Natwest refuse to Refund my money after fraud

System

fluffnutter wrote: »

It's up to Natwest to prove this isn't fraud, not for you to prove it is. Contact the police, get a crime number for reference purposes and initiate their complaints procedure in writing (keep all copies). Advise you've reported this to the police, remind them that the onus is on them to prove this wasn't fraud and let them know you're prepared to take this to the Financial Ombudsman. Ask what security checks were passed by whomever was purporting to be you. Do not give up. They're trying to fob you off.

I don't believe it is the banks responsibility. The transactions were performed with the customers card and pin. Which had been sent to the customers registered address. It is down to the customer to prove that they didn't make these transactions.

If it was down to the banks then you could contest any financial transaction you ever make.

fluffnutter

goater78 wrote: »

I don't believe it is the banks responsibility. The transactions were performed with the customers card and pin. Which had been sent to the customers registered address. It is down to the customer to prove that they didn't make these transactions.

If it was down to the banks then you could contest any financial transaction you ever make.

It's irrelevant that the customer's card and pin were used. The onus is still on the bank. I've been googling to try to find the relevant detail. Here's an article from 2009, I'll try to find something a little more definitive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/6338659/Bank-payments-13-months-to-dispute-suspicious-transactions.html

System

fluffnutter wrote: »

It's irrelevant that the customer's card and pin were used. The onus is still on the bank. I've been googling to try to find the relevant detail. Here's an article from 2009, I'll try to find something a little more definitive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/6338659/Bank-payments-13-months-to-dispute-suspicious-transactions.html

I don't believe this references CHIP and PIN transactions. A customer entering a valid PIN number is seen as proof by the bank that the customer has authorised the transaction. Therefore they won't refund. The customer has to prove that they didn't make the transaction not the bank. The PIn is the banks proof.

I believe the article above is only for transactions where no PIN number was used e.g. online purchases. In these scenarios the bank do have to prove the customer made the transactions as there is no customer validation. Now these get refunded instantly

There was a story on that "Don't get DOm" program where some woman lost all her money but the bank wouldn't refund as her PIN number was used for all transactions.

CoolHotCold

Eydon wrote: »

This was taken over a five day period, so that's £1500 max from the ATM and the rest (over £8k) over the counter. Surely they asked for ID to withdraw that amount from over the counter and they should have kept a record of that ID.

Well considering IF the card was delivered to a address and pin they must have knowledge of the OP, so all thats required is a phonecall, answer some security questions and you can get your limit upped or removed for daily ATM withdrawals

mattyprice4004

To be honest from experience of this sort of thing playing out on other forums, I think you might have just lost a lot of money.

Don't think I can recall any instances they've refunded in similar circumstances, a bit of proof such as location and activities on the day of the transactions may help though. Try and get CCTV if you can to back you up.

fluffnutter

goater78 wrote: »

I don't believe this references CHIP and PIN transactions. A customer entering a valid PIN number is seen as proof by the bank that the customer has authorised the transaction. Therefore they won't refund. The customer has to prove that they didn't make the transaction not the bank. The PIn is the banks proof.

I believe the article above is only for transactions where no PIN number was used e.g. online purchases. In these scenarios the bank do have to prove the customer made the transactions as there is no customer validation. Now these get refunded instantly

There was a story on that "Don't get DOm" program where some woman lost all her money but the bank wouldn't refund as her PIN number was used for all transactions.

The bank has to prove that you've been 'negligent' with your PIN, i.e. stored it with your card, or shared it with people. Fraud is becoming more sophisticated and it's not impossible for people to lose money in a seemingly legitimate transaction. A card reader at a cashpoint together with shoulder surfing is one sure way for both your card and PIN to be compromised.

I've read a number of articles recently in the money sections of weekend papers (I read the personal finance sections of The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer and the Sunday Times) and time and again customers have been successful (after no little effort granted) in getting their money refunded.

Once again, whether or not a PIN has been used, it's the bank's responsibility to prove you've been negligent, not for you to prove you haven't.

pmduk

Make a formal written complaint to Natwest, escalating it to the Financial Ombudsman if necessary. There's a similar case reported on the Daily Mail website today. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/saving/article-2207787/Barclays-blamed-10k-fraud-gave-wrong-evidence-Financial-Ombudsman.html

MelaBella

If they withdrew money over the counter surely there must be CCTV images of this?!

System

fluffnutter wrote: »

The bank has to prove that you've been 'negligent' with your PIN, i.e. stored it with your card, or shared it with people. Fraud is becoming more sophisticated and it's not impossible for people to lose money in a seemingly legitimate transaction. A card reader at a cashpoint together with shoulder surfing is one sure way for both your card and PIN to be compromised.

I've read a number of articles recently in the money sections of weekend papers (I read the personal finance sections of The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer and the Sunday Times) and time and again customers have been successful (after no little effort granted) in getting their money refunded.

Once again, whether or not a PIN has been used, it's the bank's responsibility to prove you've been negligent, not for you to prove you haven't.

If you read the article above (Mail one) you can clearly see that the original claim in that example was upheld in the banks favor because the PIN number was used. Later when the ombudsen discovered the bank was mistaken and the PIN wasn't used the customer won the case.

If you let someone see you enter your PIN number at a cashpoint then you are being negligent. You are meant to take appropriate actions to cover your PIN.

The papers only show stories where the paper has put pressure on the bank and the bank has refunded for PR reasons. The ruling body in this is the FOS and there is no certainty that they will find in the OP;s favour.

MothballsWallet

I wish you luck, OP, I've raised a complaint with NatWest in November 2011, and they didn't issue an initial response until July this year! (They sent several misleading letters in the meantime, though, which apparently "management knew were misleading".)

Fingers crossed for you