We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Son`s account been fraudulently used
Comments
-
Fraudulent Wonga payments into an account are quite common.
They are done by the fraudster to refill the bank account so he can steal more money.
The card will have been cloned (or the Chip & Pin terminal itself), unless your son is actually responsible for the fraud.
Are there... Never seen a wonga credit into a account, plenty of debits though.....
Also never seen a cloned chip and pin card.
If they had such then ATM and cash would be the target. NOT small petrol and shopping transactions.
Think about it. You go to the trouble of producing a card and a chip... Not cheap and so far only proved by uni's with masses of money and time.
Not a fraudster after a quick quid or two.
Yes, cards get cloned. But get sent overseas to be used where terminals are designed only to read mag strip and not expect a chip.Never ASSUME anything its makes a>>> A55 of U & ME <<<0 -
dalesrider wrote: »Not a chance with card payments, going to the wrong acc.
Wrong -for the reasons given by meer52If Barclays do not believe what they are being told, then PSD does cover not refunding.
FSA Rule BCOBS 5.1.11R says that Barclays has to prove the debit was authorised not merely believe it.
If it cannot prove it then it has to refund it.
Who will tell him to go back to the bank.At this point the loss stands with the op' son. as such if I was op, I would be taking son and reporting it to the police.
Do you make a habit of searching for them?Cloaned card... Not seen one of them used for petrol since tesco made their UPT's chip & pin. That must be about 5 years ago.Op says son was at school in london and transactions were in nottingham. Does OP live in london or does son just go to school there and they live elsewhere.
That is none of our business.
That sounds very complacent.I see enough fraud on accounts to know how fraudsters operate.
That being so, then they should have disclosed it.Barclays hold ALL the cards as they know the full details of where, when and how the transactions were made.
The OP's best bet is to complain that they are in breach of COBS 5.1.11R.
If Barclays do not come up with the proof or put the money back in the account then she can go to FOS.
If Barclays then do not provide the proof to FOS they will be forced to put it back.0 -
Magpiecottage, the school question is a valid one. I think what Dalesrider was trying to find out was whether the OP's son lives in London or is just at school there as the transaction was in Nottingham. It's a question i would ask if i were dealing with this case.0
-
I notice that in today's Telegraph ( money section) there was a letter to Jessica about a Barclay's Young Person's account card being used fraudulently to buy petrol - might be of interest to the OP - Barclays initially blamed the young person but have been induced to relent.....0
-
This may, of course, be the same young person.I notice that in today's Telegraph ( money section) there was a letter to Jessica about a Barclay's Young Person's account card being used fraudulently to buy petrol - might be of interest to the OP - Barclays initially blamed the young person but have been induced to relent.....
However, the bottom line is that if the OP goes to FOS then Barclays must either put up the evidence or pay up the redress.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »if the OP goes to FOS then Barclays must either put up the evidence or pay up the redress.
unless of course Barclays have enough evidence that criminal actions (not necessarily by the son) were involved, in which case I believe they must not release anything they believe is evidence. But of course they would have had to report the matter to SOCA - which they may or may not have done.
It's very strange, though, that Barclays left the account open, didn't cancel the card, didn't issue a new card, didn't inform the account holder of the reversal of the original £50.
Also strange that the OP and/or their son didn't appear to have seen the original dispute fully through ("We disputed this amount & Barclay's sent me an indemnity which we completed & sent back. End of story or so i thought") - seems no confirmation was sought that Barclays accepted the claim.
And we still don't know whether/when the son reported his card lost/stolen, and if not, why not. Or whether he is actually in physical possession of the card.0 -
unless of course Barclays have enough evidence that criminal actions (not necessarily by the son) were involved, in which case I believe they must not release anything they believe is evidence. But of course they would have had to report the matter to SOCA - which they may or may not have done.
If the OP goes to FOS then Barclays will still have to redress unless this is disclosed to FOS.
I think a referral to FOS is the only way the OP will get closure on this.0 -
Hi all, thank you for your replies. We live in London & my son goes to the local school.
Barclay's confirmed to me that the petrol was bought in Nottingham. My sons card was cancelled after the initial fraudulent transaction & the replacement card is still in my possession although we have cancelled card again on receipt of the statement showing further fraud on the account.
Once again thank you for your responses. I will keep you informed of developments.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »Wrong -for the reasons given by meer52
As I agreed with. But with money being paid in from other sources, a unlikely issue.magpiecottage wrote: »FSA Rule BCOBS 5.1.11R says that Barclays has to prove the debit was authorised not merely believe it.
If it cannot prove it then it has to refund it.
Given they redebited in the 1st case. They believe they have a case.magpiecottage wrote: »Who will tell him to go back to the bank.
Which is all wrong. Police desk jockies (met is good at this) seem to avoid taking on things like this. Believing its the banks issue.... Well the loss is with the OP son. Therefor the crime is against him.
So the police should act.magpiecottage wrote: »Do you make a habit of searching for them?
What can I say. They search me out..magpiecottage wrote: »That is none of our business.
Op wants to know where they stand. To me, there are more unanswered questions to give anything like a conclusive answer. If you are happy to provide the answer by quoting PSD. Then you are not giving the OP anything like a chance of resolving the issue.magpiecottage wrote: »That sounds very complacent.
If you consider dealing with this on a daily basis, then complacent be it....magpiecottage wrote: »That being so, then they should have disclosed it.
We do not fully know what barclays have said to the OP, or son.magpiecottage wrote: »The OP's best bet is to complain that they are in breach of COBS 5.1.11R.
If Barclays do not come up with the proof or put the money back in the account then she can go to FOS.
If Barclays then do not provide the proof to FOS they will be forced to put it back.
It is all well and good quoting one small section of PSD. Barclays staff will have refered this to ensure they ARE compliant with PSD in this case.
They will not simply have decided to redebit without good reason.
Banks employ staff who will be working with the FSA to ensure they are fully compliant with PSD and that their staff who have to deal with it on a daily basis fully understand it.
The only odd thing is that they did not inform the op/son of the redebit. But this is often covered on 1st contact with this is a temporary refund pending invistigaton, and you may be redebited.
There is far too much, that does not add up in this case for any sort of full reply on a forum.
TBH. The only people that fully understand what is going on are the op's son and just what they said to Barclays fraud department.
A 2nd case of the same type of fraud, often points to someone known to the party it is against.Never ASSUME anything its makes a>>> A55 of U & ME <<<0 -
You (and I) may not have seen it, but fraudsters do it, to cover up their tracks.
In the case in question, it is not inconceivable that the lad has been bullied into letting the fraudster(s) deposit a Wonga loan into his account (are Wonga verifying that the bank account belongs to the person taking the loan?). Then the lad gets further bullied into letting the fraudster(s) use his card for spending. This would also explain why Barclays don't think the card was used fraudulently - because the lad hasn't reported it lost or stolen.
That's just one potential scenario. Of course I am not saying this is what really happened here.
Like in this story here : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2192482/INVESTIGATION-Wonga-fraudsters-push-debt-unwitting-victims.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards