Debit card stolen daily

Keep_pedalling

It could go with way really, and the only way to find out is to take it up with the FO, and see which way it goes.

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

Every two nights. Not twice a night.

For all you know he stole his sisters key and used that to get in. As I said previously, we don't have enough information to be jumping on any high horses and accusing OP of negligence.

It is twice a night cos he got the card, then returned it! So he got in twice a night....

(Edited as didn't see Wealdromalso posting same thing)

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

It is twice a night cos he got the card, then returned it! So he got in twice a night....

Granted I wasn't thinking about returning the card. But it still doesnt mean the house (or card & PIN) weren't secure or that OP has been negligent.

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

Granted I wasn't thinking about returning the card. But it still doesnt mean the house (or card & PIN) weren't secure or that OP has been negligent.

He clearly had a key, or the house was so insecure you could get in and out twice with no one noticing, and clearly had the pin. The OP didn't check their bank for 5 weeks.

What more can you say? Why does no one take responsibility. The only person paying it back should be the criminal, not the bank.

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

He clearly had a key, or the house was so insecure you could get in and out twice with no one noticing, and clearly had the pin. The OP didn't check their bank for 5 weeks.

What more can you say? Why does no one take responsibility. The only person paying it back should be the criminal, not the bank.

As I said, perhaps he stole the sisters key since he was living with her.

Having the PIN does not make the OP negligent.

Banks do have systems in place for out of character spending/transactions. I've had phone calls for a transaction less than £20 before because it was "not in line with your normal spending habits". Why are you so keen to place (imo) unreasonable levels of responsibility on the OP but not place any responsibility at all on the bank?

Many people may only check their bank once a month. Therefore 5 weeks is not unreasonable imo.

However the banking code apparently says that unless a customer is grossly negligent, they are not liable.

marliepanda

I'm placing the blame on the lad who nicked it. I am 100% behind him laying them back.

I am saying the bank had nothing to do with it. I would say allowing someone to see your pin, (which the op admits they probably saw whilst shopping) not changing the pin and securing their house after they threw out a known thief is grossly negligent and therefore I don't feel the bank has a case to answer to.

If I knew someone has stole from me, I'd definitely keep a close eye on my bank. If they'll steal items/cash why not steal from my account

wealdroam

unholyangel wrote: »

As I said, perhaps he stole the sisters key since he was living with her.

No, that can't be so.

The OP told us he was breaking in...

Warpa wrote: »

...he was bfeaking into my house while wecwere all asleep upstairs.

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

I'm placing the blame on the lad who nicked it. I am 100% behind him laying them back.

I am saying the bank had nothing to do with it. I would say allowing someone to see your pin, (which the op admits they probably saw whilst shopping) not changing the pin and securing their house after they threw out a known thief is grossly negligent and therefore I don't feel the bank has a case to answer to.

If I knew someone has stole from me, I'd definitely keep a close eye on my bank. If they'll steal items/cash why not steal from my account

Did the OP admit it? Or are you just paraphrasing what they actually said?

Why would OP change their PIN if they had no reason to suspect that the son knew it? Why would they think to secure the house if the son didnt have a key?

I'll repeat once more, we dont have enough information to say whether OP has been negligent.

All i'm saying is that (again imo) you're being overly harsh on the OP while completely absolving the bank. You could equally be as harsh on the bank and say that they could have and should have spotted the discrepancy but didnt - probably because in their view (but not in the courts or ombudsmans view) using the PIN number equates to authorisation. A PIN is more secure than a signature, but its not infallible. And it is part of the banks responsibility after all, to keep your money safe.

That is why the bank needs to prove the OP has been negligent if they want to make OP liable.

zagfles

marliepanda wrote: »

He clearly had a key, or the house was so insecure you could get in and out twice with no one noticing, and clearly had the pin. The OP didn't check their bank for 5 weeks.

What more can you say? Why does no one take responsibility. The only person paying it back should be the criminal, not the bank.

The money was stolen from the bank. The bank are free to pursue the criminal for the money they stole.

Keep_pedalling

Of cause while he was living there he had ample opportunity to have the card cloned, so there would be no need to risk sneaking in ant out so many times. Maybe once it comes to court all will be reveiled although he will more likely just plead guilty and keep his MO a trade secret.