tell you, sorry". At that point I would suggest the bank was totally within its rights to want recompense for the cost and effort of executing the original cashback, of corresponding with the vendor's bank, and of restoring the chargeback. Particularly if the OP had not told them the goods turned up.

And curse me for suggesting it, but did the OP get her chargeback, then get her goods, and then sit back thinking "I'm up a pair of boots here, I'll perhaps leave things be now "

So given that scenario, which I don't for one moment suggest is true , do you think the bank still has no right to seek redress for its effort. Or is it your view that the big nasty old bank should always perform wild goose chases at the behest of its nice sweet, honest & innocent customers, and absorb the cost itself?

jalexa

pvt wrote: »

At that point I would suggest the bank was totally within its rights to want recompense for the cost and effort of executing the original cashback, of corresponding with the vendor's bank, and of restoring the chargeback.

Only if that was actioned and charged in accordance with the terms and conditions? Your evidence on that?

More generally have you followed and understood the banking aspects of the post? BTW I'm still not 100% the OP did either but that's another matter. Clearly not every poster understands banking matters.

The OP posts two numbers, "about £75", and "£200" and made an assumption about the £200 (because £200 is not equal to £75). In a later post the "£200" is identified as a "CN/Representment", a term I have not seen before but has been explained by more informed posters. A £200 "representment" is not equal to £75. "Representment" implies a balancing credit (of £200). The issue remains whether it is a related transaction or not, but the OP is right to query and/or challenge if it is not understood.

BTW, "goods in transit" remain the senders risk.

You seem deperate to see "fraud" in the OP's conduct. Shameful IMO. If the numeric facts are true as posted, possibly the supplier has acted "fraudulently". But more likely an error has occurred. Or a misunderstanding.

auto-man

pvt wrote: »

But she did receive the goods. And not receiving the goods is surely not immediately a "fraud", it could be a mistake, or goods lost in transit.

Ermm a chargeback doesn't need to be fraud related, a CB can also be brought against faulty, not as described or missing goods.

Due to the length of time between the order and delivery after no sensible replies from the seller, I believe the purchaser (OP) did everything correctly and I would have done the same.

You're basing your position/opinion on fraud which this clearly isn't.

pvt wrote: »

But let's just imagine (always dangerous) that the OP was advised by her bank to wait a little longer, or attempt to resolve it directly, but she dogmatically insisted they do a chargeback for them.

After the length of time passed between order and chargeback there would be no need to wait 'a little longer' and the bank would have no recourse to demand this either.

pvt wrote: »

So they do.

As they should as part of their customer charter and other legislative guidance.

pvt wrote: »

And a few months later the bank get lots of correspondence and proof from the vendor that the goods arrived. And the bank contact the OP and ask what's going on. And the OP says "Oh, yes, the Uggs did turn up a few days later, I did mean to tell you, sorry". At that point I would suggest the bank was totally within its rights to want recompense for the cost and effort of executing the original cashback, of corresponding with the vendor's bank, and of restoring the chargeback. Particularly if the OP had not told them the goods turned up.

And curse me for suggesting it, but did the OP get her chargeback, then get her goods, and then sit back thinking "I'm up a pair of boots here, I'll perhaps leave things be now "

Sorry, you're basing all this on wild assumptions. If you've ever bought from China or the likes you'll appreciate that things do take longer to arrive, if at all, and thus I presume the above did not occur as the OP did not mention this, so sticking to facts the OP should not bear the cost. Similarly, if there is nothing within the OP's specific terms and conditions relative to the account used, they cannot charge this fee. I would be happy to fight this for the customer as from the facts provided the customer is correct. I would definitely complain and seek a final response so as to alert the FOS.

pvt wrote: »

So given that scenario, which I don't for one moment suggest is true , do you think the bank still has no right to seek redress for its effort. Or is it your view that the big nasty old bank should always perform wild goose chases at the behest of its nice sweet, honest & innocent customers, and absorb the cost itself?

The nasty old bank have no right to charge this as from my knowledge of the bank in question there is nothing within the terms that suggest they will chargeback the cost of a failed fraud/chargeback enquiry to the account holder so yes, the bank is nasty, dirty and trying to con their customer.

Those are the facts, not opinions

Ben8282

The bank should not charge the OP for conducting whatever investigation they may have conducted in this case unless the OP was informed in advance that a charge could result.

But, it is far from clear that the OP has been charged anything as 'representment' doesn't appear to be connected with bank charges.

pvt

jalexa wrote: »

You seem deperate to see "fraud" in the OP's conduct. Shameful IMO. If the numeric facts are true as posted, possibly the supplier has acted "fraudulently". But more likely an error has occurred. Or a misunderstanding.

I don't. If you read my comments they are "what ifs" and "possible scenarios" in answer to the assertion by many that the bank could have no justification for making a charge for its efforts"

The OP never came back and originally provided very little detal of the sequence of events.

It's fairly clear it was "an error or misunderstanding", my point was, did the OP just dump the problem on her bank, shout "fraud" and demand they sort it out"

pvt

auto-man wrote: »

Ermm a chargeback doesn't need to be fraud related, a CB can also be brought against faulty, not as described or missing goods.

Ermm.. That was exactly my point! It was the OP that called it "fraud" - and people jumped in and asserted that the bank has no right to charge for sorting a fraud out.

Due to the length of time between the order and delivery after no sensible replies from the seller, I believe the purchaser (OP) did everything correctly and I would have done the same.

But I don't recall the OP saying how long that "length of time" was - perhaps I missed it?

You're basing your position/opinion on fraud which this clearly isn't.

Quite the opposite if you read my posts :mad:

After the length of time passed between order and chargeback there would be no need to wait 'a little longer' and the bank would have no recourse to demand this either.

As they should as part of their customer charter and other legislative guidance.

Agreed, but surely they could advise that in their opinion and experience the OP's was jumping the gun. And we don't know if thay also advised the OP that if the charge was represented with appropriate proof that they would charge the OP for their effort.

The nasty old bank have no right to charge this

So I can set up a nice little earner by ordering lots of goods by surface mail from far off places, wait a few weeks and then demand chargebacks. Then wait and see how many suppliers are arsed to seek a representment of their charges. I bet a few won't. You reckon the FOS will tell the nasty old bank it's unreasonable to charge for its efforts for those that do?