FRAUD WARNING for NATWEST ACCOUNTS

dalesrider

timbo58 wrote: »

The banks are a law unto themselves.
I have had a long running argument with our company's merchant bank regarding chargebacks from one or two 'customers'.

We dispute the customers chargeback statement with a full breakdown including payees IP address/email address and name of the account (not able to collect more information that this under the DPA regulations).

The merchant bank reply turning down our dispute with a standard letter including the phrase 'it is evident this is a fraudulent payment'.

I have asked by email/telephone and letter why if it is 'evident' they have not taken action: after all they are now stating they have 'evidence' that someone has committed fraud: a very serious offence under the theft act 1968?

Why does the DPA stop you from collecting ANY information you feel, you need to protect yourself from fraud....
DPA covers the storage of information, not the collection of it.
I sense a retailer that uses DPA as a out, to cover short comings in internal processes.
Do you also say to people who ring up as request info on a transaction that they do not recognise. That under the DPA you cannot provide this????

At the bank end, if the account holder uses internet banking. We too can check the ip address and if they do not match. Then it is not the customer. We also see errors on retailers paperwork, such as address not right, name sent to not the customers.
All this is checked with the customers when it is recieved back.

Serious offence YES. And your right to involve the police to tackle YOUR loss.

timbo58 wrote: »

This is not a victimless crime: the company has lost and incurred expenses due to fraud, and no one seems keen on persuing the matter.
Outrageous frankly.

So you expect the bank, and their customers to pick up the bill... even if it is clearly NOT their customer who has made the transaction...
Your right as it is YOUR loss to involve the police.

Perhaps you need to look at internal security to stop this from happening in the future.
ie. No delivery to anything other than card holder address. Take a proactive and check out transactions that look odd.

timbo58 wrote: »

My opinion is when a chargeback statement is made by a cardholder they should not only be made aware that they are signing a legal declaration (that does have implications if it should be misused) but that any costs normally then made to the company will be passed back in full to the cardholder should the statement later be judged not to be true.

We do advise customers that when signing a fraud declaration (and it is stated on it) that they are signing a legal form.
Under PSD (payment services directive) a customer cannot be charged.

I see many retailer that provide a rubbish description to customers on the debits. Hence customers do not know who is debiting them. Which results in a chargeback.
Who's fault is that.... Its the company for failure to ensure people can match transactions to spending.

Again if you believe the customer is trying to pull a fast one then involve the police. As the retailer is the loosing party that is their right.
I wish more would....

I once spoke to a company who a customer could not balance a transaction to. Turned out to be a fraudlent one. The person i spoke too at the retailer, even admitted they thought it was odd. Yet did nothing to run further checks on it.
I was asked if we would be claiming the money back... To which I said YES. As it was fraud... Their was silence at the other end and then some swearing. Then some begging not too as they could not afford the loss.
All they got was sorry, but you failed in their duty of care to prevent fraud. As such why should anyone else suffer for their failings.

At the end of the day. YOUR company is at the front line and should be proactive to ensure that ALL transactions are checked.
If retailer were more proactive, fraud losses would be far less.

timbo58

thanks for that Dalesrider
a)
Although as I am to understand it a company cannot cover themselves with address/phone number required etc if they are not allowed to store such (ie we are a services company, and do not require the address/phone number).

b)
The problem is where the banks claim 'it is evident that it is a fraudulent transaction': really: whilst I wouldn't ask for specifics (and wouldn't get them anyway from the bank) IMHO in 99.9% of all cases where we end up the loser I'm willing to bet that this was the only 'fraudulent' transaction on their statement.

When I've had a card cloned it's never for one transaction and it's never to a services company for something low value, hence the disputing card issuer should view all 'isolated' disputes carefully when labelling something that is fairly obviously not fraud.

c)
The low value bit also means we have to 'suck it' frankly as to then throw good money after bad in reporting it to the police (according to our local HQ it's a civil matter: didn't realise that 'fraud' was but soon it'll only be mass murder that is arrestable at this rate!) or persuing the matter through the small claims court (impossible as the card issuer won't supply address details of course).

d)
I'm afraid that whilst I accept that SOME companies could help by labelling debits as well as they might be on card statements they are limited in the number of characters (and each card issuers statements can vary in this regard IIRC?) and FWIW it is equally the purchasers responsibility to ensure they do recognise what they bought!
I keep a record on my phone of what I pay for as I pay it.

e) thanks for the info that customers cannot be charged for fees incurred: intersting although perhaps banking regulations would be better if they could IMHO.

I wonder if any card issuer has any power to deal with those who defraud by means of the chargeback system?
(i.e. by defraud I meand deliberately cancel payments made legitimately).
I am guessing all a bank/card issuer can do is to close the card holders account? big deal if so!

Let me just reiterate: I do not believe for one moment it is not the genuine cardholder making these transactions and later cancelling them: for online service companies the service has been taken in full and used, it can't be returned, so not only do they lose the payment for that service but they are stung with the fees for the illegitimate and fraudulent chargeback also.

I accept your comments however concern mail order companies: and agree with the majority of that specific information: FWIW we ran a mailorder company also once: we had a fraudster attempt to place multiple large orders by using a little known anomaly on the types of payments pages with paypal payments, he managed to place orders for pennies for goods worth £1000's, he tried this a few times over the space of 2 weeks and even emailed chasing it up the cheeky b%gger!
Had we been a larger company with a despatch department that couldn't see the prices on their own paperwork (as is common) then the goods (several thousands pounds worth) would have been sent, 1st class next day delivery too, Luckily they realised before even picking the goods that 2p was not enough in return for them!

I took his name/address/paypal details and IP address along to the local police HQ, they were'nt interested and told me it was a civil offence unless we had sent the goods.
Absolute !!!!.
I asked them if the offence of 'attempted theft' was no longer a valid one and was told 'not in this case'.
An email to his 'local' police HQ also fell on deaf ears.

Clearly the banks can declare 'fraud' whatever they please without having to formally report it.
Clearly the police can decide what fraud or theft are and who can investigate them also.

dalesrider

timbo58 wrote: »

thanks for that Dalesrider
a)
Although as I am to understand it a company cannot cover themselves with address/phone number required etc if they are not allowed to store such (ie we are a services company, and do not require the address/phone number).

But you can still ask for such as a fraud check. many companies that provide a service. Still ask for such to double check that it is the card holder making the transaction.

timbo58 wrote: »

b)
The problem is where the banks claim 'it is evident that it is a fraudulent transaction': really: whilst I wouldn't ask for specifics (and wouldn't get them anyway from the bank) IMHO in 99.9% of all cases where we end up the loser I'm willing to bet that this was the only 'fraudulent' transaction on their statement.

Well as a fraud rep. That vast majority of fraud is only one transaction. Thanks in most part to the security systems limiting the loss to ALL parties.

timbo58 wrote: »

When I've had a card cloned it's never for one transaction and it's never to a services company for something low value, hence the disputing card issuer should view all 'isolated' disputes carefully when labelling something that is fairly obviously not fraud.

As above. But we also see fraud to service co's as a tester. Hence why asking for more cardholder details will stop a lot of fraud.

timbo58 wrote: »

c)
The low value bit also means we have to 'suck it' frankly as to then throw good money after bad in reporting it to the police (according to our local HQ it's a civil matter: didn't realise that 'fraud' was but soon it'll only be mass murder that is arrestable at this rate!) or persuing the matter through the small claims court (impossible as the card issuer won't supply address details of course).

i know you pain as we have just the same problem, trying to get police to take action. Even when people have had wallets stolen. I have argued with desk officers, that they have to take the report. Even though the bank is refunding. As the person has had THEIR wallet stolen.

timbo58 wrote: »

d)
I'm afraid that whilst I accept that SOME companies could help by labelling debits as well as they might be on card statements they are limited in the number of characters (and each card issuers statements can vary in this regard IIRC?) and FWIW it is equally the purchasers responsibility to ensure they do recognise what they bought!
I keep a record on my phone of what I pay for as I pay it.

Agree. And we do not dispute transaction lightly. We always go through quite lengthly discussions with customers and will even try to contact a co if we have a tel no. Before disputing.
I guess its 10% of unrecognised transactions that get disputed.

timbo58 wrote: »

e) thanks for the info that customers cannot be charged for fees incurred: intersting although perhaps banking regulations would be better if they could IMHO.

We used to do, when they came back as genuine debits. Stil didn't stop the hard core who you knew were just trying it on.

timbo58 wrote: »

I wonder if any card issuer has any power to deal with those who defraud by means of the chargeback system?
(i.e. by defraud I meand deliberately cancel payments made legitimately).
I am guessing all a bank/card issuer can do is to close the card holders account? big deal if so!

Yes. We can and do. Its a breakdown in mutual trust.

timbo58 wrote: »

Let me just reiterate: I do not believe for one moment it is not the genuine cardholder making these transactions and later cancelling them: for online service companies the service has been taken in full and used, it can't be returned, so not only do they lose the payment for that service but they are stung with the fees for the illegitimate and fraudulent chargeback also.

I accept your comments however concern mail order companies: and agree with the majority of that specific information:
I took his name/address/paypal details and IP address along to the local police HQ, they were'nt interested and told me it was a civil offence unless we had sent the goods.
Absolute !!!!.
I asked them if the offence of 'attempted theft' was no longer a valid one and was told 'not in this case'.

As I said at times the police can be stupid. In cases like this it should be a very easy case for the police to deal with.
Totally agree, goods or service it is still a crime.

timbo58 wrote: »

Clearly the banks can declare 'fraud' whatever they please without having to formally report it.
Clearly the police can decide what fraud or theft are and who can investigate them also.

We do not take fraud on lightly. Some customers get very upset by our questining as they feel its invasive and unfair.... But as we point out. It is a serious claim and they have to sign a legal doc.
So no we do not just roll over when a customer claims fraud.


But PSD is making life much harder and is putting people who are making fraudlent claims much harder to weed out. It is in these cases we rely of YOU GUYS to provide the info back that allows us to go back and catch them out.

timbo58

Cheers for that answer, very fair & complete.
FWIW there are certain card issuers/banks whom I have much more faith is:
Barclays are usually very good indeed: usually send a 'please explain' before even thinking about a chargeback, Natwest tend to be very strict on customers making claims also which I am sure deters most who are not entirely sure and legitimate.

timbo58

Although recently found out from the merchant bank that visa are now operating a new scheme;
If a customer in recurring transactions claims they canceled this before a transaction date it is for he retailer to prove (as if that we're even possible!) that they DIDN'T rather than for the cardholder to prove they DID.
A joke situation which might protect innocent cardholders but unfortunately also hides deliberate fraud.

dalesrider

timbo58 wrote: »

Although recently found out from the merchant bank that visa are now operating a new scheme;
If a customer in recurring transactions claims they canceled this before a transaction date it is for he retailer to prove (as if that we're even possible!) that they DIDN'T rather than for the cardholder to prove they DID.
A joke situation which might protect innocent cardholders but unfortunately also hides deliberate fraud.

Sadly don't blame Visa or Mastercard or the banks for this...

This is a result of the EU payment services directive 2009 and FSA response to ALL banks and card provider that a CPA can be cancelled at the bank end. (We know we cant, as its a agreement between retailer and customer).
Even on telling people that they need to tell the retailer many simply now say. FSA say WE can stop the payments....
Yet these are the very people who take up the offers and are simply too lazy to contact the retailer to advise they no longer want the service.
Funny how many say I cant contact the retailer, yet managed to sign upto them.....

I fell your pain timbo, with these so called customers.