Halifax / Wonga repayments

meer53

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Because the loan contract is between the lender and borrower. Nothing to do with the loan. The loan was not dependant upon the debit card nor is it anything to do with the bank hence the bank is not involved.

I work in this industry, as does the other user. Banks rarely deal with small fraud cases, it cost a lot to run an investigation and believe it or not there are always bigger fish. AML is the biggest problem to banks.

Banks always deal with fraud cases, whatever the amount. You might work in the industry but you don't seem to know much about card fraud.

Janie4Now

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Because the loan contract is between the lender and borrower. Nothing to do with the loan. The loan was not dependant upon the debit card nor is it anything to do with the bank hence the bank is not involved.

I work in this industry, as does the other user. Banks rarely deal with small fraud cases, it cost a lot to run an investigation and believe it or not there are always bigger fish. AML is the biggest problem to banks.

It may be nothing to do with the banks per se but the [seemingly common] practice of giving a loan company your debit card details and then cancelling the card so that the loan company cannot take the agreed payments should be investigated as fraud by someone. I understand entirely why these loan companies use CPAs....... maybe if less people defrauded/defaulted then the companies may not have to resort to such desperate measures to recoup the money that they, after all, are owed.

roh999

meer53 wrote: »

Banks always deal with fraud cases, whatever the amount. You might work in the industry but you don't seem to know much about card fraud.

these guys seem to know everything...or think they do

meer53

roh999 wrote: »

these guys seem to know everything...or think they do

I've spent the last 19 years working in the fraud department of a bank. I think i know enough.

roh999

meer53 wrote: »

I've spent the last 19 years working in the fraud department of a bank. I think i know enough.

lol i wasnt talkin about you

roh999

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Nope sorry. Similarly there is no fraud if the customer rings to report a lost card which they have no intention of using again.

i'll have a tea 2 sugars.

DevCoder

meer53 wrote: »

I've spent the last 19 years working in the fraud department of a bank. I think i know enough.

You'd agree that non retail banks (such as the one I work in) have a materiality threshold where what is stated is not worth looking into given the cost to the bank?

That's why there is a "bad debts" provision in the budget of most banks.

It may and probably does differ with retail banks, thats not my area of expertise, but the difference is knowing fraud is happening (or being expected to know it is happening, or just cause to reason it is happening under AML rules) and taking blind shots because someone has reported their card lost/stolen and then some transactions are disputed.

You still need to prove it or have reasonable suspicion under AML 2002.

Janie4Now

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Nope sorry. Similarly there is no fraud if the customer rings to report a lost card which they have no intention of using again.

So it doesn't matter why they are cancelling the card and asking for a new one? The bank should be able to see from their account that they have received a loan from a payday loan company and that they [may] have made a number of repayments. If they can see this, and allow the customer to cancel the card which is clearly being made to make those payments then it may be considered by some that they are a party to the intended fraud.

I wonder if the loan companies have thought of suing banks who have cancelled and then issued new cards to people who have defaulted on their payments? Now there's a thought!

roh999

lol they even thanking each others post now,they ll be in the pub together tomorrow comparing notes.

DevCoder

And lets keep it to the case in question.

Customer rings bank and states card is lost/stolen. Creditors are thus refused one off payments and withdrawn consent on CPA's

Is this fraud?

God I feel like one of those sad AML computer based training setups

So next one

Customer rings bank and states card is lost/stolen. Creditors are thus refused one off payments and withdrawn consent on CPA's. Customer then disputes further transactions claiming they are fraudulent.

Is this fraud?


It would normally be a 1) No 2) Yes 3) Further investigation is required 4) I can only process with what information is in fornt of me 5) Ill contact my MLRO or 6) I'll tip-off the customer.