HSBC refuse to refund debit card fraud

jamesd

Yes, I agree, it's part of why I reported the opened envelope in my own case. But in this case that didn't happen before it was reported, so it wasn't involved in causing HSBC any loss. It could have gone differently, though.

jamesd

meer53 wrote: »

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 ?

Because the burden of proof is on the bank, not on him. Going to the police in the first place is more than ample to make that hard, and him having his means to notify in time to matter also taken means it'll be effectively impossible for HSBC to make a viable claim that he could have prevented their loss in the time available at the time it happened.

Igol

The OP is living in their own little world that is somewhat disturbingly being entered by a few other people on here.

He has (allegedly) suffered a theft of money from his account.
He has suspects.
His card was recovered.
His first port of call is the bank???
Now heres where things fall down and yep I'm cinical, it goes with the job.

Ok you may well check with the bank to confirm that the funds are missing but after that its a theft and who do you call... the OP would probably call Ghostbusters but the rest of us will try the good old Rozzers.
A bobby would then pitch up (nay dear readers not a Helpdesk log this one, we have suspects, the prospect of an arrest a detection and lovely positive tick in the crime numbers) listen to his tale of woe, take a statement, stick a crime on and give him his crime number (this magical number often cures all known ailments in the form of crisis loan).

Now we begin to investigate this horrible abuse of trust, which cashpoints were used and at what time, is there CCTV in the area?
Now of course theres CCTV because its everywhere and as a general rule cashpoints are covered by or have it built into them and we have times and locations so even if its not we'll have enough in the area to not have to spend hours trawling through hours of footage.
And who are we going to see on this footage drawing cash from the machine?
Well the last one of these I delt with the injured party was...a bit thick, and so it was my poor victim clearly in shot taking money from their account along with with 2 males she didnt look to be acting under duress either. Perhaps if she'd had the sense not to call the cops then no-one would have bothered with that whole pesky investigation thing and just told the bank and they'd have just handed over the money she'd spent rather than that PND for filing a false report.
Oh hang on that sounds awfully famililar....
So as I said.
You call the gas board and meanwhile Cyril or Doc Cox for the younger types.

JuicyJesus

jamesd wrote: »

Because the burden of proof is on the bank, not on him. Going to the police in the first place is more than ample to make that hard, and him having his means to notify in time to matter also taken means it'll be effectively impossible for HSBC to make a viable claim that he could have prevented their loss in the time available at the time it happened.

By the OP's own explanation, they are liable for the withdrawal. He had numerous opportunities to stop the thieves from performing it, knew they had the means and motive to do so and and they are unwilling or unable to recover the money from the people who took it, who he knows, or to even report it as a crime.

jamesd

He didn't know that they had the PIN, so he clearly didn't know that they had the means to take the money from the cash machine.

I'm not aware of anything in his description that indicates that they had a motive, other than financial gain that could apply to any person, most of whom don't go around using a friend's card to get money from cash machines.

He lacked opportunity to prevent the crime. He could have used physical force to recover the card but that would have resulted in him going to court, not them, because no crime had clearly been committed at the times when he had the opportunity to do that.

He's already contacted the police about it and I hope that he assists them with any prosecution that results. HSBC will be the part that sends up suffering the loss so I'll hope that they are also seeking police involvement in the matter.

JuicyJesus

jamesd wrote: »

He didn't know that they had the PIN, so he clearly didn't know that they had the means to take the money from the cash machine.

Irrelevant. They had the physical item. If they couldn't have used an ATM, they could have used it online or over the telephone.

I'm not aware of anything in his description that indicates that they had a motive, other than financial gain that could apply to any person, most of whom don't go around using a friend's card to get money from cash machines.

Financial gain is still a motive.

He lacked opportunity to prevent the crime. He could have used physical force to recover the card but that would have resulted in him going to court, not them, because no crime had clearly been committed at the times when he had the opportunity to do that.

Call the lost and stolen number? Call the police?

He's already contacted the police about it and I hope that he assists them with any prosecution that results. HSBC will be the part that sends up suffering the loss so I'll hope that they are also seeking police involvement in the matter.

I didn't see that he'd reported the crime. I still fail to see why HSBC should stand the loss, here, mind you. The loss should be borne by the people who stole the money.

philD_2

Igol wrote: »

And who are we going to see on this footage drawing cash from the machine?
Well the last one of these I delt with the injured party was...a bit thick, and so it was my poor victim clearly in shot taking money from their account along with with 2 males she didnt look to be acting under duress either. Perhaps if she'd had the sense not to call the cops then no-one would have bothered with that whole pesky investigation thing and just told the bank and they'd have just handed over the money she'd spent rather than that PND for filing a false report.
Oh hang on that sounds awfully famililar....
So as I said.
You call the gas board and meanwhile Cyril or Doc Cox for the younger types.

The card and mobile were taken and I was unaware that the PIN was known by any other party. I was still looking for the mobile when it was posted through my letterbox approx 10 minutes later together with my debit card.

I have already stated the facts - think you've been watching too much CSI.

innovate

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I still fail to see why HSBC should stand the loss, here, mind you. The loss should be borne by the people who stole the money.

I quite agree, particularly since the identities of the alleged thieves are known (to philD, at least).

I saw in a different thread that philD seems to be having what looks like a bit of a rocky relationship with HSBC. Whilst probably not directly related to the matter in this thread, HSBC are likely to have this information on file and may be even less inclined to cooperate with him after he took them to Court. Can't say I'd blame them.

philD wrote: »

I did previously have a bit of an altercation with HSBC with regards to missed calls from them and the fact that when I returned their call they couldn't determine the reason for their call. I did make a County Court claim against HSBC for wasting my time.

callum9999

philD wrote: »

The card and mobile were taken and I was unaware that the PIN was known by any other party. I was still looking for the mobile when it was posted through my letterbox approx 10 minutes later together with my debit card.

I have already stated the facts - think you've been watching too much CSI.

As I said before, from my (and presumably HSBCs) perspective, if you refuse to report it to the police as stolen then it was never stolen.

Others can go on all they like about the bank having to "prove" it isn't fraud before they reject the claim, but I (and surely most people) would say no police report is adequate enough to prove it never happened.

I don't know if you've changed your mind since then, but even if you carry on with your ridiculous plan of not involving the police when you've had fraud committed against you I guess it won't hurt to continue with the claim - but don't get your hopes up...

Agricolae

innovate wrote: »

I quite agree, particularly since the identities of the alleged thieves are known (to philD, at least).

I saw in a different thread that philD seems to be having what looks like a bit of a rocky relationship with HSBC. Whilst probably not directly related to the matter in this thread, HSBC are likely to have this information on file and may be even less inclined to cooperate with him after he took them to Court. Can't say I'd blame them.

It may well be contrary to the Data Protection Act (or simply be risky business) for the bank to hold that kind of information (depending on where it is stored and for what purpose). I know it sounds silly but let's say HSBC had PhilD on some kind of "blacklist" because he had taken them to court, and that by virtue of being on this blacklist, HSBC were less inclined to take his fraud claim seriously.

PhilD could submit a Subject Access Request and the bank would have to provide him with a copy of all information held by them which was personal to him. His presence on a blacklist would certainly constitute personal information and if it was possible to prove a link between this list and HSBC's treatment of the fraud case then it could cause problems.