Cashpoint fraud- Lloyd`s refused to help

pmduk

securityguy wrote: »

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?

Oh but it's OK, the bank staff should know that this couple aren't having marital problems and share all their personal confidential bank details.

Hanky_Panky

If it's true and the Ombudsman did agree a payout I think it's a shocking result and must have been really annoying for the bank who did absolutely nothing wrong !!

mattyprice4004

Sadly the world is full of idiots.

Azari

will.i.amnt wrote: »

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

It's because 'feck' is a well known substitute for 'f<u>ck'.

Although it allows 'freaking'.

Azari

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

If it's true and the Ombudsman did agree a payout I think it's a shocking result and must have been really annoying for the bank who did absolutely nothing wrong !!

Well, they certainly didn't use their best efforts to minimise the losses.

Banks are always pestering us for phone numbers and email addresses and yet it never seems to occur to them to actually use them.

When alerted to the problem with the card, if they were not prepared to accept the word of the person reporting the problem they should at least have been pro-active in contacting the customer to get her instructions.

On two occasions I have had cards declined because of 'suspicious activity' (because I'd used an internet supplier I had not used before) so it's quite untrue that banks will never stop cards on their own initiative. And in each case, despite the bank having two phone numbers and an email address the only way I knew that the card had been stopped was when it was declined in a shop.

ValHaller

securityguy wrote: »

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?

Er, yes, a temporary annoyance while payments are blocked. But no accounts emptied after that point and no worry about losses.

unholyangel

pmduk wrote: »

Oh but it's OK, the bank staff should know that this couple aren't having marital problems and share all their personal confidential bank details.

Which is why I said a simple phone call would have saved a lot of money.

Is it too much to expect the people making a profit from my custom take reasonable care in their duties so that their actions (or lack thereof) dont cause me to suffer a loss?

The loss did not arise from the breach of T&Cs. It arose as a result of the banks failure to act with reasonable care imo.

rizla_king

benji_boy wrote: »

Let`s conclude how this case has finished.
We`ve submitted the complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2012.
Ombudsman upheld the complaint and the couple received full refund from Lloyds + £100 for the inconvenience.
Thanks very much for all good advice, I`m glad we didn`t give up.

Excellent and sensible result from the FOS.

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.

Exactly. The FOS obviously saw that and ruled accordingly.