Stolen Card Used At Atm With Pin

Tootsie_Roll

masonic wrote: »

I know this is the policy of some banks, but Section 12.12 of the banking code states:-

"Unless we can show that you have acted fraudulently or without reasonable care, your liability will be limited as follows.
- If someone else uses your card, before you tell us it has been lost or stolen or that someone knows your PIN, the most you have to pay is £50."

The Financial Ombudsman service are bound to treat the customer fairly in disputes. If a bank has signed up to the banking code, then a customer can reasonably expect the conditions of the code to be enforced. Therefore, the FOS's hands are tied. They must side with the customer, or the BBA must change the banking code.

Please read my post above in full. The bank can prove that it was the genuine card that was chip read with the correct pin - this is proof enough. I think you are also (unintentionally) confusing the legislation that applies if the disputed/fraudulant transaction takes the account holder into an overdraft situation.

smithja

yeh, i think you have the correct rule. as i said it is about dependent and non-dependent events, guessing the correct PIN would be a dependent event as after each try the possible number of outcomes change. Plus as you say you have 9999 possible outcomes, but if you take off 0000,1111,2222, etc this futher reduces the odds. I think the person who had the problems should dispute the transaction, refuse to pay up, and let the bank try and prove it was them. James

smithja

Hi TootsieI am sure you are right, but they cannot prove that someone did not guess it correctly, admittedly it is a remote possibility, but it is not impossible. It would be interesting to see how many attempt swere made before they entered the correct PIN, and what these numbers were i.e. if they were one digit off and could be a simple keying error, or completely different numbers in an attempt at guess work.James

bigmama59

My son had this happen to him a couple of years ago, in that he was watched at the ATM and then had his card taken out of his pocket. It was with the Halifax and we reported it to the police. Eventually after a couple of months of me going in the branch and making a nuisance of myself, they did reimburse him.

James

missyboots, check you private messages I may be able to help you

masonic

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

Please read my post above in full. The bank can prove that it was the genuine card that was chip read with the correct pin - this is proof enough.

Are you saying that the Financial Ombudsman service has ruled on this issue and sided with a bank such a situation? If so, I'd like to hear the details, please.

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

I think you are also (unintentionally) confusing the legislation that applies if the disputed/fraudulant transaction takes the account holder into an overdraft situation.

I am not invoking the consumer credit act, which applies to credit (including an overdraft resulting from spending on a debit card). I am invoking the Banking Code, which applies to everything financial institutions do.

James

1. Unfortunately not all card issuers are signed up to the Banking Code.

2. The Banking Code is just that a Code.

3. Watchdog if I remeber correctly gave examples of where the FOS sided with the card issuer.

4. As I said this is happening all too often: Stolen card used with PIN.



3.

masonic

James wrote: »

1. Unfortunately not all card issuers are signed up to the Banking Code.

I happen to know that Barclays do.

2. The Banking Code is just that a Code.

Whilst that is true, it happens to form the basis of what is expected of banks by the FOS, where the bank has signed up, of course. The purpose of the FOS is to ensure the customer is being treated fairly. If a customer is told though a copy of the banking code (which subscribing banks have to make available) that their liability is limited to £50 unless the bank can show that the customer has acted fraudulently or carelessly, then they are not being treated fairly when the bank turns around and says something to the effect of "Actually, no, we're not going to honour that pledge, suspicion of foul play is enough for us."

3. Watchdog if I remeber correctly gave examples of where the FOS sided with the card issuer.

I would love to have seen that programme. I suspect the vagaries of the complaints themselves were not discussed, but a carefully constructed complaint would be so compelling I cannot believe the FOS could side with a bank proffering that a thief cannot obtain the PIN and steal the card without the customer being negligent.

Whatever the case may be, complaining to the FOS is free and the customer has nothing to lose, so nobody should be put off doing it.

James

masonic wrote: »

I happen to know that Barclays do.


Whatever the case may be, complaining to the FOS is free and the customer has nothing to lose, so nobody should be put off doing it.

Absolutely - but be prepared to wait.

The introduction of chip and pin cards was supposed to reduce fraud, but complaints involving disputed transactions have soared. The banks increasingly appear to doubt the word of the customer.


Story here.


Oh yeah, Barclays are signed up!

Barclays Play Loose With Chip & PIN.

Tootsie_Roll

masonic wrote: »

Are you saying that the Financial Ombudsman service has ruled on this issue and sided with a bank such a situation? If so, I'd like to hear the details, please.

I make no reference to specific cases or the Ombudsman service or the banking code. Just giving examples of real life situations. Where the bank know that the original card is used and chip read with the correct pin, responsibility will fall to the account holder not the bank. That is sufficient proof for them to prove negligence and they will decline a claim.

In addition as I have previously mentioned, the ombudsman will not entertain complaints until the banks internal complaint procedure has been exhausted and a letter of deadlock issued.