Regulator rejects call to make banks refund transfer scam victims

unholyangel

The-Truth wrote: »

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!

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

Perhaps you'd like to revise your interpretation of my post?

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

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.

I've never been charged by my bank for paying by card from my personal account. I've come across retailers trying to pass on their costs though, is that perhaps what you mean?

But in that case, many business accounts are charged for bank transfers already (and other things that personal accounts receive for free).

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

I've never been charged by my bank for paying by card from my personal account. I've come across retailers trying to pass on their costs though, is that perhaps what you mean?

But in that case, many business accounts are charged for bank transfers already (and other things that personal accounts receive for free).

All retailers that accept card payments have to pay a fee to receive that payment.

So let's say banks have to add the same protection to Bank transfers as card payments, this will cost them money to implement and money to refund fraudulent transactions. So that means they will likely introduce fees to make or receive bank transfers for personal accounts.

So if I'm transferring some money from one account to another I will end up paying a fee for it, where at the moment it is free.

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

All retailers that accept card payments have to pay a fee to receive that payment.

So let's say banks have to add the same protection to Bank transfers as card payments, this will cost them money to implement and money to refund fraudulent transactions. So that means they will likely introduce fees to make or receive bank transfers for personal accounts.

So if I'm transferring some money from one account to another I will end up paying a fee for it, where at the moment it is free.

Again, banks do not charge customers for making payment by card - they charge merchants for receiving payments by card.

If a merchant only accepts debit cards & credit cards, then the cost for paying by debit card should be built into the base price of the item. But the charge for paying by credit card is avoidable so they can add that as an extra. This means they're more competitive as they can advertise a lower price. But you're still paying towards their banking costs, just one method is behind the curtains & the other is in your face.

With a business account receiving payments by certain transfer methods can cost the same as receiving debit card or direct debit payments. In other types of transfer, it can cost twice as much. Of course the retailer has the added benefit of knowing there will be no chargeback or indemnity claim against it.

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

Again, banks do not charge customers for making payment by card - they charge merchants for receiving payments by card.

If a merchant only accepts debit cards & credit cards, then the cost for paying by debit card should be built into the base price of the item. But the charge for paying by credit card is avoidable so they can add that as an extra. This means they're more competitive as they can advertise a lower price. But you're still paying towards their banking costs, just one method is behind the curtains & the other is in your face.

With a business account receiving payments by certain transfer methods can cost the same as receiving debit card or direct debit payments. In other types of transfer, it can cost twice as much. Of course the retailer has the added benefit of knowing there will be no chargeback or indemnity claim against it.

I'm sorry but how are you coming completely missing the point?.

I'll try and explain this step by step as basic as possible:

At the moment bank transfers are free to send and receive on personal accounts. If they start having to add anti fraud measures and refund customers for these payments they will inevitably add a cost to use this service.

So if I'm making a payment from MY personal account at Bank A to MY personal account at Bank B then I will have to pay the cost. It is going from one of my accounts to another so it will be me paying the cost because no body else is involved.

I have no idea why you are taking about paying businesses because this article has nothing to do with paying businesses. The examples they use are fraudsters tricking people into paying them money.

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

I'm sorry but how are you coming completely missing the point?.

I'll try and explain this step by step as basic as possible:

At the moment bank transfers are free to send and receive on personal accounts. If they start having to add anti fraud measures and refund customers for these payments they will inevitably add a cost to use this service.

So if I'm making a payment from MY personal account at Bank A to MY personal account at Bank B then I will have to pay the cost. It is going from one of my accounts to another so it will be me paying the cost because no body else is involved.

I have no idea why you are taking about paying businesses because this article has nothing to do with paying businesses. The examples they use are fraudsters tricking people into paying them money.

Its not me who's completely missing the point.

First you claim that because theres a cost for using your card, there would be a cost for bank transfers - totally oblivious to the fact that banks do not charge you for using your card, they charge retailers and they currently charge retailers for making & receiving bank transfers.

You then claim protection would mean banks would introduce charges to personal accounts for bank transfers - despite the fact that personal accounts are not charged for card payments or direct debit payments (while offering protection). It also currently can cost businesses double to collect payment by bank transfer (that has no protection) compared to card or direct debit payments (that do have protection).

shaun_from_Africa

I can see where takman is coming from on this.

At the moment, credit card companies have a potential liability for losses due to fraud and the costs for this liability will ultimately be paid for by way of a slightly higher interest rate on the card accounts or increased merchant fees and these merchants may or may not pass these costs on to their customers.

If banks have to cover losses incurred by bank transfers for fraudulent sales, they have no merchants to pass the cost of these losses onto and as I can't see the banks themselves paying out of their profits, they might decide to start making a charge for the transfers.

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I can see where takman is coming from on this.

At the moment, credit card companies have a potential liability for losses due to fraud and the costs for this liability will ultimately be paid for by way of a slightly higher interest rate on the card accounts or increased merchant fees and these merchants may or may not pass these costs on to their customers.

If banks have to cover losses incurred by bank transfers for fraudulent sales, they have no merchants to pass the cost of these losses onto and as I can't see the banks themselves paying out of their profits, they might decide to start making a charge for the transfers.

Except that takman isn't talking about a merchant passing on costs, he was saying the bank would introduce costs on personal accounts which would then cost him money to transfer money between his accounts.

Also, as I was saying above - merchants still pass on the cost of bank transfers to customers, just not as upfront about it as when offering options to pay by card. Its like when you have companies who sell items at £10 + £4.99 postage versus companies who sell the same item at £14.99 and "free" postage. You're still paying for postage in both circumstances, just ones more obvious/upfront than the other.

ETA: The highest debit card fee I've seen so far is 25p. The highest bank transfer charge is £7 (for international transfers over £100). So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the charge for a specific payment method does not necessarily relate to the security measures/liability of that method alone.

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

Its not me who's completely missing the point.

First you claim that because theres a cost for using your card, there would be a cost for bank transfers - totally oblivious to the fact that banks do not charge you for using your card, they charge retailers and they currently charge retailers for making & receiving bank transfers.

You then claim protection would mean banks would introduce charges to personal accounts for bank transfers - despite the fact that personal accounts are not charged for card payments or direct debit payments (while offering protection). It also currently can cost businesses double to collect payment by bank transfer (that has no protection) compared to card or direct debit payments (that do have protection).

This legislation will mean that if someone is scammed into making a payment into someone else's personal account the bank will refund the money. So if the bank have to do this it will cost them money. So that means they have to recover that cost so the only way to do that would be to charge for receiving bank transfers which are currently free on personal accounts.

You keep comparing it to card payments, but there is NO FREE WAY to receive card payments. One of my partners card machines takes payments and pays it into her personal account. So if she put her card into the machine and made a payment to herself she would still have to pay to receive it.

So I'm saying the same thing will happen to Bank transfers. If I make a transfer to another of my accounts at another bank and the bank are guaranteeing that if it's fraudulent they will refund me then they are going to start charging for that service.

They may only charge to receive bank transfers but it will still be a charge.

I don't see how you think they will be able to add all these extra fraud prevention measure and guaranteed refunds but still offer the service completely free for personal accounts?

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

Except that takman isn't talking about a merchant passing on costs, he was saying the bank would introduce costs on personal accounts which would then cost him money to transfer money between his accounts.

Also, as I was saying above - merchants still pass on the cost of bank transfers to customers, just not as upfront about it as when offering options to pay by card. Its like when you have companies who sell items at £10 + £4.99 postage versus companies who sell the same item at £14.99 and "free" postage. You're still paying for postage in both circumstances, just ones more obvious/upfront than the other.

ETA: The highest debit card fee I've seen so far is 25p. The highest bank transfer charge is £7 (for international transfers over £100). So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the charge for a specific payment method does not necessarily relate to the security measures/liability of that method alone.

See you can't even read what Shaun is saying properly. His second paragraph says there WILL NOT BE ANY MERCHANTS to cover the cost of the bank transfers so this will be passed onto the consumer.

You seem to be obsessed with merchant costs and business related transactions. But if no businesses are involved and is direct transfers between individuals being guaranteed, then who is picking up the cost?.