Lloyds TSB Card Fraud - They Wont Help

dalesrider

meer53 wrote: »

OP was made 9 months ago, would imagine it's sorted now

So I noticed after submitted..

Hopefully it will help LOU04

This is the only forum I know that gets so many OLD threads dragged up :mad:

JuicyJesus

dalesrider wrote: »

So I noticed after submitted..

Hopefully it will help LOU04

This is the only forum I know that gets so many OLD threads dragged up :mad:

To be fair it is also one of the only ones I've seen where people asking the same bloody question week in week out are welcomed with open arms. Everywhere else they'd expect you to search and post in an existing thread.

And frankly I'd rather see another necroed thread on here than "I'm moving in with my boyfriend, what's the best bank account for us" for the eighteenth f*cking time this year (it's the one in the helpfully named Best Bank Accounts article, same as it is for every other personal circumstance).

matttye

pcombo wrote: »

well you said the bank said pin was used.

FSA says.

1. it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently, or because you deliberately, or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction.

pin was used so you cant use that to help you.

I know this is an old thread but what a load of old tosh

People get their cards cloned and accounts emptied from countries like Nigeria!! You can't say that just because someone used the correct PIN that someone was grossly negligent. What about cameras on ATMs and stuff like that?

On 'the real hustle' (TV programme) the guy on there put a card catcher in an ATM and then pretended to be on the phone and filmed the person next to him putting their PIN in. Victim then wanders off inside the bank to report the problem and the conman walks off with card and PIN.

There's a lot of devious people out there. It's not always someone being stupid.

Besides, the bank would need to PROVE negligence, not just assume it.

JuicyJesus

matttye wrote: »

People get their cards cloned and accounts emptied from countries like Nigeria!! You can't say that just because someone used the correct PIN that someone was grossly negligent. What about cameras on ATMs and stuff like that?

If the card has been cloned it will have been cloned using the magstripe, which does indeed leave some slight room for doubt as virtually anyone can read and write a magstripe with ridiculously cheap hardware. But if the card has been used in the UK, the PIN has been used correctly and the chip has been read (as it will have been in most ATMs these days) the chances of this having been a cloned card are infinitesimally low.

On 'the real hustle' (TV programme) the guy on there put a card catcher in an ATM and then pretended to be on the phone and filmed the person next to him putting their PIN in. Victim then wanders off inside the bank to report the problem and the conman walks off with card and PIN.

The victim then presumably gets their card blocked as stolen, preventing the card from being used?

Also easily solved by covering your PIN as you enter it.

There's a lot of devious people out there. It's not always someone being stupid.

In many cases it is. People do not keep their PINs secret like they're supposed to, they give their cards to family members to get them cash out, they leave them lying around where anyone could take them and use them...

Besides, the bank would need to PROVE negligence, not just assume it.

Banks usually take a balance-of-probabilities decision on these things, since they can very rarely prove anything either way - the only things they have to go from are their own records and the customer's word (which is not always true...).

As an example, a transaction which has been carried out using the chip, in which the PIN was entered correctly first time, which was carried out close to where the customer usually uses their card and which is intermingled with or in very close proximity to other transactions which the customer is not disputing is far less likely to be a case of genuine fraud than a transaction which was done with a mag-swipe or is entirely different from the customer's usual spending pattern, or in an entirely different place.

The first claim would probably be rejected. The second probably upheld. But they take everything as an individual case.

matttye

JuicyJesus wrote: »

If the card has been cloned it will have been cloned using the magstripe, which does indeed leave some slight room for doubt as virtually anyone can read and write a magstripe with ridiculously cheap hardware. But if the card has been used in the UK, the PIN has been used correctly and the chip has been read (as it will have been in most ATMs these days) the chances of this having been a cloned card are infinitesimally low.

Wasn't suggesting that had happened in this case, just that it's possible.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The victim then presumably gets their card blocked as stolen, preventing the card from being used?

Also easily solved by covering your PIN as you enter it.

Not before they withdrew some money and then promptly gave it back to the owner with the card, but yes. It was probably scripted to be fair, but still demonstrates how easy it is.

IIRC the guy did cover his PIN, but the angle that the guy videoed him from caught it anyway.

Another trick people use is to say 'you've dropped some money' and then take the card/money while the victim is looking at the floor.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

In many cases it is. People do not keep their PINs secret like they're supposed to, they give their cards to family members to get them cash out, they leave them lying around where anyone could take them and use them...

Agreed - such carelessness should be avoided.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Banks usually take a balance-of-probabilities decision on these things, since they can very rarely prove anything either way - the only things they have to go from are their own records and the customer's word (which is not always true...).

As an example, a transaction which has been carried out using the chip, in which the PIN was entered correctly first time, which was carried out close to where the customer usually uses their card and which is intermingled with or in very close proximity to other transactions which the customer is not disputing is far less likely to be a case of genuine fraud than a transaction which was done with a mag-swipe or is entirely different from the customer's usual spending pattern, or in an entirely different place.

The first claim would probably be rejected. The second probably upheld. But they take everything as an individual case.

The FCA says that the bank has to prove gross negligence to refuse a refund and that the PIN simply being used is not enough. Even on the balance of probabilities, what does the bank know other than that the PIN was used? That's not enough to make a decision!

JuicyJesus

matttye wrote: »

The FCA says that the bank has to prove gross negligence to refuse a refund and that the PIN simply being used is not enough. Even on the balance of probabilities, what does the bank know other than that the PIN was used? That's not enough to make a decision!

They also know the customer's previous spending habits, the location where the customer lives in relation to the place where the transaction took place, the number of times an incorrect PIN was entered before the correct one was, whether the card was reported as lost or stolen and when, whether the customer is disputing other similar transactions which occurred around the same time, the customer's own answers, the length of time the customer took before reporting the transaction, how many transactions there were... account history with the customer may also come into play - someone who is in financial difficulty might see making a withdrawal and then disputing it as fraud as an easy win, for example (until they discover what a CIFAS first party fraud marker is). A combination of these can sway the decision either way, as again it's all taken on individual circumstances. Very very rarely does it come down to just "the PIN was used, sod off." Typically though they reach the right decisions - unfortunately everyone here only hears about the cases where they don't.

That's why the only advice anyone can really offer on these sorts of issues is "raise a complaint, go to FOS if they disagree with you" because the FOS will have access to all of the above information and make an independent decision as an arbitrator.

dalesrider

matttye wrote: »

I know this is an old thread but what a load of old tosh

People get their cards cloned and accounts emptied from countries like Nigeria!! You can't say that just because someone used the correct PIN that someone was grossly negligent. What about cameras on ATMs and stuff like that?

On 'the real hustle' (TV programme) the guy on there put a card catcher in an ATM and then pretended to be on the phone and filmed the person next to him putting their PIN in. Victim then wanders off inside the bank to report the problem and the conman walks off with card and PIN.

Besides, the bank would need to PROVE negligence, not just assume it.

UK atm's will not give cash to a card that is expected to have a chip.
Which is why they send the details oversea's to take the cash out...
So forget your real hustle....
Camera's on atm's.... Not many out there that have.

Bank can see type of card used and the usage on the card.

Card holders card, not a clone. No incorrect pin tries. In the area the card holder lives in.

If it was upto you to say if they got the money back.
Which way would you swing on a decision?

matttye

dalesrider wrote: »

UK atm's will not give cash to a card that is expected to have a chip.
Which is why they send the details oversea's to take the cash out...
So forget your real hustle....
Camera's on atm's.... Not many out there that have.

Bank can see type of card used and the usage on the card.

Card holders card, not a clone. No incorrect pin tries. In the area the card holder lives in.

If it was upto you to say if they got the money back.
Which way would you swing on a decision?

The real hustle situation I referred to didn't have anything to do with sending a card overseas.

The FCA says a bank must refund the money unless it can PROVE gross negligence, so if the only evidence available is the payer's word that they didn't authorise the transaction, then I'd be bound to return the money. Obviously banks are a law unto themselves though.. there's nothing you can do if a bank refuses to return the money other than to start a lengthy complaints procedure, during which time you're out of pocket.

dalesrider

matttye wrote: »

The real hustle situation I referred to didn't have anything to do with sending a card overseas.

The FCA says a bank must refund the money unless it can PROVE gross negligence, so if the only evidence available is the payer's word that they didn't authorise the transaction, then I'd be bound to return the money. Obviously banks are a law unto themselves though.. there's nothing you can do if a bank refuses to return the money other than to start a lengthy complaints procedure, during which time you're out of pocket.

OP's case of cash being taken was 6 hours later.
What you are referring too is a Lebanese loop. They will take and use the card in minutes as they know the card WILL BE STOPPED very quickly.

Forget the FCA stance.
And answer my question.

Card holders card, not a clone. No incorrect pin tries. In the area the card holder lives in.

If it was upto you to say if they got the money back.
Which way would you swing on a decision?

pqrdef

dalesrider wrote: »

Card holders card, not a clone. No incorrect pin tries. In the area the card holder lives in.

You still haven't got gross negligence. Quite possibly a family member, but that's not gross negligence. The banks may think that's tough, but when it comes to security, they've always tried to get by without trying too hard.

The simple answer to shoulder-surfing would be to ask for 3 digits from a 6-digit PIN.