Please reassure me!

JuicyJesus

artbaron wrote: »

Bear in mind that when fraud is committed it is committed against the bank, not against you. The idea that a fraudster takes your money from the bank is a myth that is perpetrated constantly by the banks, by the media and on this site. What actually occurs is that someone might use your card details to obtain the bank's money.

This bit is wrong. The money in your account is your money. It is not the bank's money. The fraud is committed against you via the bank.

You only become liable for that money if it can be proven you have breached the conditions of your account holding, e.g. by giving someone else your details, not keeping your card or details secure or by authorising payment through some sort of scam (although in the latter case you'd normally still not be held liable).

This bit is right.

This disingenuous notion of you being a victim of crime and the nice bank jumping in to help, out of the goodness of its heart, needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

You are the victim until the bank refunds you.

artbaron

JuicyJesus wrote: »

This bit is wrong. The money in your account is your money. It is not the bank's money. The fraud is committed against you via the bank.

Incorrect. The money in your bank account belongs to the bank, not to you. By paying money to the bank you are lending the bank your money and the bank takes ownership of that money once deposited. In exchange the bank agrees to pay you (up to) an equivalent sum of money on demand and possibly deliver other services such as overdraft loans or interest payments. This has been UK law for hundreds of years.

JuicyJesus

artbaron wrote: »

Incorrect. The money in your bank account belongs to the bank, not to you. By paying money to the bank you are lending the bank your money and the bank takes ownership of that money once deposited.

Nope, you're talking rubbish, money held in a bank account is held by the bank on behalf of its customer, who is its rightful owner.

This has been UK law for hundreds of years.

Care to link to the actual statute saying so?

Hominu

artbaron wrote: »

Incorrect. The money in your bank account belongs to the bank, not to you. By paying money to the bank you are lending the bank your money and the bank takes ownership of that money once deposited.

Exactly, if it was your money the bank would be very limited in what it could do with the money to make a profit, and why Cyprus agreed on a 20% tax on savers, and why they could prevent you from withdrawing 'your' money.

Gromitt

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Nope, you're talking rubbish, money held in a bank account is held by the bank on behalf of its customer, who is its rightful owner.

No, legally, you do not own the money that you pay into the bank. You only have a legal claim to it.

Bloomberg

tabby_cats_mum wrote: »

I've put some money (£15K) in my Santander 123 and now I'm scared to use my debit card as I'm paranoid about security and the money getting stolen!
I know I'm being completely stupid as I happily used my debit card before but then my wages go in and it all goes out so there was never a lot of money in there. Any savings have always been kept in a seperate savings account.
Please reassure me, I'm just not used to being so solvent!

The ideal solution would be to use a credit card so that in the event of fraud you are much more protected. My debit card is virtually unused, I use my credit card for all purchases and settle the account in full each month.

artbaron

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Nope, you're talking rubbish, money held in a bank account is held by the bank on behalf of its customer, who is its rightful owner.

Don't hold forth on things you know nothing about. As others have confirmed, it is not your money once the bank takes possession.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Care to link to the actual statute saying so?

Legal precedent of Carr vs Carr in 1811, followed by Vaisey v Reynolds 1828 and Parker v Merchant 1843. Confirmation meanwhile given by the Chancellor around 1840 who said

Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.

BlindLeadingTheBlind

artbaron wrote: »

You only become liable for that money if it can be proven you have breached the conditions of your account holding, e.g. by giving someone else your details, not keeping your card or details secure or by authorising payment through some sort of scam (although in the latter case you'd normally still not be held liable).

Artbaron I was very interested to read this especially the bit in bold and would certainly like to hear more about why the individual would not normally be held liable. There seems to be a growing number of victims of sophisticated scams losing significant amounts of money and seemingly getting zero help/recourse from either the sending or receiving bank because they have authorised payment. FOS decisions are also littered with examples which have found in favour of the bank for this reason.

artbaron

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

Artbaron I was very interested to read this especially the bit in bold and would certainly like to hear more about why the individual would not normally be held liable. There seems to be a growing number of victims of sophisticated scams losing significant amounts of money and seemingly getting zero help/recourse from either the sending or receiving bank because they have authorised payment. FOS decisions are also littered with examples which have found in favour of the bank for this reason.

If the customer has taken all reasonable precautions to keep their details secure then the bank is obliged to not hold them liable. I'd guess that in cases that aren't clear cut issues will arise, but the onus should (should) be on the bank to prove that the customer has breached their contract before any action is taken against them in the form of not refunding 'their' money. If a customer clicks a link in a random email or visits a phishing site or writes down their pin and leaves it in their wallet on the passenger seat of the car, the bank might well decide that they're liable for the loss and with good reason (although I know someone who was 'refunded' 2X £2000 when he replied to an email with his bank details and password). If, like me, the customer takes all possible precautions to keep their details safe and their cards are still used fraudlently (through hacking of third-party databases, criminal activity on call lines, etc.) then they should suffer no loss or inconvenience.

JuicyJesus

artbaron wrote: »

Don't hold forth on things you know nothing about. As others have confirmed, it is not your money once the bank takes possession.



Legal precedent of Carr vs Carr in 1811, followed by Vaisey v Reynolds 1828 and Parker v Merchant 1843. Confirmation meanwhile given by the Chancellor around 1840 who said

You were right and I was wrong, apologies.