Unjustly accused of fraud by Lloyds TSB

Macca83_2

Yeah i think charm school isn't a requirement for the fraud department. But then with all the stories and excuses they probably hear, any charm is probably lost over time.

opinions4u

PhenoM wrote: »

FD = Fraud Department.

Sorry for not being clearer

Perhaps I shouldn't use the Internet in the early hours!

My apologies.

rwgd

Firstly, I would like to thank Yorkie1, bigmatt1174, innovate and the members of this forum that have given their support and dispensed some very useful advice - you guys rock

With regard to innovate's queries, I suppose the explanation was that it was late in the day by that point (we were there for 2 hours!) and the bank was beginning to empty out. Also, the customer service desk was situated away from the main clerk desks and had multiple members of staff there. Add to that the picture of a clearly distressed woman...I suppose it naturally attracts attention and a sympathetic word or two.

If the branch can be described as being like Fawlty Towers, perhaps the fraud department can equally be described as being like Porridge or Only Fools and Horses!

MABLE

They can talk. Was it not the head of Lloyds fraud dept who was jailed recently. My advice is complain to their head office. No one should be treated in such a disrespectful way.

When it happened to me with Cahoot the fraud dept were brilliant and very supportive.

dalesrider

innovate wrote: »

Nobody on any Internet forum can actually determine all the facts required to resolve this matter. And even if they could get all the facts, they couldn't resolve the matter.

The only way forward is - if the OP's girlfriend is certain that she is not in any way involved with the spurious payments - for the OP's girlfriend to raise a formal, written, complaint with Lloyds. Then make sure she has proof of delivery. If she then has not been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion within 8 weeks of delivery of her complaint, she can take her case to the FOS, for a final judgement.

1st off OP.
Good post. Contained a lot of info required... So ignore the people who have posted with NO USEFULL info and just seem to like to see their own words...

A complaint does not need to be in writing. In fact the quickest way is to raise it on the 1st call.
They then have 48 working hours to resolve it. If not resolved to YOUR satifaction. It requires a written reply.

Fraud depts do not work to scripts. Would be impossible to do.

I find it hard to believe that one or two transfers in, cause this level of problem. Unless these payments are coming from a account that has raised some serious concerns on money laundering and your bank has been informed by the other bank.
Payments in thousands may trigger something, but £500 is odd. Given the number of payments of that amount a day made.

As to the branch and the staff coming over. Not something they should have been doing. Unless the person dealing was asking for assistance.
They should also not be passing comment on how another department works. As it is something they have NO knowledge off.
Yes. They can offer advice and it seems that the adviser that took on the complaint. Did all she could to resolve the issue. In a good manner. Advise to close account is good as well, given the situation. Although I think their manager may not be best impressed.

As to advice to the OP. Clearly you need more info on what raised the issue to them, but don't think you will get this. Due to the nature of the security alert. Tipping off...
So best advise is to raise a complaint and hold out till it gets to deadlock. It will then go to FOS and they can see if they have system failures and as such need to take further action to ensure this does not happen again to anyone else.
Keep a log of all contact and copies of all letters sent/recieved.

JuicyJesus

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This is the problem with banks; if they're accusing someone of money laundering, in the ideal world they should go to the police, who can decide any wrongdoing, not use automated computer systems and someone on a script.

This is why it's always best to have a standby bank account, just incase.

CK

Which would be ideal, but in reality if they become suspicious they have a legal duty to report it and consider the overall customer relationship, on pain of massive regulatory sanction. And it still remains the case that they can do business (or NOT do business) with whoever they see fit.

meer53

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This is the problem with banks; if they're accusing someone of money laundering, in the ideal world they should go to the police, who can decide any wrongdoing, not use automated computer systems and someone on a script.

This is why it's always best to have a standby bank account, just incase.

CK

I can assure you that scripts are never used in fraud departments, and how do you propose to pick up any possible money laundering without using computerised systems ?

Once money laundering has been confirmed, the Police are always involved. Most forces have a dedicated team who only deal with financial crime, banks have close links with these.

Valli

PhenoM wrote: »

Me: You nincompoop... she's my girlfriend and she's right here with me. Hands my phone over to her.

FD: *After verifying all her details* Oh ok. Thanks for the confirmation. Your account is now unblocked. Sorry for all the trouble. Here's £70 goodwill.

Me: Hmm... thanks. Bye.

Hey. £70 wasn't bad. But obv. they should tell you when your account is blocked and it would've been a major inconvenience had it dragged on longer. Needless to say, I opened a couple of other bank accounts soon after and now, use Lloyds pretty sparingly.

Did you REALLY use THAT word - :rotfl:

and well done on the £70...

laughable really - banks set up systems enabling us to transfer monies electronically - then react like this when you do. Or maybe just Lloyds/TSB...

PhenoM

Valli wrote: »

Did you REALLY use THAT word - :rotfl:

and well done on the £70...

laughable really - banks set up systems enabling us to transfer monies electronically - then react like this when you do. Or maybe just Lloyds/TSB...

Thought it was more like it. Didn't want him hanging up on me

In the end, it wasn't that particular advisor's fault. He was just doing what he has been told to do to not lose his job. But a little bit of common sense sprinkled here and there goes a long way in retaining customers.

But hey, if it wasn't for the trend of Shoot first and Ask questions later, none of us would've been in this mess today :beer:

ChiefGrasscutter

I too found the original post well written, properely punctuated, and correctly deliminated into paragraphs.
It supplied seemingly all the information rather than, as posters are often accused on here of doing, selectively leaving out critical bits of data.

Obviously we on here cannot tell whether these stories are true or whether they are made up (and regrettably some on here have been clearly works of fiction).
We also have no idea whether or not the bank account has a prior history of suspect dealings and this one report is merely the final straw. We can only go on what is provided by way of the post.

I'd also agree with the comments made by poster 'Innovate' in their pointing out some strange aspects of the case.