Rogue ATMs: cause(s) and redress?

Legacy_user

For the first time in about 40 years of using cash machines, I experienced a rogue. It was a Lloyds TSB machine, but apparently they can all act up. It gave me back my card, then flashed 'sorry, service not available at present' (or some such), did not issue any money - but did debit my account (at the Co-op).

This happened on Sat 30 March. I did tell my branch at once. The rogue debit was still showing on my account on Tue 2 April (the first 'business day') but had disappeared (as opposed to being reversed) on Wed 3 April. The (helpful and re-assuring) chap at my branch commented that this must have been an automated correction, because it would take longer than one day for a human at Lloyds TSB to act on the 'dispute' message the Co-op had sent.

Of course, no machine is infallible. But can the insiders who post here, comment on how a machine can be so badly programmed that it will debit an account without checking whether it has actually issued any money? And how does the subsequent disappearing of the rogue debit work?

Can they also comment on the 'dispute' circuit? According to my chap at the Co-op, this can take 10 business days. That seems to me to be flagrantly inconsistent with BACOBS 5.1.11:

(1) Where a banking customer denies having authorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment was authorised.
(2) Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place.

JuicyJesus

A disputed transaction is not an unauthorised transaction. Unauthorised would mean you have no knowledge of it and did not authorise it - disputed, you know about it and did authorise it, you just dispute receiving the money. As such the bit of BACOBS you quoted is irrelevant, since you authorised the withdrawal.

Also, it's not really bad programming. Sometimes it can be something as mundane as a crumpled note which jams the machine up. In this case, the machine often corrects its own mistake automatically through the LINK system - as it did for you, since you have your money back, and as such I'm not really sure what you're complaining about or how this is somehow a "rogue ATM".

10 business days is the timescale for your bank to contact the ATM owners and request them to balance the ATM to see if your money is in there. It's quite normal, as usually they have to wait for the next regular check of the machine to do so (counting all of the money in a cash machine not being quick or easy).

grumbler

A recent thread: ATM Error - £300 not paid out (with loads of information if you read it all)

System

JuicyJesus wrote: »

A disputed transaction is not an unauthorised transaction. Unauthorised would mean you have no knowledge of it and did not authorise it - disputed, you know about it and did authorise it, you just dispute receiving the money. As such the bit of BACOBS you quoted is irrelevant, since you authorised the withdrawal.

Also, it's not really bad programming. Sometimes it can be something as mundane as a crumpled note which jams the machine up. In this case, the machine often corrects its own mistake automatically through the LINK system - as it did for you, since you have your money back, and as such I'm not really sure what you're complaining about or how this is somehow a "rogue ATM".

10 business days is the timescale for your bank to contact the ATM owners and request them to balance the ATM to see if your money is in there. It's quite normal, as usually they have to wait for the next regular check of the machine to do so (counting all of the money in a cash machine not being quick or easy).

Hmm. I think I disagree. I had emphatically not authorised my bank to debit my account, because its agent (Lloyds TSB) had not issued me with any cash.

I accept that a crumpled note can jam the machine. In my case, the machine plainly 'knew' that something had gone wrong. I remain of the opinion that it is bad design if the machine can then tell my bank to debit my account.

And I remain of the opinion that two weeks is an absurdly long time for a cash machine owner to investigate a report of a faulty machine.

Incidentally I did also, as a matter of courtesy, tell staff in the Lloyds TSB branch. They seemed unwilling to make any check at all. This seems odd, because as I understand it, machines are sometimes rigged by criminals to divert cash to a trap the criminals can access.

JuicyJesus

Hmm. I think I disagree. I had emphatically not authorised my bank to debit my account, because its agent (Lloyds TSB) had not issued me with any cash.

You did. You put your PIN in and asked for money. Thus you authorised a debit to your account, which you then have to dispute. In the same way as if you buy something online and don't receive the goods, you authorised the transaction but you can then dispute it. Unauthorised in this case refers to transactions undertaken without your knowledge and/or consent.

Regardless of what you believe, this is the case and always has been.

I accept that a crumpled note can jam the machine. In my case, the machine plainly 'knew' that something had gone wrong. I remain of the opinion that it is bad design if the machine can then tell my bank to debit my account.

They have to debit in real time, for a start. Many machines are decades old and of antiquated design and simply not economical to replace, especially not when this problem happens quite rarely and is incredibly easy to rectify when it does happen. Indeed, it automatically does.

Not to mention, a crumpled note is not really something you can design out of a machine.

And I remain of the opinion that two weeks is an absurdly long time for a cash machine owner to investigate a report of a faulty machine.

We're not talking about investigating a faulty machine though, because as stated most likely it was just a crumpled note. What "investigating" in this case means involves physically opening the cash machine, counting every single note in it and then totalling it up to see if it's over or under. It's fairly unreasonable to expect them to do that absolutely immediately for every dispute they receive. Indeed, they may not be able to - it often involves contacting other banks who may well not be cooperative or may take their sweet time anyway. And, again, the problem usually gets rectified automatically, as it did for you, so I'm still not sure why you're complaining.

It should be noted, actually, that most times it's quicker. But they have to manage expectations when quoting timescales. Chances are it might have been resolved a lot quicker than 10 working days, but they have to account for the fact that not every bank or ATM operator is as efficient as most would like.

Incidentally I did also, as a matter of courtesy, tell staff in the Lloyds TSB branch. They seemed unwilling to make any check at all. This seems odd, because as I understand it, machines are sometimes rigged by criminals to divert cash to a trap the criminals can access.

They probably didn't want to have to (or maybe indeed couldn't) do the process described above straight away. If there was a cash trap, they would also most likely expect more than one report.

Also, cash traps are markedly rarer than dog eared banknotes.

agrinnall

I can't really add anything to JuicyJesus' excellent posts other than to say if you consider that you have been badly treated for what is a relatively common ATM issue then perhaps you should stop using them and only get cash where there is a human interaction, such as over the counter at a branch or cashback when making a purchase.

JuicyJesus

agrinnall wrote: »

I can't really add anything to JuicyJesus' excellent posts other than to say if you consider that you have been badly treated for what is a relatively common ATM issue then perhaps you should stop using them and only get cash where there is a human interaction, such as over the counter at a branch or cashback when making a purchase.

But then this would happen:

"I've only got a £20 and not two £10s, is that alright mate?"

"NO THIS TRANSACTION IS UNAUTHORISED BECAUSE I WANTED TWO £10s."

meer53

What redress do you think you should be getting ? And for what ?

System

meer53 wrote: »

What redress do you think you should be getting ? And for what ?

Sorry, my thread title is probably too short to be clear. I'm not expecting any personal compensation. I merely wanted expert answers to the questions I posed, including one about how the process for redress works.

(a) How can a machine be so badly programmed that it will debit an account without checking whether it has actually issued any money?
(b) How does the subsequent disappearing of the rogue debit work?

The answers so far are
(a) Not worth the trouble of getting it right, because this malfunction is rare - or alternatively 'relatively common', and is (normally?) corrected automatically after 1 (?) business day.
(b) Don't know / not saying.

The suggestion that I authorised my bank to debit my account based on a mistaken claim from Lloyds TSB is strange, and in my view inconsistent with the guidance from the former FSA, now FCA, to say nothing of basic banking law. It is also contrary to common sense. Imagine parallels in other circumstances:
Me (putting £3 on the counter): Pint of Hooky please.
Landlord (taking £3 and pulling pump): Oops, pump's broken. No beer for you, but I'll keep your £3 for a vaguely defined time. Raise a dispute via the Brewers, and you'll get a refund when they've checked whether your pint is still in the barrel.

SnowTiger

YoungNick wrote: »

It is also contrary to common sense. Imagine parallels in other circumstances:
Me (putting £3 on the counter): Pint of Hooky please.
Landlord (taking £3 and pulling pump): Oops, pump's broken. No beer for you, but I'll keep your £3 for a vaguely defined time. Raise a dispute via the Brewers, and you'll get a refund when they've checked whether your pint is still in the barrel.

Or going to the cinema and having to pay before you've watched the film. Oh, wait...

The problem with debiting a bank account after the cash machine has handed over the cash is that the account might be empty.

System

SnowTiger wrote: »

(a) Or going to the cinema and having to pay before you've watched the film. Oh, wait...

(b) The problem with debiting a bank account after the cash machine has handed over the cash is that the account might be empty.

(a) When recently I paid to watch a film and the projector broke, I was offered an immediate refund.

(b) No it isn't. The system first checks whether the account is in funds and within daily limit, and then tries to count out the cash. My point is that if this counting fails, the machine should change its mind about debiting the account. Instantly, not after (1?) business day.