I have to prove card fraud - Natwest

wilsonkiw

I couldn't find a "fraud" forum to post this in so apologies if this is the wrong section.

I recently got sent a new card from Natwest. I completely destroyed the old card (which wasn't due to go out of date for some time). A month later two transactions appeared on the card which were not made by me. (I live in London and the items were for orders delivered to Scotland.)

After filling in all the forms Natwest have just decided that the transactions look genuine. I don't know how they came to this conclusion. They now state that I must prove they weren't made by me. Despite being outraged by this, does anyone know how I am supposed to "prove" it wasn't me?

Rafter

Never accept the first response from the bank.

Natwest must believe, and be able to demonstrate that the CCV code was used and/or the retailers involved used verified by visa or mastercard securecode using your password.

I would throw it back at them. Tell them to prove that you must have undertaken the transactions given they are so confident.

I would be clear that:

You destroyed your current card.

You have not disclosed the CCV number on the back of the card or your securecode passwords to a third party and only ever used them with retailers when making online purchases.

You have not purchased goods from the retailers or authorised goods to be sent to Scotland.

Good luck

R.

vax2002

Put in Writing, make them write back by not putting anything but a postal address and then ramp it up to the Financial Ombudsman.
Dont mess about with them any more.

wilsonkiw

good advice. Thanks very much

alanq

The onus is on the bank to prove your guilt not on you to prove your innocence.

See p17.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf

pmduk

vax2002 wrote: »

Put in Writing, make them write back by not putting anything but a postal address and then ramp it up to the Financial Ombudsman.
Dont mess about with them any more.

Remember you can only escalate it to the Finanicial Ombudsman after either the bank's final response or after 8 weeks, whichever comes first.

pop_gun

The financial ombudsman is totally useless. You could wait more than a year for a response and even then they aren't bound by any precepts. Which means they could agree with the bank and not give a reason for why they did so. Remember the ombudsman is funded by the banks.

catokelly

Dont settle for Natwest says. I used to work for an internet based company so know that much of the onus is on the company who debited your card to perform security checks before despatching the goods, if the customer disputes that they did not order & receive the goods, the company needs to prove that it followed security procedures and verified the order as a genuine non fraudulent order.

You need to point out the following to Natwest:

Why were the goods allowed to be delivered to a different address that was not your billing address?

Did the fraudsters provide a correct billing address, ccv code?

Did the company who the fraudsters ordered from do their own security checks before despatching the item?

What online security measures does the company have on their website?

Also another thing to consider...
Why did they send you a new card if your old one wasnt due to expire? Could the new one have been intercepted in the post and the details copied then forwarded onto you? Anyway, this article i saw in the Daily Mail may interest you http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163287/Barclays-Bank-admits-blunder-led-account-holder-blamed-1-150-stolen-account.html

wilsonkiw

Yes I saw that same article. Thanks for all the pointers. There seems so many questions that Natwest could (should) be asking themselves rather than just blaming their own customers when fraud occurs.

I'll post back regarding the final outcome.

jonesMUFCforever

pop_gun wrote: »

The financial ombudsman is totally useless. You could wait more than a year for a response and even then they aren't bound by any precepts. Which means they could agree with the bank and not give a reason for why they did so. Remember the ombudsman is funded by the banks.

If you really think it is that bad you could always sue the bank. Put your money where your mouth is!

TheBanker

I can't post a link but you might want to remind the bank of their obligations as set out in the FSA's Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook (BCOBS), specifically paragraph 5.1.11:

Firm's liability for unauthorised payments

(1) Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised.

(2) Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place.