Delayed Fraud Reporting Due To Extended Travel

petersprojection

Hi all..

In June 2014 a cash withdrawal was made on my post office mastercard that I don't believe was by me. I was travelling, but not in the place where the withdrawal was made. I can also prove this.

My travels were over a long period (1and a half years), and I did not log into my credit card account due to security concerns with public computers etc.

Returning home, I found this fraudulent transaction. I notified the card company, but they have written back to me saying that it was my responsibility to check the monthly statement that I would have received, within 120 days. Therefore, they cannot agree to refund any of the funds that have been debited from my account. Obviously I (rightly or wrongly) thought my security was better if I didn't log into accounts on dodgy public computers.

They offer their apologies that they cannot assist me further, but also say that they are aware that they have exceeded the 8 week time scale which they have to respond to my complaint (which I made on my return on 21st December 2015). As a result, they would like to offer me £50 in compensation. I can sign and return the enclosed form to accept this, or refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsmen Service.

My question is, if I continue pursuing the matter and refer it to the Financial Ombudsmen Service, am I likely to get anywhere? As I was outside of the terms and conditions, though not without good reason I think. Or should I just give up and accept the £50, which I have up to eight weeks to accept.

Many thanks for any thoughts..

eDicky

What was the amount of the fraudulent transaction?

Did you not travel with a smartphone or tablet to be able to use for logging in to your account, nor have any chance of non-public online access during the year and a half?

HappyMJ

I would accept the £50 offered. You could have used telephone banking to check your statements. You could have someone in the UK open your mail and check the statements and sent you an encrypted email copy of your statement.

Is it worth fighting over? If you don't accept the £50 and your claim fails they don't have to offer the £50 again.

PeacefulWaters

I'd take the fraud claim to the FOS. You might not win but you have nothing to lose.

I'd then make a separate complaint about the delay, pointing out that they've already offered you £50. If they don't match it I'd then take that complaint to the FOS too.

chattychappy

I don't think their answer is acceptable, I think you should go to the FOS.

The transaction was unauthorised. It is for the CC to prove you authorised the transaction rather than for you to prove you didn't. But in this case, you can prove that you didn't*. This, together with your explanation for the delay suggests a pretty strong case that you didn't make the withdrawal.. If they can no longer claim any lost monies through the network or have lost their "proof", then that is a matter for them.

It is true that T+Cs usually place an obligation on a cardholder to check statements promptly. But whether this is enforceable in the context of trying to make you liable for a fraud on the lender is a moot point. Generally courts won't accept T+Cs that attempt to make a party liable for fraud that would otherwise fall elsewhere.

You don't mention the amount. If it was little more than the £50 you have been offered, you might decide that practically it's not worth the hassle. If it's a few hundred, then fight on.

(* it's not absolute proof - you could have given the card to someone else, for example.)

grumbler

chattychappy wrote: »

I don't think their answer is acceptable,

Neither is it acceptable for a customer not to check transactions for more than a year and to expects fraudulent transactions to be refunded well after the chargeback deadline.

bigadaj

grumbler wrote: »

Neither is it acceptable for a customer not to check transactions for more than a year and to expects fraudulent transactions to be refunded well after the chargeback deadline.

The legal term is always reasonable rather being acceptable, so the question is whether it is reasonable for the customer to have noticed the transaction in the defined period.

The account was obviously open, with hindsight it would have been more sensible to have closed it if it was not going to have been used for a period that appears to have been eighteen months or more.

There were presumably statements being issued either online or by post, and so the transaction should have been picked up within a month, the reasonable length of time to have noted and reported this is arguable but three to a maximum of six months would be generous.

An idea of the sum involved would be useful, though wouldn't alter the principle.

petersprojection

Hi all,

The amount was £300.

In terms of accessing the Internet, this was an extended tour in some very remote places. Yes, I went through places with Internet, but for the vast majority of times I wasn't happy accessing accounts - either by phone in a call shop with everyone listening or computer with people staring at the stranger and what he's doing on his screen. The occasional time I did feel like I had to access accounts, I wanted to make sure there was enough money in my current accounts and not access / expose all my accounts at the same time.

Statements were available online, but not accessed like I said, because I wasn't comfortable doing so. Statements came through the post to my parents address, but they had no way of knowing what transactions were mine etc. Also, neither they or I have any idea how to encrypt and probably de encrypt an email. Plus, surely when it's decrypted on the public computer then it's insecure anyway? Anyway, I was travelling with just a very basic smartphone that developed problems and wouldn't connect to WiFi.

The account was open because I was using it - in another place at the time this transaction was made!

I know the circumstances are strange and exceptional. I do usually check my statements, but I didn't this time. This was a bicycle tour through mountains, desert, insurgents at times, and places where people ran away scared because they had never seen a foreigner before. I know this isn't a post about the travels, but just to let you know that I wasn't able to check the statements like I usually would.

I'm not necessarily expecting anything, I'm just trying to find out how these things work. And would like the money back if possible.

Thank you for the information so far!

grumbler

What encryption/decryption are you talking about? If you were using e-mail, what you needed were scans/photos of transactions e-mailed to you or uploaded somewhere.

You enjoyed using the card (instead of cash) in exotic locations where the risk of cloning and fraud was higher. Why do you think that it is the bank alone who has to be held responsible for everything?

petersprojection

Hi Grumbles,

Someone above mentioned that I should have had the statements encrypted and emailed to me. I was just trying to answer the comment and explain that I wouldn't know how to. I did what I felt was best at the time. I didn't have hindsight available to me at that point. I would probably travel with some form of personal computer if I were in the position again, but I still think that without it as I was, I would have been at more risks accessing the accounts in such insecure places. Either way, some of the responses shed some light / thoughts on the situation as it is now. Thank you.

I think rules and regulations would be best used to say who is responsible for what. They will have been fine tuned over the years. I disagree that I think the bank alone is responsible for everything. That's quite a statement.

bigadaj

Seems an odd situation.

If you were using the card then it was being paid presumably, was this by direct debit or was someone doing this from the uk.

Statements could have had all details blanked out and emailed to you to check transactions, with no risk of sensitive details being transferred.

You can always go to the ombudsman but I wouldn't have said you have a strong case.

You've had several responses and opinions so can make of those what you will.