Son`s account been fraudulently used

blossomhill_2

If the bank fails to produce any CCTV footage of your son, it would seem to suggest that he doesn't appear on any

innovate

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

You seem to imply that once a case goes to the Ombudsman, the bank will have to disclose everything to the complainant.

I don't believe this is the case. If the bank can convince the Ombudsman that criminal activity is involved, they are not only entitled, but legally obliged to withhold the relevant evidence from the complainant.

Of course, this shouldn't stop anyone from taking their case to the FOS if they believe that the bank is not treating them fairly.

innovate

blossomhill wrote: »

If the bank fails to produce any CCTV footage of your son, it would seem to suggest that he doesn't appear on any

Not at all - - see my previous post. The bank might be of the opinion that criminal activity is involved, and therefore withhold the CCTV footage. This does not mean that the son was, or was not, in the CCTV footage. It just means the bank believe there is criminal activity involved.

They may or may not be able to convince the FOS of their belief - - the only way this can be tested is by bringing the matter to the FOS.

dalesrider

magpiecottage wrote: »

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 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.

How do you know Barclays have not produced the proof?

No disrespect to the OP. But there is so much more to this than meets the eye, that has not been posted on a public forum. Nor should it be.

You seem to think that the banks are into investigation on a massive scale in these cases.

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

They will use the info they have from their systems. Which gives enough info to say if the real card or a cloned one is used. If they feel that, that is enough to prove their case then that is all they need to do.
Sons card, sons pin. Is enough. Unless the son can prove other wise. If you read the cases, in them all, The person raising the complaint has to prove their side of the case.

2-2 and one case withdrawn when asked for further info... Don't take a rocket scientist to realise that they realised who had made the transaction, in that one.


Remember if it goes to FOS and Barclays had proof of the son doing the transaction and won the case. Then they could prosecute for defrauding the bank.

jamesd

You might also want to consider the other Ombudsman News cases where the Omudsman found in favour of the customer even though the genuine card and PIN had been used. It's not a simple card plus PIN = customer liable situation.

magpiecottage

dalesrider wrote: »

How do you know Barclays have not produced the proof?

The OP has made no mention of such evidence being produced - so, as things stand, it seems there is none.

You seem to think that the banks are into investigation on a massive scale in these cases.

No - I simply think that they have to comply with BCOBS 5.1.11

They will use the info they have from their systems. Which gives enough info to say if the real card or a cloned one is used. If they feel that, that is enough to prove their case then that is all they need to do.

Not if the OP takes it to FOS it is not.

If you read the cases, in them all, The person raising the complaint has to prove their side of the case.

And whether or not you read BCOBS 5.1.11R(1) - which has the force of law, it says "Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised."

So on this evidence, I see only two conclusions. Either you are a fool or a you are a troll.

Either way, rather than helping the OP to resolve her problems you want her to run round in circles and you claim that the say so of a bank is all the "proof" it needs that her son who lives and goes to school in London mysteriously managed at the same time to purchase petrol, which he is too young to buy, 150 miles away in Nottingham and took out a loan, which he is too young to have enforced against him.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

T
So on this evidence, I see only two conclusions. Either you are a fool or a you are a troll..

Not both?:D;)

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Not both?:D;)

Fair comment. I do not suffer either gladly.

dalesrider

magpiecottage wrote: »

So on this evidence, I see only two conclusions. Either you are a fool or a you are a troll..

I am neither.

But why do you stoop to personal insults?

It is all well and good you continue to keep quoting regulations BCOBS 5.1.11R(1) ( 5 times in this thread...) We heard you 1st time....

They do not help the OP at all. As WE are not do not have the full facts. We do not know what evidence Barclays have to back up their case.

I think the OP needs to sit down with their son and have a long call with the fraud department to see just what the status is. They will get the full facts and know exactly where they need to go to take it forward.

Yes. Let it go to FOS. But don't build people's hope up that they will win.
Its not as clear cut as that.

In fact the biggest fact missing is the amount we are talking about here.
Barclays may simply write it off when it goes to their customer relations. They will work on diffrent critera to the fraud team.

And as you are so fond of your regulations. You are aware that before going to FOS. You have to follow Barclays complaint procedure

mikey72

dalesrider wrote: »

................Yes. Let it go to FOS. But don't build people's hope up that they will win.
Its not as clear cut as that.

In fact the biggest fact missing is the amount we are talking about here.
Barclays may simply write it off when it goes to their customer relations. They will work on diffrent critera to the fraud team.

And as you are so fond of your regulations. You are aware that before going to FOS. You have to follow Barclays complaint procedure

Well, from your link earlier,

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/89/89-banking-complaints.htm

if it's not absolutely 100% clear cut, the FOS will decide in favour of the customer.
Even if the pin is used, unless it fitted into previous spending patterns the bank was forced to pay back.
So a good one for the op to note.

But at least we are it agreement.

FOS.

There is a good link from yours

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/disputed-transactions.htm

the op's son appears to tick most of the boxes there as well.