ATM Error - £300 not paid out

grumbler

cyberbird wrote: »

...I'm not even sure why other people aren't allowed to use other people's cards when they have permission.

It's OK, but the card holder loses any protection if some fraudulent transactions take place. I think this is understandable.

dalesrider

cyberbird wrote: »

is it not possible for a bank customer or another bank's customer to simply report that they observed a problem with the machine? No need then to discuss or acknowledge anybody's account.

Think about what you are asking here.....

If you do not discuss or acknowledge a account. How is the bank supposed to know what they are looking into. The only party that can start a invistigation is the card holders bank. Without knowing any of these details how can they send a request to the ATM owner to look into it.

cyberbird wrote: »

Isn't there then an obligation for the bank to investigate?

Only when the account holder raises a issue.

cyberbird wrote: »

It would seem sometimes that procedures are created to benefit the bank. I'm not even sure why other people aren't allowed to use other people's cards when they have permission.

No. Procedures are created to keep account holders details safe.

You are not allowed to use another persons account even with their permission. A PIN as per every banks T/C is to only be known to the card holder. Not even a joint party is supposed to know the other PIN.
In fact that staff member could be in serious trouble for NOT stopping and replacing the card and PIN. As both have been out of account holder possesion.

I'll give you a example.
You go to get cash, there is a device on the ATM. Card is taken by 3rd party. How are you going to expain this....
In that case any money taken will be lost and even going to FOS is going to see the banks case upheld and the acc owner has knowingly let their card and PIN be given to a 3rd party. Which is on breech of T/C.


If someone wants you to get cash. Get them to transfer funds to YOUR account or write a cheque. Then you use YOUR card to get the money.
Safe all round no issues if anything goes wrong.

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

Think about what you are asking here.....

If you do not discuss or acknowledge a account. How is the bank supposed to know what they are looking into. The only party that can start a invistigation is the card holders bank. Without knowing any of these details how can they send a request to the ATM owner to look into it.

Think - really.

1. They take the details from the OP.
2. They don't acknowledge anything.
3. They check if the details are correct and send the request to investigate.

Only when the account holder raises a issue....
Procedures are created to keep account holders details safe.

This doesn't mean that, even if it really exists, this procedure is correct and unquestionable like Bible or Koran.

cyberbird

dalesrider wrote: »

Think about what you are asking here.....

If you do not discuss or acknowledge a account. How is the bank supposed to know what they are looking into. The only party that can start a invistigation is the card holders bank. Without knowing any of these details how can they send a request to the ATM owner to look into it.

They will know that the ATM (in this case their own ATM) has misfunctioned and they can check the suspense account (see post #19)

I'll give you a example.
You go to get cash, there is a device on the ATM. Card is taken by 3rd party. How are you going to expain this....
In that case any money taken will be lost and even going to FOS is going to see the banks case upheld and the acc owner has knowingly let their card and PIN be given to a 3rd party. Which is on breech of T/C.

You explain it by saying that you gave authorisation for somebody to use your card.

Yes, the T&C's have been broken but that doesn't alter the details of the case. What difference does it make who was using the card when this device took the card? Ultimately it's all down to the details of what happened. If some unexplainable fraud took place then the bank will get the benefit of doubt (as pointed out by grumbler) but if it is shown that somebody else committed fraud then there is actually no difference who was using the card.

Don't forget that the bank allows people to use other people's cards if they have lasting/enduring power of attorney.

matttye

cyberbird wrote: »

They will know that the ATM (in this case their own ATM) has misfunctioned and they can check the suspense account (see post #19)



You explain it by saying that you gave authorisation for somebody to use your card.

Yes, the T&C's have been broken but that doesn't alter the details of the case. What difference does it make who was using the card when this device took the card? Ultimately it's all down to the details of what happened. If some unexplainable fraud took place then the bank will get the benefit of doubt (as pointed out by grumbler) but if it is shown that somebody else committed fraud then there is actually no difference who was using the card.

Don't forget that the bank allows people to use other people's cards if they have lasting/enduring power of attorney.

I think that one problem that could occur is that the loser is not the one withdrawing the money, therefore the withdrawer could have arranged the theft or simply not been as careful as if it were their own money. The banks don't have a choice as far as power of attorney is concerned, it's LAW.

cyberbird

matttye wrote: »

I think that one problem that could occur is that the loser is not the one withdrawing the money, therefore the withdrawer could have arranged the theft or simply not been as careful as if it were their own money.

Yes, but as I mentioned, it all depends on the actual circumstances, not what might have happened. It's not really anything to do with the T&C's when it comes down to disputes apart from when the bank makes a discretionary repayment. So yes, perhaps with those devices, it is a discretionary repayment. If it's not a discretionary matter then the proof required by an account holder would be that the fraud had happened to people other than just themselves.

In this particular case though, it's down to a broken ATM machine. The bank will get the benefit of doubt with any dispute so the burden of proof is on the account holder. To protect myself I really need evidence, but the T&C's are irrelevant.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

Think - really.

1. They take the details from the OP.
2. They don't acknowledge anything.
3. They check if the details are correct and send the request to investigate.

This doesn't mean that, even if it really exists, this procedure is correct and unquestionable like Bible or Koran.

Come on grumbler.....

They have to acknowledge the details. They have to confirm them to ensure that they are looking at the correct account, the correct ATM, the correct transaction.

Sadly FOS would say if the bank moved away for the procedures the yare in trouble for failure of process. As such would end up getting fined.

cyberbird

exel1966 wrote: »

Strange how nearly all posts of this nature involve newbies

Are you suggesting that to have a valid issue you have to have been posting on the forum for a long time?

I actually joined in 2008. perhaps that means I'm telling the truth.

dalesrider

cyberbird wrote: »

They will know that the ATM (in this case their own ATM) has misfunctioned and they can check the suspense account (see post #19)

So they can action refund with no interaction from any party.

cyberbird wrote: »

You explain it by saying that you gave authorisation for somebody to use your card.

As I said Staff member could be in very hot water here if it gets found out they did not follow procedure and stop card and PIN. This would not replace it either untill account holder called to request it.
Even a account holder does not have the right to do this. If you want access to the account make it a joint one, then there is no issue.

cyberbird wrote: »

Yes, the T&C's have been broken but that doesn't alter the details of the case. What difference does it make who was using the card when this device took the card? Ultimately it's all down to the details of what happened. If some unexplainable fraud took place then the bank will get the benefit of doubt (as pointed out by grumbler) but if it is shown that somebody else committed fraud then there is actually no difference who was using the card.

By passing card and PIN to 3rd party. The account holder has no control over what that person does....

Perhaps you would be surprised at the number of people who say they do this then try to claim fraud, as said faimily member has then used card again or taken more than agreed. only way forward on that is to get police and take them to court.

cyberbird wrote: »

Don't forget that the bank allows people to use other people's cards if they have lasting/enduring power of attorney.

Only because the bank has agreed. To the legal process.
NOT applicable in this case.

To be honest for all we know the OP may have stolen the card, and is now looking at a way to get the £300 that the ATM did not give....

cyberbird

dalesrider wrote: »

To be honest for all we know the OP may have stolen the card, and is now looking at a way to get the £300 that the ATM did not give....

I suggest you re-read the thread. I am the OP.

You are missing the point. The ATM is broken. The bank have acknowledged this. The issue is that the clerk thinks, like you, that to deal with the matter they would have to breach the data protection act. That is nonsense.

I think you are confusing what has happened here with what some people do to try and defraud the bank. I'm sure the people you are talking about claim their card has been stolen. If they falsely claimed that the machine was broken then they would stand no chance of succeeding.