HSBC Refusing to refund stolen £1100!

boo_star

sander123 wrote: »

Hi Mark,
Originating location says "INBANK", which I believe is an Italian bank (also googled).

Thanks for replies

"INBANK" sounds more like the HSBC abbreviation for "Internet Banking" to me.

Paul_1977

Does the HSBC system not require you to add a payee before you can send monies to another account?

With Lloyds you have to add a payee, and they send you a code to make sure its you (or someone with your mobile) setting up the payment.

If HSBC have invested all this money in this device and it has allowed this fraud to take place its all a bit pointless.

grumbler

10pence wrote: »

Man-in-the-Browser attacks could be a possibility. This is why the OP would need to make certain they have no malware on computer.

AFAIK Pinsenty and similar devices exist to prevent this sort of attacks in the first place. The unique code generated depends on the destination account details that prevents the details being changed by the hacker.

maninthestreet

Paul_1977 wrote: »

Does the HSBC system not require you to add a payee before you can send monies to another account?

With Lloyds you have to add a payee, and they send you a code to make sure its you (or someone with your mobile) setting up the payment.

If HSBC have invested all this money in this device and it has allowed this fraud to take place its all a bit pointless.

For HSBC, you cannot add a new payee unless the secure key was used to logon to the account.

Paul_1977

maninthestreet wrote: »

For HSBC, you cannot add a new payee unless the secure key was used to logon to the account.

So I guess its not much different, if you had the mobile or the secure key it.

keiran

Quote:
Originally Posted by badgers1975 View Post
It's also worth knowing that it costs a financial institution £500+ to simply answer a case at the ombudsman irrespective of any outcome.
No it doesn't.



From FOS website:-
""Case fee arrangements are reviewed each year and subject to change. Under the current arrangements, a business does not have to pay a case fee for the first 25 cases settled during the year. For the 26th case and each subsequent complaint, the business has to pay a case fee of £550.""

I had thought that case fees became payable after the third case settled...

Does anyone when the "year" starts?
If so, we could delay referring our complaints to the FOS until later in the year, with more chance of the institution wanting to pay out to settle

keiran

Think I've found the answers to my own questions..(!!)

The number of free cases DID rise from 3 to 25 in the 2013/2014 financial year.

As it talks of the financial year, we can assume the year starts from the 1st April ( the tax year starts from 6th April )

TartanSaver

keiran wrote: »

Does anyone when the "year" starts?
If so, we could delay referring our complaints to the FOS until later in the year, with more chance of the institution wanting to pay out to settle

HSBC has 12429 cases from the last six months alone, which is more than 68 a day.

http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/

keiran

Thanks Tartan, but also note from FOS website

"From April 2013 we introduced a group account charging arrangement for the largest financial services groups. Around three-quarters of our workload is now paid for on this more financially stable basis - by the businesses whose customers use us most."

This suggests the case fee method of charging for 25+ cases will be limited to small organisations like smaller building societies and financial advisors

colsten

All those revelling in the fact that some banks may have to pay the FOS for some complaints: sit back and think for a minute who actually pays for it.

If your answer is "the bank" - - sit back and think again.

Repeat the sitting back and thinking until your answer is "the customers".