We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ATM Error - £300 not paid out
Options
Comments
-
While I certainly wouldn't be mentioning it when making a claim it is relevant.Normally discussion implies exchange of the information. In this case it's 1-way process as there is no anything to discuss.
This is irrelevant and doesn't have to be mentioned when reporting the incident. The account holder could have had reasons for asking the OP to report it.
Banks tend not to like paying out ATM claims where it's a family member who's had it away with the money.
When the account holder submits a claim here they are going to make a false declaration - that they have not provided the card and PIN to any third party.
That won't look good should the truth eventually come out.
Their argument is that they want a declaration from the customer telling them what happened and confirming nobody else has had it away with £300. Reasonable, I'd say.The Card, ATM and account are all with Santander. I've just got back and the funds haven't been credited.
My argument is that they don't need her to deal with the matter as they know the machine is faulty and can rectify the matter without breaching the data protection act.0 -
I fully understand your reasoning, and agree that it possibly was not a good idea to report it like the OP did, but it's OOT.
The truth is that the money was swallowed by the ATM.
The bank staff didn't accuse the OP of anything. They just blatantly refused to accept the information because of some alleged rules.0 -
Goldiegirl wrote: »Whether it's fraud or false representation, it's not the truth.
It you get someone to lies about who they are, it's not a good starting point for this problem.
If they are not telling the truth about their identity, them why should anyone believe that they have not been paid out the £300
I wasn't necessarily saying its a good idea, just that it's not fraud.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
opinions4u wrote: »Banks tend not to like paying out ATM claims where it's a family member who's had it away with the money.
When the account holder submits a claim here they are going to make a false declaration - that they have not provided the ard and PIN to any third party.
That won't look good should the truth eventually come out.
Their argument is that they want a declaration from the customer telling them what happened and confirming nobody else has had it away with £300. Reasonable, I'd say.
No, you completely misunderstand. The bank staff had dealt with me once before anybody discussed whether the card was mine or not. They were very helpful and said that the money would most likely be refunded withing 10 minutes and if not, certainly by the following day.
The second time I went in to say that it hadn't been refunded the same lady asked me to put the card she asked me for proof of id and to put the card into the reader, presumably so they could access account details. I told them that it was my mother-in-laws card and they said they couldn't help because of the data protection act. It is more a matter of them not understanding the data protection act.
There have been no lies told and nobody has claimed that I have taken the money. They haven't even checked the machine, which they admit is faulty. Nobody is going to make a false claim to the bank.
It is now going to be Monday before my wife will be able to deal with this. She is going to phone with her mother and explain the situation.0 -
No, you completely misunderstand. The bank staff had dealt with me once before anybody discussed whether the card was mine or not. They were very helpful and said that the money would most likely be refunded withing 10 minutes and if not, certainly by the following day.
The second time I went in to say that it hadn't been refunded the same lady asked me to put the card she asked me for proof of id and to put the card into the reader, presumably so they could access account details. I told them that it was my mother-in-laws card and they said they couldn't help because of the data protection act. It is more a matter of them not understanding the data protection act.
There have been no lies told and nobody has claimed that I have taken the money. They haven't even checked the machine, which they admit is faulty. Nobody is going to make a false claim to the bank.
It is now going to be Monday before my wife will be able to deal with this. She is going to phone with her mother and explain the situation.
Under the data protection act they can't tell you anything without her authority. In a lot of circumstances a written, signed authority will suffice but the bank have said this won't do. I'm not sure why, as they could compare the signature to the one on the back of the card.
Like somebody else said you or your wife should look into getting power of attorney if this is likely to be a long time thing.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
-
Oh no, not DPA again, please....Under the data protection act they can't tell you anything without her authority. In a lot of circumstances a written, signed authority will suffice but the bank have said this won't do. I'm not sure why, as they could compare the signature to the one on the back of the card.
In this case the bank didn't need to tell the OP anything about the account and it's holder.0 -
opinions4u wrote: »No. I fully understand.
Then your post was most unhelpful. The information provided by other posters dealt with the issues. There is no need for the bank to breach the data protection act in dealing with the problem.
Your points in regard to why the banks don't like paying out ATM claims when a family member has used the card and that the account holder was going to make a false claim are pure supposition.0 -
Well it wasn't meant to be.Then your post was most unhelpful.
No they're not. They are exactly the reason why banks have a requirement for the account holder to make the claim.Your points in regard to why the banks don't like paying out ATM claims when a family member has used the card and that the account holder was going to make a false claim are pure supposition.
You might not like it. But that's the way it is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards