Bank stoppong 2 out of 3 payments

t99lsh

Hi all, im here to ask for help with my bank situation.

I recently booked a holiday with three transactions at 21:30. 1 for flight out, 2 for hotel and 3 for flight home. the following morning the bank fraud team cotacted me to say they thaught suspicious activity had happened on my account. With this thaught in mind they declined two payments which were hotel and flight home. the outward journey was none refundable, so therefore we had to still travl on the same day. But when trying to reebook hotel and return flight i found that the original (wanted) hotel was fully booked and flights had soared in price. This resulted in me trying to find alternative accomadation and flights at a similar cost. Which i was unable to do and had to pay an extra £459.

Now my argument is that the bank should have stopped all payments not just two, therefore the bank are at fault for me having to pay the extra. They have basically said tough, but have offered me £90 (actually paid it into my account) as a good will gesture for my inconvenience of telephone calls to them regarding this matter. Theyare accepting no liability for my additional costs.

Sorry for such a long question but could someone please give me some advice on where i go from here

Thank you

Lee

Agricolae

t99lsh wrote: »

Hi all, im here to ask for help with my bank situation.

I recently booked a holiday with three transactions at 21:30. 1 for flight out, 2 for hotel and 3 for flight home. the following morning the bank fraud team cotacted me to say they thaught suspicious activity had happened on my account. With this thaught in mind they declined two payments which were hotel and flight home. the outward journey was none refundable, so therefore we had to still travl on the same day. But when trying to reebook hotel and return flight i found that the original (wanted) hotel was fully booked and flights had soared in price. This resulted in me trying to find alternative accomadation and flights at a similar cost. Which i was unable to do and had to pay an extra £459.

Now my argument is that the bank should have stopped all payments not just two, therefore the bank are at fault for me having to pay the extra. They have basically said tough, but have offered me £90 (actually paid it into my account) as a good will gesture for my inconvenience of telephone calls to them regarding this matter. Theyare accepting no liability for my additional costs.

Sorry for such a long question but could someone please give me some advice on where i go from here

Thank you

Lee

Unfortunately I don't think banks will budge when their fraud policy is involved. It sounds like they have already taken your complaint and rejected it.

What reasoning did they give for the rejection?

t99lsh

they just said they thaught it was fraudulent spending. But surely they should have stopped all three payments?

innovate

how could the bank have known that there were 3 related transactions?

Agricolae

t99lsh wrote: »

they just said they thaught it was fraudulent spending. But surely they should have stopped all three payments?

I suspect they use an automatic fraud profiling system. All banks have something like this - out of curiosity which is yours?

Would you be able to tell us a little more about the transactions themselves? The amounts, how you made the transaction, the location of the retailer (even if transaction was made online) etc?

dalesrider

t99lsh wrote: »

they just said they thaught it was fraudulent spending. But surely they should have stopped all three payments?

Because the 1st won't have flagged up on the security system. But the 2nd and 3rd would have.

Had you have contacted the hotel/airline and spoken to them. They would have been able to put the transactions through again at the same price.

It is also in the T/C that they have the right to decline transactions if they believe there is possible fraud taking place. They can only decline a certain % of transactions or they will be in trouble.
Also the fraud systems do not monitor YOUR spending pattern. They monitor known fraud spending.

TBH. I would take the £90 if it went to FOS. I would bet on the bank winning. As clearly they have done nothing worng.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

The bank may well win. However, a case with the ombudsman usually costs them £500 - though you must exhaust the bank's own complaint procedure first. By taking the ombudsman route (or threatening it), you may be able to secure a better offer from them. (e.g. offering you another £200 would mean them paying out £290 rather than £500).

dalesrider

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

The bank may well win. However, a case with the ombudsman usually costs them £500 - though you must exhaust the bank's own complaint procedure first. By taking the ombudsman route (or threatening it), you may be able to secure a better offer from them. (e.g. offering you another £200 would mean them paying out £290 rather than £500).

But more and more banks are now getting to the point. Where so long as they are sure that there has not been a failure in their systems and everything was acted on as it should have been. That they are letting these go to FOS.
There comes a point where customers have to realise that you can't complain and get a hand out for every little thing. Especially when no fault is involved.