RBS / Nat West ATM refunds

doningtonphil

no, it is not theft, it is not fraud. a customer asked for some money but then didn't bother to take it. An alternative is to leave the money fluttering in the breeze for the next passerby to take.

Fraud or theft is where the money gets taken back by the machine, the account is debited and then the bank deny it ever happened. How can a bank being asked by the customer if they have the money they forgot to take from an ATM and the bank replying 'oh yes, it's here, we will recredit you' be fraud or theft?

It isn't dishonest, non one is being duped, everyone knows where the cash is. PRIMITIVE it may be, a little bit of sharp practice (relying on a customers lack of interest) but nothing more

opinions4u

doningtonphil wrote: »

It isn't dishonest, non one is being duped, everyone knows where the cash is. PRIMITIVE it may be, a little bit of sharp practice (relying on a customers lack of interest) but nothing more

Keeping cash when they know who it belongs to.

Any decent person knows exactly what that is.

dalesrider

opinions4u wrote: »

Yet some bank's ATMs were clever enough to issue cash, debit the account, realise that the cash hadn't been taken, recover the cash and immediately reverse the transaction and reimburse the customer.

Yes some do. But we dispute non reciept against every atm provider.

opinions4u wrote: »

Without forms. Without the customer having to do anything. It just happened there and then. It was also recorded on the ATMs audit roll. The machine knew exactly what had happened and which customer had been affected. The same applied to LINK customers too.

Yes. The machine... Which uses Windows as the operating system..... :eek:

opinions4u wrote: »

So I am really struggling to defend RBS and HSBC here. It feels like they have poor technology or are extracting the urine at the expense of customers. I think the latter.

Every bank is now going through this process.

opinions4u wrote: »

I highlight this sentence. Are you saying that it's fair, right, moral and even legal for the bank to keep money that they can identify as belonging to somebody else?

Are you saying that, even knowing which customer it is who failed to collect the cash, the bank should simply stick it in their back pocket and keep it unless asked?

To me it's a dishonest business practice. That's the nicest name I can give it. Incompetence is one thing. This seems to be on a different level. Theft? Fraud? Is there another word for it?

The issue is poor auditing of the machines by the local branches. As well as poor systems.

opinions4u wrote: »

It's up to the machine operator to have systems and practices in place that ensure this doesn't happen. The ATMs I worked with for 20 years didn't suffer this sort of fraud to any extent that I was ever aware of. I recall tracking the budget lines for 100 branches when I worked in a central office for a period of time. 98 had ATMs that balanced to 99.995% accuracy week in week out. The other two branches ended up having staff members sacked. Customers making fraudulent claims that were paid out didn't happen.

The tiny inaccuracies were invariably £10 or £20 down one fortnight and then, when next balanced, up by the same amount. So break even over multiple balancing cycles. Several hundred thousand pounds going through a machine. No error made by the machine. Any errors were invariably minor and part of a manual balancing process, not routine dispensing of cash.

Ouch that bullet in the foot must have hurt....

You admit there were balance errors, but because they balanced over a longer period that was OK
You berate the operators about poor systems. Yet admit you were party to this process....
I think most errors were the human ones such as yours.

Money in the retained slot. Should have resulted in the daily tally roll being check and details being passed to the card provider to ensure the funds were not taken.
Instead of just assuming all was Ok.

opinions4u wrote: »

It looks to me like RBS and HSBC have backed themselves into this corner. By forcing customers to fill forms in when they know what has happened and having failed to contact those customers they've tried to pull a fast one.

At least they are honest enough to realise that they have had issues and are resolving them now.
Unlike barclays who still deny issuses. Yet anyone who works within banking and tracks these issues knows they debit, reverse and then debit again.....

opinions4u wrote: »

This doesn't make it ok for the bank to keep the cash. Why on earth would that be the right thing, as an honest organisation, for the bank to do?

Which they are resolving now they are aware of the issue.

[/QUOTE]

mulronie

I very much doubt the banks ever booked the affected money as income. If they have maybe some outrage is justified, but I just can't see it. I can just imagine the income report...

Income year ended 31/12/12
Net interest - £XXX
Fees & Commissions - £XXX
Customers ripped off by ATMs - £XXX

Any surplus in a bank ATM would likely have been credited to a holding account, with that account debited as and when valid claims against those funds came in.

I expect auditors have rolled in and asked what on earth these accounts are, why they have such large balances, and when they're going to be cleared.