Debit card stolen daily

peachyprice

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

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.

Don't most people check their bank account online now? I never read my paper statements, just file them, but I check my bank online dozens of times throughout the month.

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

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.

Then perhaps I've been too kind in estimating peoples intelligence then - assuming that they would know the FCA mean that banks cannot legally refuse to refund (except for the reasons the FCA state) rather than they can't technically do it.

However, my post was in context of meer implying the FOS would somehow come to a different decision in OP's case with no other reasoning other than "they don't always decide in favour of the consumer". I was referring to the rules the FOS will apply to the OP's case - and in those rules the bank cannot refuse for the reasons meer has listed.

I was not actually referring to the bank themselves refusing.

meer53

unholyangel wrote: »

Then perhaps I've been too kind in estimating peoples intelligence then - assuming that they would know the FCA mean that banks cannot legally refuse to refund (except for the reasons the FCA state) rather than they can't technically do it.

However, my post was in context of meer implying the FOS would somehow come to a different decision in OP's case with no other reasoning other than "they don't always decide in favour of the consumer". I was referring to the rules the FOS will apply to the OP's case - and in those rules the bank cannot refuse for the reasons meer has listed.

I was not actually referring to the bank themselves refusing.

Of course the result could go either way. The FOS will look at both sides, i never implied anything different. The OP has nothing to lose by taking this further, i was simply stating that they shouldn't be led to believe that the FOS has to find in their favour, they may not.

George_Michael

unholyangel wrote: »

Then perhaps I've been too kind in estimating peoples intelligence then.

So some people have a different opinion to you and you immediately feel the need to insult them.
Nice debating technique.

unholyangel wrote: »

I was not actually referring to the bank themselves refusing.

Yet this is exactly what you posted wasn't it?

unholyangel wrote: »

The bank cannot refuse to refund because the OP took 5 weeks OR because someone they knew used their PIN.

It might not have been what you meant, but it was what you posted.

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

So some people have a different opinion to you and you immediately feel the need to insult them.
Nice debating technique.



Yet this is exactly what you posted wasn't it?



It might not have been what you meant, but it was what you posted.

Try reading what I wrote again. Did anyone actually think that when I repeated the FCA's wording of "they cannot refuse" that I was actually saying they physically cannot refuse? Or do you think that most posters would have realised what I meant that they cannot legally refuse? It was a compliment to the posters on this board - on the other hand you seem to be saying that posters are so stupid that you needed to point out to them that banks might not be allowed to do it, but that they can physically do it.

And no, thats not exactly what I posted. This is exactly what I posted:

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

Selective quoting has a habit of removing the context.

SnowTiger

The problem here may be that a debit card was used.

The second case on this page seems to be similar to the OP's.

Basically, a woman kept her credit card and PIN together in a drawer; her son used card to withdraw £5,000 from a cash machine; FOS decided woman was "grossly negligent", but she only had to pay £50 because the card was used as a "credit token".

A card is considered a "credit token" when it's used to borrow money; for example using a credit card or a debit card attached to an overdrawn account.

I think the OP's case will have to go to the FOS. The OP doesn't appear to have been "grossly negligent" and obviously hasn't authorised the withdrawals. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if the FOS decided their bank should refund them.

One thing in OP's favour is that someone has been charged with the offence and will, presumably, be convicted for it. This leaves no doubt that the withdrawals were unauthorised.

Warpa

I spoke to the bank again and they said that when It goes to trial the court can order the bank to refund the money, or if he is working which he is not they can fine him.

When I mentioned the FO they said that because I have told my partner my pin number I have breached the banks t's and c's even though the sone is going to prosecute them. Do I need to go back to the bank quoting any phrases from here, I do I now go to the FO? If there is more I can fire at the bank what would that be, I still argue that their systems should have flagged up the withdrawals in the early hours , but they argue why should they if a pin was used.

I do go through my statements around the end of each month (online banking)
The withdawals started 2 weeks before the end of the month and were for between 30 and 50 pounds, the amounts I tend to withdraw, and as there is no time stamp nothing alerted me. The following month the withdawals jumped to £200 this coincides with him finding out I had a tax rebate, I normally live from hand to mouth with enough left over for a few nice things.

Checking online towards the end of that month is when I realised the theft. When I contacted the fraud department of the bank she could pick out the ' out of hours' withdawals with times quicker than I could write them down.

Thanks for all the replies, reading both sides is a help.

Valli

Op is it possible he contacted the bank and requested a replacement PIN be sent out which he got hold of before you did?

SnowTiger

Darth_Vader wrote: »

If that were the case the OP would be unable to use their card.

Natwest will pop a copy of a customer's PIN in the post if asked (by the customer).

But I don't think that's happened here.

I think this case will have to go to the FOS. Lots of issues here. The OP has just mentioned they gave their PIN to their partner, which muddies the waters more.