fraud ! do I stand ANY chance ?

jamesd

It was reported straight away: "reported it to my bank (lloyds) when I realised it was missing". You can't report any sooner than when you realise the card is missing.

James

Sorry to learn of your experience. I agree with previous postings due to you being silly (as you put it) you've been negligent with your PIN therefore you won't be re-imbursed for your loss.

This is the really sad part, a crime has been committed. Your card issuer won't investigate as they've got their money back. The Police SHOULD investigate but probably won't unless you really persist going down all routes available to you, including your own MP and your local press (ie. who investigates card fraud?).

Just a thought. You are a crook you've acquired someones card and PIN. Write down the PIN on the card When you (the crook) can't use the card anymore (it has been blocked or retained), don't worry, you're in the clear, the crime won't be investigated. A point worth making methinks.

You may like to call Action Fraud, just to see what they say with regards to investigating. Their 24/7 number is 0300 123 2040.

Good luck.

meer53

jamesd wrote: »

It was reported straight away: "reported it to my bank (lloyds) when I realised it was missing". You can't report any sooner than when you realise the card is missing.

Agreed, but the bank will look at how long it was before the card was reported the transactions were made.

jamesd

James wrote: »

Sorry to learn of your experience. I agree with previous postings due to you being silly (as you put it) you've been negligent with your PIN therefore you won't be re-imbursed for your loss.

You disagree with the Financial Ombudsman Service and their interpretation and enforcement of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act?

meer53 wrote: »

Agreed, but the bank will look at how long it was before the card was reported the transactions were made.

I agree and they clearly seem to have taken the more profitable for them view that it was their customer committing fraud. Perhaps it really will take the matter going to the FOS to get them to do what they should have done originally and get the video recordings.

Hanky_Panky

jamesd wrote: »

You disagree with the Financial Ombudsman Service and their interpretation and enforcement of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act?
I agree and they clearly seem to have taken the more profitable for them view that it was their customer committing fraud. Perhaps it really will take the matter going to the FOS to get them to do what they should have done originally and get the video recordings.

We have had this same situation quite recently and the quote you make above cannot be taken in isolation - you need to read all sections and take them in context. I believe there is also a section that states the cardholder may be liable if they act negligently (or something similar).

jamesd

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I believe there is also a section that states the cardholder may be liable if they act negligently (or something similar).

Your belief is wrong. If you haven't done it yet I suggest that you read the FOS page I linked to: "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".

Hanky_Panky

jamesd wrote: »

Your belief is wrong. If you haven't done it yet I suggest that you read the FOS page I linked to: "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".

As I mentioned you need to review the code and read it in context rather than just picking out the bits that you think apply - the link you provided also states this, 'The banking code says that if the consumer acts "without reasonable care" and this causes losses, the consumer may be responsible for those losses. Acting "without reasonable care" may mean not following the code’s provisions about what to do to prevent fraud. The code says that consumers should (among other things):

• take care of cards, PINs and other security information;
• learn PINs, passwords and other security information and not keep a written record of them; and
• tell the card issuer as soon as a card is missing or stolen or if someone else knows the PIN, password or other security information.

So I stand by my previous belief !

jamesd

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

As I mentioned you need to review the code and read it in context rather than just picking out the bits that you think apply

Yes, however it is you who is failing to do that. Specifically:

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

'The banking code says that if the consumer acts "without reasonable care" and this causes losses, the consumer may be responsible for those losses.

When the FOS, which has the power to compel a bank to comply with its reading, on the page I linked to, says:

"Where the Consumer Credit Act, the banking code and the account terms do not say the same thing:

* the act takes precedence over the code and the account terms; and
* the code takes precedence over the account terms.

So because the act says that liability for unauthorised use of a credit-token is limited to £50, a firm cannot use the cardholder’s negligence in caring for the card and security information as its grounds for seeking to make the cardholder liable for more than £50. "

It's clear: the maximum £50 applies and takes precedence over anything in both the banking code and the account terms. A bank may dislike this but that simply doesn't matter, the FOS will compel them to follow the law instead.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

So I stand by my previous belief !

You really should read the whole of the page that I linked to and recant.

Hanky_Panky

jamesd wrote: »

You really should read the whole of the page that I linked to and recant.

Perhaps I will when you are reading the actual legislation and not quoting the Ombudsman complaint section .

jamesd

Which part of what the Ombudsman says don't you believe? Narrow it down a little and maybe I'll go and look up the relevant bit of law for you. Though since I'm quoting a source that is not only authoritative but the actual decision-maker, the burden of proof in this particular discussion is really on you to find something that contradicts that decision-maker.

I'm not quoting the Ombudsman complaint section. I'm quoting Ombudsman News, it's newsletter for those who among other things are interested in its approach to complaints, with case studies to help understand that approach.

It's completely clear that if this case gets to the FOS the maximum liability for the overdraft is going to be £50. That's how it says it has ruled and will rule. All the bank can do by avoiding going there is spend the FOS fee and be told to produce the video tapes that it could look at now and save that money. Or get the tapes and find that they prove that their customer is actually trying to cheat them.