Which? calls for fraud victims to be refunded by banks.

Ballard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37442288

I should start by saying that I have every sympathy for anyone who gets defrauded. I'm not convinced, however, that the bank should be liable if I lose money because, for example, I pay a doctored invoice.

If the account that receives the fraudulent money has been set up without full due diligence then I can certainly see a point in that bank being held fully accountable, though.

If the court decrees that banks are liable to refund customers if they pay funds to a fraudster then the first thing that they will all do is end free banking. The result will be that we will all pay for fraud whether or not we fall victim.

Rosemary7391

Quite... the distinction between credit cards, paypal etc with that protection and bank transfers is the cost - if you receive payments through those methods you pay for it. It's very useful being able to send money to friends and family without them having to sign up to a new service, be credit checked etc and pay fees for it. Perhaps a prominent warning should be given on the online banking page/over the telephone/wherever rather than attempting to make the system do something it was never designed to do, and for which adequate systems already exist elsewhere?

Thrugelmir

Cheques may not yet be dead.

Kernel_Sanders

I quite agree with the OP. You have to go through an enhanced authorization process to send money to a new account, and if the payee can't be bothered to double check its details and validity then I have no sympathy.
I also wonder why MSE have made a similar thread when this one already existed.

Ballard

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Cheques may not yet be dead.

I'm not sure what you mean by this as someone can be swindled into handing over a cheque just as they can a faster payment. It's not as likely nowadays but still quite possible.

eskbanker

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

I quite agree with the OP. You have to go through an enhanced authorization process to send money to a new account, and if the payee can't be bothered to double check its details and validity then I have no sympathy.

The checking is done by the payer not the payee.

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

I also wonder why MSE have made a similar thread when this one already existed.

Standard process - they always create their own threads that are linked (in both directions) with the editorial pieces, which obviously take time to write and publish, so the 'official' MSE threads will always be started after a forum member has already beaten them to it with an 'unofficial' one....

Archi_Bald

This means there is a risk that it will be harder to make legit online transfers as bank would have to introduce additional hurdles.

Glad I stopped my Which? subscription years ago.

Flobberchops

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Cheques may not yet be dead.

More's the pity; they generate a disproportionate number of fraudulent transactions.

amersall

Archi_Bald wrote: »

This means there is a risk that it will be harder to make legit online transfers as bank would have to introduce additional hurdles.

Glad I stopped my Which? subscription years ago.

I agree with you 100% especially regarding Which?.