Cashpoint fraud- Lloyd`s refused to help

bubblegumcola

apesxx wrote: »

that is a bit harsh, i think most couples use each others bank cards and know each others pin numbers these days. If i send the OH to asda to get some shopping then i will give him my bank card as it comes out the grocery budget, if he asks me to get him some beer then he gives me his bank card as i refuse to purchase his beer out of my grocery budget, he pays for that out of his spending money!

i think the lesson here is not to tell the bank that your partner was the one to use the card rather than yourself. I think they are being punished for being so honest and now the bank are trying to use that to get out of helping them, which is a bit disgusting in my view.

Whilst I appreciate that lots of couples divulge their PIN numbers to their partners it's a breach of your terms and conditions with your bank. I've had customers coming into where I work and trying to order online or use their partners card in the pin machine when buying something, so they give me their card in order for me to put their card details in, at which point I then discover they are using their husbands card so I cannot accept it! They don't seem to understand they are committing fraud no matter if they have the cardholders permission! The husband isn't there to authorise the payment so I refuse, then I get a barrage of abuse for doing my job properly.
The fact is the card has been used by somebody it doesn't belong to, it makes no difference they are married, it will not help your case for these phantom transactions and claiming fraud when it was first fraudulently used by a family member.
I know it sounds harsh but the bank makes these rules to protect you, you are told not to divulge your pin to anyone including bank staff and police. If you want a family member to have access to your money get a joint account with your own cards each.

Fire_Fox

unholyangel wrote: »

Personally I wouldve thought they should only refuse to pay out where the theft is as a result of them breaching T&C's by providing pin and card to someone else.

I mean at the end of the day, if it was a "con" where it retains the card etc....it wouldve happened regardless.

And regardless whether he's the account holder or not, he informed them that one of their accounts security had been compromised. A quick phone call to the account holder would have given the hubby authorisation to cancel the card on her behalf/give her authorisation for it to go ahead.

But then I dont agree that its wrong to give your PIN out in any and all circumstances. I have the PINs for all of my parents accounts, mainly because my mum forgets and then has to call me to ask what the PIN is for xxxx card. But there are instances where (after operations) my parents were unable to go out and had to entrust either each other or us (their kids) with their details.

There are very few people I would ever trust with my PIN. And if they ripped me off, that would be my liability. But I dont agree that the account holder should be liable if the theft hasnt actually occurred via their breach.

You are confusing your personal brand of morality (wrong/ right) with breaking clearly stated terms and conditions you agreed to when opening the account. Should we all go around breaking laws and rules we don't agree with?

If you want to have access to your parents accounts legitimately become a joint account holder or get Power of Attorney (does not mean you have to take over all finances, you can be a back up). Better still introduce your mother to something like Keepass which you can have on a personal computer, tablet or smartphone, depending what gadget she has access to.

Ditto your parents having properly authorised access to one another's accounts, or learning to use online banking to transfer funds. Again this can be done on a smartphone or tablet - many of which are SUPER easy to use and some are very inexpensive.

Secondly the OP's situation would not have been the same if the cardholder had been the one withdrawing money. Three hours is a whole lot longer than one minute! It's likely some of the seven transactions went through as a direct result in the delay reporting which, in turn, is a direct result of the card and PIN being handed out. The bank has now had to suck up these losses, how is that fair?

benji_boy wrote: »

As the Lloyd`s bank was just 1 minute walk from this place he turn up to the bank saying he would like to block the card and they refused to do it as he is not the account holder. She blocked the card by herself after 3 hours.
They found out later some money dissapear from the account , it was £300 cash + 6 other transactions not shown yet on mini statement. All in above of £1000.

antrobus

Fire_Fox wrote: »

... The bank has now had to suck up these losses, how is that fair?

It's in accordance with The Payment Services Regulations 2009. Carholder liability is limited to £50 for losses arising prior to notification except where they have acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. Presumably, given the OP's particular circumstances, FOS concluded that cardholder was not grossly negligent or indeed that the fact that the cardholder's husband informed the bank of the problem within one minute amounted to notification as required by regulation 57.

unholyangel

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You are confusing your personal brand of morality (wrong/ right) with breaking clearly stated terms and conditions you agreed to when opening the account. Should we all go around breaking laws and rules we don't agree with?

I'm not confusing anything. Hence why I said that the reason I didnt agree was because of my personal experience/views.

Someone breaching terms should not (and does not afaik under uk law) absolve the other party of all and any liability/responsibility.

I get why you feel what you do, I just dont agree. IMO it was a breach in their duty of care to not take any precautions. A simple phone call could have saved a lot of money. While people shouldnt be trying to pass the blame to banks for their error in judgement, banks shouldnt be trying to pass the blame for their error in judgement either.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

maninthestreet

The problem with giving your card PIN out to even a close relative is that you have no control on what they do with that PIN, even if they don't have possession of the card.

OlliesDad

I totally agree with Unholyangel.

I would argue that the card should have been stopped as soon as there was any question of it being used fraudulently in the same way that they would put a block on the account if there was any suspicion that the account was being used by somebody else in another country (we hear of these stories a lot).

will.i.amnt

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Why should the bank cough up when people can't follow terms and conditions, and use common sense?

Everyone knows you're meant to keep your PIN to yourself. An expensive lesson, but one they won't forget.

Everyone knows idiots always flagrantly disregard the rules then claim "no fair" when they balls up and are out of pocket.

The f eckless and the meek WILL inherit the earth, how could they not - they are EVERYWHERE!:(

EDIT: why the hell is f eckless (no space) moderated? What special type of person finds that word offensive?

Slowhand

will.i.amnt wrote: »

EDIT: why the hell is f eckless (no space) moderated? What special type of person finds that word offensive?

In case you type F eck off!! S!!!!horpe! S c u n thorpe!

Exile_geordie

Why do people say 'PIN number'

The abbreveation stands for 'personal identification number' so its sounds silly to say number after you have already said number.

securityguy

OlliesDad wrote: »

I totally agree with Unholyangel.

I would argue that the card should have been stopped as soon as there was any question of it being used fraudulently

So you think that someone who isn't the cardholder should be able to call up and get a card cancelled? What could _possibly_ go wrong?