Delayed Fraud Reporting Due To Extended Travel

chattychappy

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.

Normal limitation is 6 years. If CCs wish to have a chargeback scheme which limits them to 120 days, then that is a private matter for them.

unforeseen

chattychappy wrote: »

Normal limitation is 6 years. If CCs wish to have a chargeback scheme which limits them to 120 days, then that is a private matter for them.

That's fine. The OP has 6 years to take action against the person who fraudulently took the money from their account, assuming it was UK. If it was done by somebody abroad then it is whatever their laws are

Has nothing to do with chargeback

chattychappy

unforeseen wrote: »

That's fine. The OP has 6 years to take action against the person who fraudulently took the money from their account,

Wrong. The law is clear on this. The money was not the OPs, but the lender's. The fraud is on the lender (because the transaction was unauthorised), not the OP. They never had "money in an account" that was taken by a fraudster. The fraud is that somebody represented themselves as the OP in order to obtain the lender's funds.

unforeseen wrote: »

assuming it was UK. If it was done by somebody abroad then it is whatever their laws are

No. The OP's agreement is in the UK and governed by the CCA1974. It is only a matter of UK law for the OP. The fraudster may have committed offences overseas and indeed the network might have a civil claim against the fraudster in a foreign jurisdiction - that is a matter for them, not the OP.

If what you said was true, S75 wouldn't apply to foreign transactions - but we know it does.

unforeseen wrote: »

Has nothing to do with chargeback

Agreed, as I said.

System

I would personally take the view that the OP paid the bill (without noting dispute / protest) then they have accepted the transaction. The OP has to take responsibility for checking the transactions periodically - over a year down the line isn't really acceptable.

The ombudsman doesn't have to act according to points of law - only not be completely unreasonable - as I've found out.

Take the £50 and be more careful next time.

chattychappy

Heng_Leng wrote: »

The ombudsman doesn't have to act according to points of law - only not be completely unreasonable - as I've found out.

As a minimum, in theory, it does have to follow the law. It can be more flexible concerning rules of evidence and remedies. These days there is a lot of "soft" law, ie principles based regulation which leaves a large scope for discretion.

Consumers are always free to go to court if they disagree.

I don't know what happened in your case, but to some extent it is "law on the cheap" - so decisions are not always well made.

Voyager2002

A couple of comments...

The fifty pounds is compensation for the fact that they took too long to respond to the report of the fraud. Dropping the fraud complaint cannot be a condition for the offer of the money: whether or not the disputed cash withdrawal is the responsibility of the card holder, the bank took too long to respond to the complaint.

I am puzzled by the concern about viewing accounts in "dodgy" internet cafes and the like. I travel extensively and always monitor my accounts on-line, often using cyber-cafes or whatever facilities are available. I do take precautions, notably logging out of accounts before leaving the machine and being aware of what the people around me are doing. I have NEVER had any problems with internet-related fraud: while some computers may be infected with key-loggers, bank security relies on more than a single password and so is difficult to breach.

Ben8282

Are you really sure that you did not make this transaction? After 18 months of travelling under the conditions that you mention you could hardly be expected to remember every single financial transaction undertaken during your entire travels.
If the cash withdrawal was for an exact amount of £300 that would imply a UK transaction.
Is it possible that the transaction which you believe to have been a cash withdrawal made at X could have in fact been something else ... a transaction treated as cash such as the purchase of foreign currency or travellers cheques with the name of the town the head office of the company, or something like that?
You say that you were not in the place where the withdrawal was made ... but how far away from that place were you?
If you believe that this cash withdrawal was made using an ATM that would imply a cloned card, assuming the card was in your possession. This raises the question of why, having manufactured and successfully used the cloned card, did they stop at one single cash withdrawal and nothing else?
Was your card in physically in your possession on the date of the cash withdrawal?


It is of course correct that you have 6 years to take legal action if you so wish. However, you should seriously consider to what extent your own actions in leaving your parents to check your statements and pay your bills for 18 months and your failure to notice the allegedly fraudulent transaction for 18 months could prejudice your case.

chattychappy

Ben8282 wrote: »

It is of course correct that you have 6 years to take legal action if you so wish. However, you should seriously consider to what extent your own actions in leaving your parents to check your statements and pay your bills for 18 months and your failure to notice the allegedly fraudulent transaction for 18 months could prejudice your case.

In theory, the delay shouldn't make any difference at all. But I agree with your analysis evidentially. The FOS (or a court) are more likely to think the OP made a mistake than if it was reported imediately. If the FOS accept that the transaction was fraudulent, then the OP should be reimbursed regardless of the delay and regardless of chargeback deadlines.

grumbler

Voyager2002 wrote: »

...

I am puzzled by the concern about viewing accounts in "dodgy" internet cafes and the like. ...
...bank security relies on more than a single password and so is difficult to breach.

Some (most) banks' security.
However, this was a CC, and for CCs the procedure is often, understandably, more relaxed.