Credit Card used 300 miles away and Sainsburys Bank says tough !

reclusive46

Maestro. wrote: »

I thought it was only your fault if you deliberately disclosed your pin to anyone - or did something ludicrous like writing it on the credit card. Otherwise, some geezer could peek over my shoulder then beat me up outside the shop, take my card and go on a spending spree with my pin and I'd be liable, which I can't see happening.

You are correct and the bank has to proof that the person was negligent with their PIN.

But of course EMV cards (Chip and Pin) is infallible so it must have been the OP. (Note my sarcasm). Fallback is a major flaw, depending on the issuer settings (Some block fallback in the UK but most if not all allow fallback abroad) you can insert a card backwards 3 times and it will then let you swipe a card through (You could of course do the same with a cloned card without a chip). This happens because the terminal thinks the chip is broken. Thats definitely not the only security issue with EMV.

Also often banks will say a PIN was used when it wasn't really. They are just trying to fob off the customer.

scholesfan88

You also have the option to swipe your card at the self check outs in Asda, i've tried it with my card before and it worked.

reclusive46

scholesfan88 wrote: »

You also have the option to swipe your card at the self check outs in Asda, i've tried it with my card before and it worked.

Ah what at the seperate reader attached directly to the machine (Rather than on the chip and pin device)?

chattychappy

reclusive46 wrote: »

You are correct and the bank has to proof that the person was negligent with their PIN.

Even if you are negligent, your liability is limited to £50, regardless of what the T+Cs say.

Buzby

chattychappy wrote: »

Even if you are negligent, your liability is limited to £50, regardless of what the T+Cs say.

Negligence is not limited. It all changed with the introduction of C&P. The merchant previously was liable if the cardholder stated the signatures were false and a comparison showed this to be the case. If the PIN is actually used, the Merchant is safe from a chargeback and the argument then is between the cardholder and the bank.

It does not matter if the cardholder can 'prove' they were elsewhere when the disputed transaction took place. An accomplice can use it and if the correct PIN is used the suspicion falls squarely on the cardholder. Rejecting this (how do you prove a negative?) is extremely difficult and one of the reasons I use Chip & Signature. It is not possible to claim any exemption over the T&C's as that would be a fraudster's charter.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

...It does not matter if the cardholder can 'prove' they were elsewhere when the disputed transaction took place.

In this case this can matter as that day the card was used 'elsewhere' as well, although it is not clear what time gap was between it was used in different places.

An accomplice can use it and if the correct PIN is used the suspicion falls squarely on the cardholder. Rejecting this (how do you prove a negative?) is extremely difficult .... It is not possible to claim any exemption over the T&C's as that would be a fraudster's charter.

Again, this depends on the time gap. If it's small enough it's ridiculous to imply that the 'accomplice' rushed 300 miles away to make a fraudulent £90 purchase in Asda (and, probably, then back).

zagfles

Buzby wrote: »

Negligence is not limited. It all changed with the introduction of C&P.

Yes it is.

The merchant previously was liable if the cardholder stated the signatures were false and a comparison showed this to be the case. If the PIN is actually used, the Merchant is safe from a chargeback and the argument then is between the cardholder and the bank.

Yes, but how exactly is that related to negligence? Writing the PIN on the card is negligent, yet the CCA 1974 says even then the cardholder liability is only £50 (on a credit card). As discussed many times before...

reclusive46

Buzby wrote: »

Negligence is not limited. It all changed with the introduction of C&P. The merchant previously was liable if the cardholder stated the signatures were false and a comparison showed this to be the case. If the PIN is actually used, the Merchant is safe from a chargeback and the argument then is between the cardholder and the bank.

The merchant was really only liable if no signature was given. As merchants couldn't have been expected to be signature experts. Thats what the liability shift meant. It meant that would be liable for fraudulent swipe and sign transactions if the card was a chip card.

chattychappy

Buzby wrote: »

Negligence is not limited. It all changed with the introduction of C&P.

...
It is not possible to claim any exemption over the T&C's as that would be a fraudster's charter.

See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

Nothing changed with C&P. The law is clear and takes precedence over T&Cs as noted by the FOS above. But I agree with the gist - C&S can be safer for the cardholder.

The problem with C&P is that when a problem arises cardholders are typically quick to deny that they were careless. They will swear blind that they didn't write down their PIN etc without realising that this may not be helping their cause. If there wasn't negligence, it might be easier to "assume" there was fraud by the cardholder (though the onus of proof is still with the CC).

Whereas... if the cardholder admitted being negligent. "Oh yes, I wrote the number on a piece of paper which I keep with my card" then negligence is the likely explanation and they are not on the hook for that (except perhaps £50).