Nightmare card theft abroad - please help or learn my lesson!

opinions4u

magpiecottage wrote: »

There is provision for full liability until the bank is notified if the customer has acted fraudulently, intentionally or with gross negligence but the onus would be on the bank to prove it and that would be very difficult.

I don't think it is that difficult to prove.

"Why didn't you ring us sooner?"

"Because I'm stupid".

Job done.

BrandNewYear

to be honest I suspect somebody on here stole the poor fellow's card

London_Son

Totally understand the scepticism, hence the tone of my initial query.

I reported it within 24hrs, as soon as I had a cell phone to borrow.

Retrospectively, this was stupid.

However, question still stands, what I do?

opinions4u

London_Son wrote: »

Totally understand the scepticism, hence the tone of my initial query.

I reported it within 24hrs, as soon as I had a cell phone to borrow.

Retrospectively, this was stupid.

However, question still stands, what I do?

I think the post by magpiecottage is your starting point. That's the legal / regulatory view on where things stand. EDIT: chatty's post below provides an even stronger viewpoint.

And have your reason for delay in notification clear. Were you shocked, confused, disorientated, robbed and alone in a strange place etc.

chattychappy

magpiecottage wrote: »

A malapropism I suspect.

However, FSA rule BCOBS 5.1.12R(1) says

"a firm may, in an agreement for a retail banking service, provide for a banking customer to be liable for an amount up to a maximum of £50 for losses in respect of unauthorised payments arising:

(a) from the use of a lost or stolen payment instrument; or

(b) where the banking customer has failed to keep the personalised security features of the payment instrument safe, from the misappropriation of the payment instrument."

So the OP's limit would be £50.

There is provision for full liability until the bank is notified if the customer has acted fraudulently, intentionally or with gross negligence but the onus would be on the bank to prove it and that would be very difficult.

As a technicality, BCOBS doesn't apply to CCs (see BCOBS 1.1.1 http://www.fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/BCOBS/1/1), but the position is similar for "credit tokens" under the CCA1974 (ie plastic).

Whatever the CC might write in its T+Cs, whatever the lending code says about gross negligence, and whatever people feel about the rights and wrongs of the OP's behaviour, liability in these circumstances are limited to £50 and then only if such liability is provided for in the T+Cs.

The ombudsman has made this quite clear in http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

I'm very sympathetic to CCs in these circumstances, but the law is the law. The OP should dispute in writing, escalate and ultimately go to the ombudsman if necessary.

opinions4u

chattychappy wrote: »

As a technicality, BCOBS doesn't apply to CCs (see BCOBS 1.1.1 http://www.fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/BCOBS/1/1), but the position is similar for "credit tokens" under the CCA1974 (ie plastic).

Whatever the CC might write in its T+Cs, whatever the lending code says about gross negligence, and whatever people feel about the rights and wrongs of the OP's behaviour, liability in these circumstances are limited to £50 and then only if such liability is provided for in the T+Cs.

The ombudsman has made this quite clear in http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

I'm very sympathetic to CCs in these circumstances, but the law is the law. The OP should dispute in writing, escalate and ultimately go to the ombudsman if necessary.

Good post.

The key paragraph being:

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.

OP, this should help you a lot. As it puts the full strength of the law on your side.

dalesrider

magpiecottage wrote: »

There is provision for full liability until the bank is notified if the customer has acted fraudulently, intentionally or with gross negligence but the onus would be on the bank to prove it and that would be very difficult.

Well unless the OP was somewhere, where there are no phones. Or police to report the theft to.

Then gross neglience is easily provable.

You have to wonder why after having something stolen. People don't go to the police.... Is theft something that they don't deal with now....

meer53

The OP hasn't said whether a credit or debit card was used. Or how much was involved or whether this has caused an overdraft situation. The liability will depend on all these. For ATM withdrawals on a debit card where the funds were available and not overdraft funds, they may be held fully liable.

simongregson

Regardless of the 'stupidity' in not reporting the loss straight away, the maximum liability on either a credit card or a current account taken into overdraft by the fraud would be £50. Write to the bank, quote the relevant legislation, escalate if necessary, and the OP will get their money back (minus £50) regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

blossomhill_2

OP - have you reported it to the police since you got back? Why not do so, it will surely be possible, even from a distance