HSBC refuse to refund debit card fraud

jamesd

That's because he didn't believe that the card had been lost or stolen or used fraudulently. So he believed he had no reason to notify. The loss of money happened while he was effectively unable to notify and there were no losses once he was in a position to notify, so even if he had notified as soon as he was able it'd make no difference to the loss sustained.

lovinituk

jamesd wrote: »

That's because he didn't believe that the card had been lost or stolen or used fraudulently. So he believed he had no reason to notify.

That's really stretching it now! Are you a defence lawyer per chance?

JuicyJesus

lovinituk wrote: »

That's really stretching it now! Are you a defence lawyer per chance?

Yeah, someone took the card without the cardholder's consent. That means stolen. Any reasonable person would consider that to mean stolen.

ihateyes

jamesd wrote: »

That's because he didn't believe that the card had been lost or stolen or used fraudulently. So he believed he had no reason to notify. The loss of money happened while he was effectively unable to notify and there were no losses once he was in a position to notify, so even if he had notified as soon as he was able it'd make no difference to the loss sustained.

FACT: card was stolen. albeit returned.

marleyboy

jamesd wrote: »

That's because he didn't believe that the card had been lost or stolen or used fraudulently. So he believed he had no reason to notify. The loss of money happened while he was effectively unable to notify and there were no losses once he was in a position to notify, so even if he had notified as soon as he was able it'd make no difference to the loss sustained.

What sets fraud apart from theft is its added element of “false pretences”, or the misrepresentation of materials (past or present information), recognized by the offender to be forged, which are created with the intention to defraud its victim and take its property, money, or services.

In contrast to fraud, theft only requires the unlawful taking of other person’s possessions with the main intention to deprive its victim from the property taken. And since fraud cases are usually planned by nature, it is punished by law with greater sentence.

Fraud cases may vary from overcharging of goods that are bought at a lower price, billing for supplies which was never used, or selling faulty fake products. Theft on the other hand may involve shoplifting, pick pocketing, and even robbery.

Theft is physical whilst fraud is more psychological. Theft involves grabbing an object and taking it. Fraud involves deception, concealment or a violation of trust, the difference between the two is quite simply DECEPTION.

To suffer a loss by way of theft does not necessarily need for the loser to be deceived, however to suffer a loss through fraudulent activity does in that an act of deception (either by commission or omission) is necessary.

jamesd

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Yeah, someone took the card without the cardholder's consent. That means stolen. Any reasonable person would consider that to mean stolen.

It was taken without consent but was that as a drunken bad joke or theft? philD wasn't in a position to know and even if he had been certain, his means of notifying before the money was taken was also removed.

What could he have done to prevent the taking of the money, given the time of day, time window available and removal of his means to notify quickly?

meer53

jamesd wrote: »

It was taken without consent but was that as a drunken bad joke or theft? philD wasn't in a position to know and even if he had been certain, his means of notifying before the money was taken was also removed.

What could he have done to prevent the taking of the money, given the time of day, time window available and removal of his means to notify quickly?

If he had contacted the bank as soon as the phone and card were returned to let them know what had happened, rather than waiting until that evening, he might have got a bit more sympathy and possibly a refund. Plus, he could have checked his balance once the card was returned to check whether it had been used. He already knew that his "friends" had tried to take the card before they left his house, wouldn't you be a bit suspicious ? I know i would.

jamesd

Does that mean you also think that he probably couldn't have notified in time to prevent the money from being taken, given his phone also being missing and the time window available? I think that this will be the most important part of the FOS decision-making.

He didn't notify because he didn't think money had been taken. I don't know his tolerance for drunken stupidity from others. He clearly didn't think that the PIN was compromised, so believed there was no chance that money would be taken with the card. He notified both bank and police promptly once he found that belief was wrong.

We have the benefit of hindsight and not making a decision about people believed to be friends at 6AM after a night of drinking and relaxing. Much easier for us to get a perfect answer - but with phone gone, I think it's likely that the money would still have been taken even if he tried to notify immediately.

I agree with you that he might have received a more sympathetic hearing if he'd notified sooner. I don't think that it made any difference at all to the amount of money that was taken, though.

meer53

jamesd wrote: »

Does that mean you also think that he probably couldn't have notified in time to prevent the money from being taken, given his phone also being missing and the time window available? I think that this will be the most important part of the FOS decision-making.

He didn't notify because he didn't think money had been taken. I don't know his tolerance for drunken stupidity from others. He clearly didn't think that the PIN was compromised, so believed there was no chance that money would be taken with the card. He notified both bank and police promptly once he found that belief was wrong.

We have the benefit of hindsight and not making a decision about people believed to be friends at 6AM after a night of drinking and relaxing. Much easier for us to get a perfect answer - but with phone gone, I think it's likely that the money would still have been taken even if he tried to notify immediately.

I agree with you that he might have received a more sympathetic hearing if he'd notified sooner. I don't think that it made any difference at all to the amount of money that was taken, though.

What i think is that if the OP takes this further with the Police, then the FOS will probably rule in his favour. If he doesn't then why should they believe him ?

ihateyes

jamesd wrote: »

Does that mean you also think that he probably couldn't have notified in time to prevent the money from being taken, given his phone also being missing and the time window available? I think that this will be the most important part of the FOS decision-making.

He didn't notify because he didn't think money had been taken. I don't know his tolerance for drunken stupidity from others. He clearly didn't think that the PIN was compromised, so believed there was no chance that money would be taken with the card. He notified both bank and police promptly once he found that belief was wrong.

We have the benefit of hindsight and not making a decision about people believed to be friends at 6AM after a night of drinking and relaxing. Much easier for us to get a perfect answer - but with phone gone, I think it's likely that the money would still have been taken even if he tried to notify immediately.

I agree with you that he might have received a more sympathetic hearing if he'd notified sooner. I don't think that it made any difference at all to the amount of money that was taken, though.

he still shouldve cancelled. in this case they got money from an ATM, but they couldve merely written the number down and used it online or over the phone.