Regulator rejects call to make banks refund transfer scam victims 16 December 2016 at 12:05PM in Consumer rights 27 replies 4.1K views

Former_MSE_Faye

The Payment Systems Regulator has turned down the request from consumer group Which? but admits banks 'could do more'...

Read the full story:
'Regulator rejects call to make banks refund transfer scam victims'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

agrinnall

This should be on the Banking board where the issue has been regularly debated over the last few years.

societys_child

I thought Which? were pushing it a bit. It's not the fault of the bank how careless people spend their money.
Next they'd be wanting the bank to take responsibility if I was mugged in the street!

Tyler119

societys_child wrote: »

I thought Which? were pushing it a bit. It's not the fault of the bank how careless people spend their money.
Next they'd be wanting the bank to take responsibility if I was mugged in the street!

I agree totally, it is a matter for the police to investigate. This is where police officers having technology degrees would come in handy as policing is moving further away from the streets.

Someone can be mugged on the street for a tenner, or mugged by email for 10k.

I had an email out the blue from a company that I pay regularly to, informing me that the bank details were changing immediately. i called the company to verbally check this.

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

I thought Which? were pushing it a bit. It's not the fault of the bank how careless people spend their money.
Next they'd be wanting the bank to take responsibility if I was mugged in the street!

I think thats a bit different given nothing about a mugging would be within their control. The same can't be said for bank transfers though - they don't even check the name on the account matches the name the recipient entered (which would be so simple to implement and save people millions every year).

I wouldn't like to see all the liability placed on them but I certainly do think there is more banks could do to protect its customers from some transactions and that they should be doing something given they have a duty of care to their customers.

Just a shame banks aren't held to the same standard they try to hold their customers to.

societys_child

I think we're talking about different things.

Which? suggested the banks should be be responsible for customers being conned online.

If lovelorn Linda from Leicester sent Dodgy Diego from Dominica, who she'd met on the web, loads of money because he'd promised he was coming to see her, marry her, whatever, aka a scam, Which? wanted the bank to take responsibility.
That's ridiculous, where would it end . .

A different subject, matching account names has been discussed in the past and wouldn't be easy at all. The software cannot match account numbers with names and that's without looking at the complexity involved.

Mr David Samuel Smith, could also be:
Mr David S Smith - or David S Smith
Mr David Smith . . - or David Smith
Mr D S Smith . . . .- or D S Smith
Mr D Smith . . . . . - or D Smith

Or maybe he's known as Dave, or Sammy, or Sam Smith.
The list goes on, and the archaic software running some of the banking systems just couldn't cope with that, also, it wouldn't do anything to stop the gullible sending their hard earned, to scammers around the world.

boo_star

Good. Someone has showed some common sense for once.

I shook my head when I first saw this "super-complaint." People need to be more careful, and perhaps there should be more widespread information on how to avoid these scams but putting the cost of people's naiviety or stupidity on the banks was a ridiculous idea.

Ultimately it would be the customers who would pay for it anyway, where else was the money going to come from to pay for this?

GingerFurball_2

The super complaint was a load of crap anyhow. It was based on a lot of assertions which simply weren't true.

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

I think we're talking about different things.

Which? suggested the banks should be be responsible for customers being conned online.

If lovelorn Linda from Leicester sent Dodgy Diego from Dominica, who she'd met on the web, loads of money because he'd promised he was coming to see her, marry her, whatever, aka a scam, Which? wanted the bank to take responsibility.
That's ridiculous, where would it end . .

A different subject, matching account names has been discussed in the past and wouldn't be easy at all. The software cannot match account numbers with names and that's without looking at the complexity involved.

Mr David Samuel Smith, could also be:
Mr David S Smith - or David S Smith
Mr David Smith . . - or David Smith
Mr D S Smith . . . .- or D S Smith
Mr D Smith . . . . . - or D Smith

Or maybe he's known as Dave, or Sammy, or Sam Smith.
The list goes on, and the archaic software running some of the banking systems just couldn't cope with that, also, it wouldn't do anything to stop the gullible sending their hard earned, to scammers around the world.

I got the impression which? were looking for the banks to have some liability but only in certain circumstances - much the same you do with direct debit or card payments. In fact, their complaint specifically says it was "not reducing liability on consumers
who had been grossly negligent or acted fraudulently"

As for the name, those are all variations of the same name though. It must be possible to do because it already happens with card payments - mines will accept variations of my name but not a different name. They have an algorithm to detect suspicious transactions that don't fall in line with your normal spending behaviour, I'm sure one which calculates name variants wouldn't be too hard in comparison.

The reason they do no checks at present isn't because its not possible - its because they're not liable.

takman

This is good news and I'm glad they realised how stupid it would be to make banks liable.

Firstly with card payments their is a cost to make them so that would also mean bank transfers would then incurr a cost, which obviously would be bad!.

Secondly extra security would delay payments and make them more difficult to do.

This would cause alot of hassle for many people like me who are transferring thousands of pounds a month between multiple accounts to meet the funding requirements of different banks.

Instead of trying to lock down the one free, quick and easy payment method that is available. They should just be making sure if you send a payment this way you will not get the money back.if Which are so concerned maybe they should be putting their money where their mouth is and commission an advertising campaign.

The-Truth

unholyangel wrote: »

Just a shame banks aren't held to the same standard they try to hold their customers to.

Yeah but what about all that the customer demands?

Customers now demand money to be sent to people in an instant.

But you expect banks to accept full responsibility for it when it all goes wrong!

Seriously you can't have it both ways. Unless you Unholyangel have developed the technology to sell to the banks to be able to do this and havent told anyone about this yet?. In which case Unholyangel I hope you enjoy being a billionaire!