HSBC refuse to refund debit card fraud

philD_2

callum9999 wrote: »

He was reckless with his card and so had money stolen. It's his fault for being such a moron over the entire event and there is no reason whatsoever why HSBC should refund him. As he's been told time and time again, if he wants the money back then he needs to sue the people who stole it. Though his desire to protect the people who defrauded him is rather suspicious in itself - wouldn't surprise me if he "commissioned" someone to steal from him so he could just claim it back...

1. Card was stolen - fact.
2. Max 15 min window to report card stolen but mobile phone went as well - I was a little shocked and looking for phone when it was posted through letterbox.
3. Police informed.
4. wouldn't surprise me if he "commissioned" someone to steal from him .. not what happened pal. I hit a bit of a problem as described and was looking for advise/help.

Thanks callum, but if my cat was able to post ...

philD_2

Igol wrote: »

I remember this format:

'Someone knocked off my car wing mirror the other day and didnt stop.
Well I used my bank account to pay for the car so what are the bank going to do about it?'

So we called the gas board who said 'This really has nothing to do with us'.

Esther now shows a rudely shaped vegetable/ dog that can say 'sausages' or hands over to Cyril.

Igol - if you're on the road this may explain the increase in car insurance. BTW I have a spare mirror.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi there

This page on the FSA site may help with the original post.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/banking/know_your_rights/solving/index.shtml#1

Andrea

ihateyes

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi there

This page on the FSA site may help with the original post.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/banking/know_your_rights/solving/index.shtml#1

Andrea

You may be liable up to a limit of £50 if your card has been lost or stolen or your bank can show that you have failed to keep the details of your password or PIN safe.

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

jamesd

philD the card was used without your authorisation and you should complain to HSBC, reminding them of what the FOS has to say on such matters in Ombudsman News 25, specifically the upheld complaint in case 25/11:

"25/11
disputed cash-machine withdrawals with correct PIN – firm considered customer to have been "grossly negligent"

Mr N disputed various cash-machine withdrawals from his account. He said that he did not make or authorise the withdrawals and had been at home at the time they were made.

The firm said the withdrawals had been made with the correct PIN and it considered Mr N to have been "grossly negligent" in allowing someone to discover his number. However, Mr N insisted that no one else could have known the number and that he had not written it down.

complaint upheld
The Banking Code says that it is for the firm to prove "gross negligence", not for the customer to disprove it. We did not consider that the firm had proved gross negligence in this case. The circumstances and the nature of the withdrawals led us to believe that the withdrawals had been made without Mr N’s authority by a family member – who would have been able to observe him entering his PIN for previous cash-machine withdrawals."

And also with case 91/4:

"91/4
dispute over unauthorised withdrawals from current account

Mr M complained that the bank had made some errors on his current account. His statement showed a number of cash machine withdrawals that he did not recognise and the balance was far lower than he thought it should have been.

The bank did not accept that it had done anything wrong. It said that all the disputed transactions had been made with Mr M’s debit card and PIN – and on each occasion the PIN had been entered correctly at the first attempt.

When Mr M insisted that he knew nothing about these transactions, the bank said the only other possibility was that he must have been "grossly negligent" with his card and PIN. Mr M then brought his complaint to us.

complaint settled
We were satisfied, from information supplied by the bank, that the disputed withdrawals had all been made with Mr M’s debit card and PIN. So we discussed the situation with Mr M and asked if anyone else might have had access to his card.

He told us that several weeks before he complained to the bank he had caught his teenage daughter stealing money from his wife’s handbag.

He had thought this was just a "one-off" incident at the time. However, he had since discovered that his daughter had developed a drug habit. He said that "with hindsight", he now thought she was probably responsible for the cash withdrawals.

We then talked to the bank. From the evidence, it seemed more likely than not that Mr M’s daughter had made the withdrawals without his authority.

We said that – in normal circumstances – Mr M could not be considered "grossly negligent" for having kept his card in his wallet, rather than under lock and key, in his own home. And it was quite likely that any close family member would have had plenty of opportunity to observe him using his PIN. So again – in normal circumstances – he could not be considered "grossly negligent" for not having prevented this.

However, we said that after he discovered his daughter stealing cash, he should have taken precautions with his card and changed or guarded his PIN – to ensure she could not get access to his account.

We suggested that the bank should refund Mr M’s account with the cost of the withdrawals made before the date when he caught his daughter stealing. We said he should bear the cost of those made after that date. The complaint was settled on that basis."

In addition, if the account became overdrawn, your liability for the overdrawn portion is limited to a maximum of £50 even if you were considered to be grossly negligent, case 25/13 covers this, as does case 46/2, which happens to also involve criminal prosecution of a son for stealing from his mother's account:

"46/2
plastic cash machine withdrawal – plastic card used as credit-token

Mrs A was very unpleasantly surprised when her statement showed that – over a 2-week period – withdrawals totalling £5,000 had been made from local cash machines. She knew that she had not made the withdrawals herself. She rarely used her credit card, which she kept in a desk drawer at home – together with the details of her PIN that the firm had sent her.

Mrs A contacted the firm to say that she had not made the withdrawals. She also reported the matter to the police – adding that she thought her teenage son might have been responsible.

The police later charged Mrs A’s son, and he was convicted of offences under the Theft Act. He did not suggest in his defence that his mother had allowed him to use the card.

The firm told Mrs A that she was liable for the withdrawals because she had been grossly negligent in the care of her card and PIN. It cited the card terms to support its view. Unhappy with the firm’s stance, Mrs A came to us.

complaint upheld
We were satisfied that the withdrawals had been made without Mrs A’s authority. We thought that if she had authorised the withdrawals:

* it was unlikely that she would have told the police that she suspected her son; and
* it was likely that her son would have mentioned it in his defence.

The card had been used as a credit-token, so it did not matter that the card terms said that Mrs A would be liable if she failed to take reasonable care of her card and PIN. This was because the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act take precedence.

We agreed with the firm that Mrs A had been grossly negligent in the care of her card and PIN. So she was made liable for the first £50 of the losses. We required the firm to refund the rest."

It's clear that in your situation there had been an opportunity to observe the PIN and that use of the card was not authorised by you. I suggest that you invite HSBC to settle on the basis of the decision in case 91/4, refunding all money up until the time you first realised that the friends had used the card and PIN to steal from you.

jamesd

Please also work with the police on prosecution. It's unlikely that you are or will be their only victim and prosecution has a useful role in making them well aware of the consequences if they do it again. The penalty in this specific case isn't likely to be huge, ask if the sentencing guidelines really interest you and if you can't find them.

ihateyes

jamesd wrote: »

Please also work with the police on prosecution. It's unlikely that you are or will be their only victim and prosecution has a useful role in making them well aware of the consequences if they do it again. The penalty in this specific case isn't likely to be huge, ask if the sentencing guidelines really interest you and if you can't find them.

have you read this thread from the start.

The OP stated that his card was out of his possesion along with his mobile, as one of the culprits nicked it. the 2 who done this he turfed out of his house.

a short time later, the card and phone were flung back though his letter box.

Phil was grossly negligent as he failed to inform the bank when his card was stolen.

He knew he was gone, but failed to do anything about it.
the fact he wont go to the police as well, seems to suggest he is protecting the culprits.

if he had informed his bank immediately, the money would not have been stolen. simple.

lolly_896

My Mum had money stolen from her account with use of her card and pin - i think she was with first direct whom were very helpful. They refunded all money to her.

I would complain to the obudsman - good luck Phil

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/08/11/tesco-cashier-cons-cancer-gran-91466-19611858/

Elle7

philD wrote: »

Well, I have a small calculator type device from HSBC. To access internet banking I switch it on and enter a numeric code. The length of my numeric code is 4 characters.

So, I'm afraid Dr that you are mistaken and I suggest that many HSBC customers will have used their existing 4 digit card PIN for their security device (otherwise another number to remember).

You are making an assumption Dr and your assumption is wrong - 4 digits or more for the PIN on the security device! Maybe there are different versions of the security device in use?

I got a new calculator type digipass thing for HSBC this morning - mine broke. Coincidentally, inside the booklet accompanying the device, it advises that you do not use the same number as your card PIN.

Thinking about it, I didn't use my PIN instinctively, and my OH didn't use his. I'd say very few people do.

jamesd

ihateyes, yes I'd read the discussion from the start. "We did not consider that the firm had proved gross negligence in this case. The circumstances and the nature of the withdrawals led us to believe that the withdrawals had been made without Mr N’s authority by a family member – who would have been able to observe him entering his PIN for previous cash-machine withdrawals". I do not agree that he has been grossly negligent. He had no reason to believe that the PIN was compromised.

I do think that he should have contacted the bank earlier and that if he had been able to do so within a couple of minutes part of the crime may not have happened, depending on how fast HSBC could be reached and could act. But should have is a much different standard from being grossly negligent.