We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Debit card stolen daily
Options
Comments
-
I don't why people are so fixated with the OP not noticing the withdrawals for 5 weeks.
As already mentioned by many, they might not even have received a statement until week 5 (and this is assuming that they get one monthly. I get my bank statements every 4 months), or it could have been delayed or lost in the post.
Also, not everyone would check their statements on the day they arrived, maybe leaving until they had some free time.
I think that the bank will initially fight giving a refund but once the full facts are shown to them then they will relent.0 -
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 ?0
-
Most banks have a clause in their t & c's which advises that they must be notified immediately of any unauthorised transactions and that it is the account holders responsibility to check their account regularly. It's foolish to not check a bank account for 5 weeks. Especially if large balances are held. All banks provide services these days to make this a simple process. There is no excuse really.
The OP has every right to take this further, i'm not arguing that, i'm looking at it from the banks point of view.0 -
Most banks have a clause in their t & c's which advises that they must be notified immediately of any unauthorised transactions and that it is the account holders responsibility to check their account regularly. It's foolish to not check a bank account for 5 weeks. Especially if large balances are held. All banks provide services these days to make this a simple process. There is no excuse really.
The OP has every right to take this further, i'm not arguing that, i'm looking at it from the banks point of view.
I take it you didnt read the earlier case I linked where £6000 was stolen over the course of 2 months and the customers complaint was upheld (ie they were not liable)?
Plus the FCA say this :If you are sure you did not authorise a particular payment you can claim a refund.
The bank must refund the payment immediately unless it has evidence that there is a reason to refuse a refund, as explained below. This is so it can look into what happened, but it must do this as quickly as possible.
Why a refund can be refused
Your bank can only refuse a refund for an unauthorised payment if:
it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password, card and PIN conclusively proves you authorised a payment
it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently or, because you deliberately, or with ‘gross negligence’, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction, or
you told your bank about an unauthorised payment 13 months or more after the date it left your account, so make sure you contact the bank as soon as possible
You may have to pay up to the first £50 of an unauthorised transaction if your card has been lost or stolen, or your bank can show you failed to keep the details of your password or PIN safe.
13 months is quite a bit more than 5 weeks (by around 50 weeks).You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
unholyangel wrote: »I take it you didnt read the earlier case I linked where £6000 was stolen over the course of 2 months and the customers complaint was upheld (ie they were not liable)?
Plus the FCA say this :
13 months is quite a bit more than 5 weeks (by around 50 weeks).
I did read the case. However, not all cases are resolved in favour of the customer by the FOS.0 -
I did read the case. However, not all cases are resolved in favour of the customer by the FOS.
Your reply above is rather inane.
Well duh, of course they aren't. But each case is judged on the same set of rules - its not a new set of rules for every case.
The bank cannot refuse to refund because the OP took 5 weeks OR because someone they knew used their PIN. That is not up for debate, its in black and white. They need to prove negligence.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
unholyangel wrote: »The bank cannot refuse to refund because the OP took 5 weeks OR because someone they knew used their PIN. That is not up for debate, its in black and white. They need to prove negligence.
In black and white or not and open to debate or not. it appear to be the case that the bank is currently refusing to refund.
I think that we have all heard or read about cases where people or businesses "cannot refuse" something but that is exactly they end up doing until a higher power forces them to do otherwise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards