Debit card stolen daily

marliepanda

zagfles wrote: »

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

Through the ops negligence by allowing someone else to see their pin and 'break in' to their house.

zagfles

marliepanda wrote: »

Through the ops negligence by allowing someone else to see their pin and 'break in' to their house.

So you say. But what you say doesn't matter, it's what the FO says that matters. And the OP should pursue, as they have a chance. A good one, IMO. Look at the examples above where the FO came down on the side of the customer. What would you have said to them?

dacouch

Warpa wrote: »

A career burglar will find a weak spot, this wont be highlighted to us untill the realisation of illegal entry has occured.

#Parklife










.
.

Warpa

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

No he didnt have a key, and I changed the locks when he moved out, now this was TWO YEARS ago, he had sorted himself out and I used to employ him on occasions to start building up trust again. All seemed to be going well untill this happened.

Forensics have his prints on a window and frame, blue light checked our house over confirming it was secure. He was able to gain access by opening a top opening window to let himself in the lower window.

Ill take it up with the bank again on monday, obviously I have not put every single detail down here, but know we have not been negligent in any way.

I would like to see him made to work to repay the full amount, plus interest plus police time, then serve a full sentence.
Ill update here Monday.

Blue lamp, not blue light

unholyangel

Thanks for that clarification.

Good luck and let us know how you get on! Hopefully your bank will see sense (in that the ombudsman costs them money so it would be rather silly of them to make you go to the ombudsman when the ombudsman have ruled against them previously in circumstances similar to your own).

MothballsWallet

Actually, just to pick up on the statements taking a while to arrive point, I've just received my May statement from Santander today, approximately 2-3 weeks later than normal.

So, yes, sometimes, the statements get delayed for some reason.

meer53

Did he climb through the window every time ? Did he climb back through the window to put the card back each time too ?

xHannahx

For the bank not to be liable they have to prove the OP was grossly negligent. The key word being grossly.
The bank would have to prove the offender got the pin due to OP being grossly negligent, I.e. Op gave it to offender.
Offender getting it by chance is not grossly negligent, such as shoulder surfing.
It highlights downfalls in the bank security system. The bank should have systems in place to query unusual transactions. My bank have called me at 3am to query a single much smaller transaction made at 3am in the past.
The burden is on the bank to proof it's ops fault,

zagfles

meer53 wrote: »

Did he climb through the window every time ? Did he climb back through the window to put the card back each time too ?

This isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. The offender knew the OP and so presumably knew his habit of withdrawing £20 every day, and having a large amount in the account and not checking the balance regulary.

If he didn't put the card back, the OP would have noticed it missing the next day, so he only gets £200. By putting it back he can repeat for over a month.

He knows how to get in and out of the house, once he's done it once it'd be easy to do again. He can leave the window ajar for the return visit.

meer53

Can't see the bank backing down on the facts we have been given. The OP doesn't notice £3500 missing from their account in a five week period ? Card and PIN used by someone who the OP knows ? OP fails to notice thief breaking in and out of their house several times ?