Bank Fraud! Santander!!!

mgdavid

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

............
One of those reasons is because of that truly ludicrous assertion that you as a fraud department bank worker of 30 years standing had no knowledge of dodgy bank workers .........! .

why do you persist with your lies?
You have already been corrected on this point.
For crystal clarity they never said they had no knowledge of dodgy bank workers, rather that they had never encountered one in the course of their own work.

Now, please stop twisting words, stop ranting and contribute something useful.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

meer53 wrote:

In nearly 30 years of bank employment, i've never known any "dodgy" bank staff.

mgdavid wrote: »

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote:

............
One of those reasons is because of that truly ludicrous assertion that you as a fraud department bank worker of 30 years standing had no knowledge of dodgy bank workers .........! .

why do you persist with your lies?
You have already been corrected on this point.
For crystal clarity they never said they had no knowledge of dodgy bank workers, rather that they had never encountered one in the course of their own work.

Now, please stop twisting words, stop ranting and contribute something useful.

I beg your pardon but I believe the poster you refer to as "they" corrected him or herself, but it still begs the question are we really invited to believe that the poster in 30 years working in a bank and in the fraud department too, has never been aware of even the name of a dodgy bank worker ?!

So with respect, I think you might look elsewhere for twisted words, and as for usefulness, it is all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Now then, how about the request for Help and advice needed by 2 Law Abiding Old Age Pensioners who have just posted another tale of woe which unfortunately for Santander seems to have their name on part of it?

Is using your birthday as a PIN gross negligence by a customer? Is using DOB as a critical security question gross negligence by banks? If the bank denies the latter, then how can they claim the former?

The whole "anti-fraud" regime is in disarray isn't it ? It just calls the customer for a fool and has no compunction about telling them to go whistle for it, leaving them with an extremely complex problem to solve which no doubt many give up upon.

See the damage it does out there in the real world?

meer53

I have never stated that this is a gross negligence case, it is up to Santander to justify their decision, and it sounds as though they too feel that the OP's case will not be dealt with as fraud. It's possible they may decide that the OP has been negligent, it's possible that they may not, i don't work for Santander so my opinions are just that. Opinions based on my experience of similar cases. Is this too difficult for you to grasp ?

It is not anti-consumer activity to hold someone liable for their error or carelessness, what a ridiculous comment. I'm done now with YOUR ludicrous comments and assertions, so i'm off.

Try re-reading some of the replies to your other posts, there seems to be a theme.

meer53

Hi Lizals, best to create a new post, this one has turned into a crusade by TurnUpForTheBooks against banking in general, yours will get lost on this one.

Another tip, insert some paragraphs, it will make your post easier to read. x

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

meer53 wrote: »

I have never stated that this is a gross negligence case, it is up to Santander to justify their decision, and it sounds as though they too feel that the OP's case will not be dealt with as fraud. It's possible they may decide that the OP has been negligent, it's possible that they may not, i don't work for Santander so my opinions are just that. Opinions based on my experience of similar cases. Is this too difficult for you to grasp ?

It is not anti-consumer activity to hold someone liable for their error or carelessness, what a ridiculous comment. I'm done now with YOUR ludicrous comments and assertions, so i'm off.

Try re-reading some of the replies to your other posts, there seems to be a theme.

You may be off so we might not get a reply but you cannot band about or freely transpose the terms "gross negligence", "negligent", "carelessness", "error" and suggest they are all good enough to trump actual fraud and to deny immediate reimbursement to the customer.

Only one of those terms if properly used is one good enough to deny immediate reimbursement and in my opinion should only ever be countenanced by a very senior manager at the bank who should then personally oversee the file to see whether the customer is instantly aggrieved or has accepted the decision. It is an extremely serious allegation for a bank to make against a customer and it is not something that should be decided daily by junior managers or computers. I think we can all (those of us with some understanding of the words "gross negligence" in legal terms) see from your posts that you don't know how to define "gross negligence" and we might go on to wonder if you have been supplied with a very dodgy definition to apply in your day job.

Archi_Bald

This thread has hit the dumps, thanks to TurnUpForTheBooks.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

You mean you had some further advice for the OP, Archi B?

This thread stands as a warning to us all - UK personal banking has gone to the dumps especially when it comes to the day we need to report card fraud on our accounts:

(1) Card fraud especially that arising from what is known in the business as "account takeover" is rife but the organised side of it which means that banks are talking to organised fraudsters daily and frequently acting on their instructions in respect of customer accounts is not acknowledged by the banks.
(2) Bank security is flakey in so many ways but they will not admit it as it involves acknowledging (1)
(3) Police do not investigate card fraud by cosy agreement with banks.
(4) Banks instead take the easy (when you have no reputation to protect) and wholly wrong approach of turning card fraud reports into allegations of gross negligence against we, the customers.
(5) So much of UK business has employed the burgeoning corporate legal services industry to regularly suffocate challenges by customers that we end up with non-lawyers daily making decisions in the name of legal concepts they do not understand.
(6) UK society is becoming so dependent upon salaries received in financial services jobs that the reaction of many posters with informed opinion on the subject is to resort to the day job mindset which they rather interestingly would have us believe is an open mindset! So we then endure all manner of hypothetical scenarios presented where the customer or known associates is criminal, but as soon as someone like me presents actual recognised media reports of real criminal activity amongst bank staff they are brushed aside as irrelevant to the thread topic!

mgdavid

*off topic alert *

<tuftb's still ranting>

mgdavid

I just remembered the Ignore List - isn't it wonderful!

ERICS_MUM

what a shame.