Stolen Card Used At Atm With Pin

masonic

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

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.

Then we are talking about different things. I am discussing the recourse the OP has against the decision made against her, which is not final, whilst you are explaining the banks policies. The fact remains that sufficient proof for the bank may not be sufficient proof for those that can overrule it.

Edit: Actually, now that we have cleared that up, I am confused as to why, in response to my post #14 above, clearly stating "I know this is the policy of some banks, but Section 12.12 of the banking code states...", you felt the need to start a reply instructing me to "Please read my post above in full." One can only assume, after being asked to read your post in full, that your post bears some relevance to the statements I made about the banking code. Since you now say you "make no reference to...the banking code", after I have clearly stated that the banking code forms the basis for my statements, it appears that I had correctly encapsulated the subject matter of your post in the very first sentence of mine, and correctly identified it as being an explanation of the banks own policies in action. Perhaps before you cast aspersions about others not reading posts properly, you might have the courtesy to take the trouble of doing so yourself, hmmm? It might cut down on fruitless exchanges in the future.

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.

The bank must send a final response within 4 weeks, or explain why they need longer to do so (up to a maximum of 8 weeks). If they fail to give a 'letter of deadlock' within those timeframes, then a complaint can be brought against them with the FOS regardless.

hollydays

Ahh-i listened to a radio programme about this a few months back,its a growing problem.The pin can be obtained,but banks are reluctant to admit it.

Tootsie_Roll

masonic wrote: »

Then we are talking about different things. I am discussing the recourse the OP has against the decision made against her, which is not final, whilst you are explaining the banks policies. The fact remains that sufficient proof for the bank may not be sufficient proof for those that can overrule it.

You make it sound like the two work independantly of one another - the banks policies are going to be based on what they are required to by the code and other legislation.

Edit: Actually, now that we have cleared that up, I am confused as to why, in response to my post #14 above, clearly stating "I know this is the policy of some banks, but Section 12.12 of the banking code states...", you felt the need to start a reply instructing me to "Please read my post above in full." One can only assume, after being asked to read your post in full, that your post bears some relevance to the statements I made about the banking code. Since you now say you "make no reference to...the banking code", after I have clearly stated that the banking code forms the basis for my statements, it appears that I had correctly encapsulated the subject matter of your post in the very first sentence of mine, and correctly identified it as being an explanation of the banks own policies in action. Perhaps before you cast aspersions about others not reading posts properly, you might have the courtesy to take the trouble of doing so yourself, hmmm? It might cut down on fruitless exchanges in the future.

Oh dear -I do love a pedant.:rolleyes:

Anyway I suggest you go back and re-read all the relevant posts before calling anyone else discourteous !!

To sum it up again for you; you are stating that there will be recourse under the banking code for a refund on a transaction such as the one stated previously. I am confirming for you that in this instance there possibly is sufficient proof of negligence because the bank will know for certain that the original card has been used together with the correct pin and the transaction will be chip read. Under these circumstances there is virtually no chance that the account holder can argue against that sort of proof and in 99.99999% of cases like these it is a member of the family that has stolen the card and pin number.


The bank must send a final response within 4 weeks, or explain why they need longer to do so (up to a maximum of 8 weeks). If they fail to give a 'letter of deadlock' within those timeframes, then a complaint can be brought against them with the FOS regardless.

Correct so please dont imply that it is acceptable to go directly to the ombudsman as you do in post number 29 ''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.''

masonic

And around and around we go....

So, after all of that, your position is really that it is impossible for someone to steal a customers card and obtain/guess their PIN without the customer doing anything wrong. No doubt you are so sure of that, that no evidence, however convincing, would make you even consider otherwise. I'm quite happy for you to go on believing it, but I suggest others make their own minds up.

Also, you REALLY don't want people compaining to the Ombudsman about this, do you? I wonder why that is. :rolleyes:

masonic

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

Correct so please dont imply that it is acceptable to go directly to the ombudsman as you do in post number 29 ''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.''

Oh, yes, almost forgot... Since you seem to enjoy asking others to read your posts, perhaps you can show me where in that post you got the obtuse notion that I told anyone to go "directly to the ombudsman" without waiting the prescribed time?

Tootsie_Roll

masonic wrote: »

And around and around we go....

So, after all of that, your position is really that it is impossible for someone to steal a customers card and obtain/guess their PIN without the customer doing anything wrong. No doubt you are so sure of that, that no evidence, however convincing, would make you even consider otherwise. I'm quite happy for you to go on believing it, but I suggest others make their own minds up.

Also, you REALLY don't want people compaining to the Ombudsman about this, do you? I wonder why that is. :rolleyes:

Once again your are not reading my post thoroughly - it is impossible for fraud to occcur where the original card is used and chip read and the correct pin used.

I am, happy for people to complain to the ombudsman - just in the correct way without wasting their or the ombudsman's time as you seem to advocate.

Tootsie_Roll

masonic wrote: »

Oh, yes, almost forgot... Since you seem to enjoy asking others to read your posts, perhaps you can show me where in that post you got the obtuse notion that I told anyone to go "directly to the ombudsman" without waiting the prescribed time?

Try reading my post again - I even quoted you :rolleyes:

nobblyned

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

Once again your are not reading my post thoroughly - it is impossible for fraud to occcur where the original card is used and chip read and the correct pin used.

Hi TR, I'm not trying to start an arguement here, I'm honestly interested.

In the case where someone watches me type my PIN in or uses a camera attached to the ATM to record my PIN and then steals my card. Is that negligent in the eyes of the bank because I didn't protect my PIN fully?

Thanks.

Tootsie_Roll

nobblyned wrote: »

Hi TR, I'm not trying to start an arguement here, I'm honestly interested.

In the case where someone watches me type my PIN in or uses a camera attached to the ATM to record my PIN and then steals my card. Is that negligent in the eyes of the bank because I didn't protect my PIN fully?

Thanks.

Certainly in the instance where someone has seen you enter your pin yes. It is important to note though that I am refering only to transactions where the original card is used (not a clone) and that card is chip read, not mag strip read. Camera type operations are usually used to clone cards and harvest pin's so not quite the same thing.

nobblyned

debbie42 wrote: »

If you wanted to allow for that then that changes my figures from 3/9990 to 1/9990+1/9989+1/9988. It's an addition though, not a multiple. That makes a bit of a difference.

You were correct in your original odds. The odds of guessing the PIN correctly are 3/9990 (or 1/3330 - a different expression of the same odds, not different odds). This is assuming that sequential numbers are ignored and the guesser does not try the same wrong number twice and is given three attempts.

To work this out the full way with the diminishing number of combinations left with each try is as below, you first calculate the odds of not getting the right combination in three attempts and then subtract from 1.

odds of guessing correctly = 1-((9989/9990)*(9988/9989)*(9987/9988))
Two pairs of numerators and denominators cancel to leave:
odds = 1-(9987/9990) therefore:
odds = 3/9990 which can be simplified to 1/3330 approx 0.03%