Son`s account been fraudulently used

meer53

Payment Services Directive. PSD.

There are penalties if the banks don't adhere to them. Unless you work in the Compliance department of a bank it's very unlikely you'll get to hear about them.

dalesrider

It was mentioned that a 5K fine for every non logged unrecognised transaction.
Quite how that would be checked no one has any idea. Unless it was reported by the customer to the FSA.
As to not following the guides. Who knows.
As far as we know some of it is still being thrashed out between the banks and the FSA.

meer53

dalesrider wrote: »

It was mentioned that a 5K fine for every non logged unrecognised transaction.
Quite how that would be checked no one has any idea. Unless it was reported by the customer to the FSA.
As to not following the guides. Who knows.
As far as we know some of it is still being thrashed out between the banks and the FSA.

It would be found during a compliance audit. If found then a £5k fine could be charged.
The FSA carry out the audits.

dalesrider

meer53 wrote: »

It would be found during a compliance audit. If found then a £5k fine could be charged.
The FSA carry out the audits.

But unless there were notes on the customers account, relating to a unrecognied transaction. There is no way of the compliance audit picking it up.

Cant pick up something that was not logged, when there is no proof of it....

Another pointless FSA audit. When they could be off doing something usefull.

Still it keeps someone employed :rotfl:

magpiecottage

dalesrider wrote: »

Given they redebited in the 1st case. They believe they have a case.

BCOBS 5.1.11R(1) says "Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised."

Thus BELIEF is not sufficient for Barclays. They need PROOF.

The "R" means "Rule" and a Rule in the FSA handbook has the force of Law.

Which is all wrong. Police desk jockies (met is good at this) seem to avoid taking on things like this.

Whilst I MIGHT accept that an individual Police officer or even website gets this wrong, the Met's website says:

"If your credit card, bank debit card, cheques or bank details have been used by fraudsters, your bank or other financial Institution must be informed, they make a report to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)".

Directgov says:

"As soon as you notice your cards have been stolen or used illegally, report it to your bank or credit card company. They may ask you to file a police report." Nothing there about reporting it to the Police yourself.

Believing its the banks issue.... Well the loss is with the OP son. Therefor the crime is against him.
So the police should act.

Unless he has perpetrated the crime - in which case it is not against him, BCOBS 5.1.11R says it is against the bank.

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.

Apart from the two websites above, I have quoted only FSA rule BCOBS 5.1.11R from the FSA handbook on this thread.

It says:

"(1) Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised.
(2) Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place."

That is not going to be changed by what you, I or anybody else (apart from the FSA) says.

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.

From what the OP says, it does NOT seem to comply with what it says in BCOBS 5.1.11R - so if she goes to FOS then Barclays will either have to disclose their proof or pay up.

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.

A couple of months ago I might have believed that. Then I got a letter from Santander insisting THEY were working with the FSA to ensure they were fully compliant. Last week we saw them humiliated.

I suppose too, that Barclays worked with the FSA to ensure it was compliant about not fixing LIBOR.

So I am not really inclined to believe your assertion.

And then I am not talking about PSD but about BCOBS.

A 2nd case of the same type of fraud, often points to someone known to the party it is against.

That is true - but that does not mean the OP's son is at fault. It could be that the perpetrator has found a gap in the defences and continues to exploit it. Remember he is a child.

blossomhill_2

OP - the transactions at Petrol Stn, Sainsbury & in the branch will be covered by CCTV - you probably won't be granted sight of this coverage but if Barclays have it as part of their investigation it would vindicate your son.

meer53

dalesrider wrote: »

But unless there were notes on the customers account, relating to a unrecognied transaction. There is no way of the compliance audit picking it up.

Cant pick up something that was not logged, when there is no proof of it....

Another pointless FSA audit. When they could be off doing something usefull.

Still it keeps someone employed :rotfl:

I was referring to the refunding situation under PSD, not logging. Where i work, every inbound call is logged, and recorded, and notes added to the customers account, whatever the query.

dalesrider

magpiecottage wrote: »

BCOBS 5.1.11R(1) says "Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised."

Thus BELIEF is not sufficient for Barclays. They need PROOF.

Barclays complied with the regulation.
Clearly by redebiting Barclays believe they have a have this proof.

It can be argued that as ONLY THE CARDHOLDER is supposed to know the PIN. That a PIN transaction has been authorised.

magpiecottage wrote: »

Whilst I MIGHT accept that an individual Police officer or even website gets this wrong, the Met's website says:

"If your credit card, bank debit card, cheques or bank details have been used by fraudsters, your bank or other financial Institution must be informed, they make a report to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)".

Directgov says:

"As soon as you notice your cards have been stolen or used illegally, report it to your bank or credit card company. They may ask you to file a police report." Nothing there about reporting it to the Police yourself.

I highlight the bold above. the YOU in that is the person, not the bank.

I have personal experiance of speaking to a cilivian desk person at Met who refused point blank to take someone's theft report. That person had had THEIR ITEMS STOLEN, but he insisted it was the banks job to report it...
Rather than argue with him. I got to speak to a proper policeman. Who simply took the report and said they would remind the desk prat about their duty.


blossomhill.
Contrary to what people think the only people who can request CCTV is the police.
Which is why the Op's son needs to report this to them. But most only hold CCTV for a max of 30 days. So speedy action is needed.
Some stores will let you look at CCTV if the situation is explained. But is not something they will do often.

dalesrider

meer53 wrote: »

I was referring to the refunding situation under PSD, not logging. Where i work, every inbound call is logged, and recorded, and notes added to the customers account, whatever the query.

As it should be.:T

But if noting is noted, unless the auditor takes to listening to a call. There is no way a not logged case can be picked up.

Clearly if a customer is refunded and it is not logged, then that is a error. But, as most unrecognised transactions are resolved straight away. A missed log and no notes mean no audit trail to follow.

magpiecottage

dalesrider wrote: »

Barclays complied with the regulation.
Clearly by redebiting Barclays believe they have a have this proof.

But they have not produced the proof. If you do not produce it FOS will say that is because it does not, and never did, exist.

That is why I have indicated the OP should go to FOS.

It can be argued that as ONLY THE CARDHOLDER is supposed to know the PIN. That a PIN transaction has been authorised.

You might like to have a look at Ombudsman News Case Study 89/05

I highlight the bold above. the YOU in that is the person, not the bank.

But the "They" that "may ask you to file a report" is the bank

i.e. it is for the bank to ask the customer to file the report.

I have personal experiance of speaking to a cilivian desk person at Met who refused point blank to take someone's theft report. That person had had THEIR ITEMS STOLEN, but he insisted it was the banks job to report it

blossomhill.
Contrary to what people think the only people who can request CCTV is the police.

That is also incorrect. CCTV footage is covered by the Data Protection Act. So if the footage supposedly shows the OP then a Data Subject Access Request can be submitted for £10.

They can also use the exemption under Section 35 to obtain personal data relating to somebody else in these circumstances.