Regulator rejects call to make banks refund transfer scam victims

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

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?

What legislation? There is no legislation about this - the "super" complaint filed by which? was only calling on PSR to conduct a study to see whether changes in liability were appropriate & if so, whether that change in liability should be legislated. They did not submit a proposed revision to legislation or draft a new one (because they're not lawmakers). Nor were they seeking to make banks liable where their customers were grossly negligent.

As for card payments, YOU are the one who keeps trying to compare them to bank transfers - based on your false assumptions that receiving payment by bank transfer is never charged for and that receiving payment by debit card is always charged per transaction.

Now if the charge is directly affected by the liability placed on the bank, you have to wonder why its a flat fee per transaction and not a % of the transaction amount. As I said in response to shaun, I don't believe current charges do accurately reflect liability or costs to the bank of that particular method. Much like their £40 bank charges didn't reflect actual costs involved with rejected payments.

They don't charge personal accounts for a lot of things that they charge business accounts for doing (including services that they can be liable for or need to have security measures in place for) so its far from concrete that it would happen with bank transfers.

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

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?.

When I deposit money in an envelope into an ATM, does the bank have any potential liability/security measures they need in place there? Yes. Are any merchants involved in that transaction? No. So why am I not charged for it?

spoeksy61442

The banks that receive the funds are often UK banks and then the funds are presumably transferred to unrecoverable banks outside of UK or EU banking systems. Shouldn't the receiving bank have some liability when they allow a criminal to receive funds unless they have completed their due dilligence accurately?

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

What legislation? There is no legislation about this - the "super" complaint filed by which? was only calling on PSR to conduct a study to see whether changes in liability were appropriate & if so, whether that change in liability should be legislated. They did not submit a proposed revision to legislation or draft a new one (because they're not lawmakers). Nor were they seeking to make banks liable where their customers were grossly negligent.

As for card payments, YOU are the one who keeps trying to compare them to bank transfers - based on your false assumptions that receiving payment by bank transfer is never charged for and that receiving payment by debit card is always charged per transaction.

Now if the charge is directly affected by the liability placed on the bank, you have to wonder why its a flat fee per transaction and not a % of the transaction amount. As I said in response to shaun, I don't believe current charges do accurately reflect liability or costs to the bank of that particular method. Much like their £40 bank charges didn't reflect actual costs involved with rejected payments.

They don't charge personal accounts for a lot of things that they charge business accounts for doing (including services that they can be liable for or need to have security measures in place for) so its far from concrete that it would happen with bank transfers.

This is theoretical legislation that would have come into place, but luckily it is not.

Also card payment charges are a percentage of the amount being spent for both debit and credit cards, they are not a flat fee. The charges that you experience as a consumer are not the same that the shop is charged, they take into account of the cost of the item and their profit margin on item they sell (just like you mentioned earlier).

The simple fact is that the other forms of payments such as card payments and direct debits cost money to receive. There is no way you can take payment by card or direct debit from another person for free no matter if your a personal customer or not.
So why would they offer the same level of protection as these payments but not put a charge in place to receive them ?

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

When I deposit money in an envelope into an ATM, does the bank have any potential liability/security measures they need in place there? Yes. Are any merchants involved in that transaction? No. So why am I not charged for it?

If you are depositing money into your own account then that is just basic bank security that they have to put in place anyway to store and handle cash. There is no risk of you being tricked into putting cash into your own account by a fraudster and loose money.
When you pay cash in they have it in their possession and Control 100% of the time. When your paying someone else by bank transfer the third party parson will have instant access to that money to do what they like with it to make it dissappear, so far more risky.

societys_child

unholyangel wrote: »

When I deposit money in an envelope into an ATM, does the bank have any potential liability/security measures they need in place there? Yes. Are any merchants involved in that transaction? No. So why am I not charged for it?

You're not listening. It's nothing to do with card transactions or charges for moving funds between accounts or what merchants are charged.

It was about online scams and making the banks responsible for peoples losses.

This might explain it:
http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/romance-scam-warning/story-11200905-detail/story.html

or this (this one got caught, most don't)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199083/Fake-diplomat-jailed-swindling-300-000-lovelorn-women.html

It relates to people transferring money to conmen (and women) they've met online.
Although it's sad that people have been taken in by the fraudsters for huge amounts in some cases, expecting the banks to cover it was stupid idea.

I've a vague recollection of a retired solicitor appearing sad faced in the papers after sending thousands to the new "love of his life", what an idiot.

societys_child

spoeksy61442 wrote: »

The banks that receive the funds are often UK banks and then the funds are presumably transferred to unrecoverable banks outside of UK or EU banking systems. Shouldn't the receiving bank have some liability when they allow a criminal to receive funds unless they have completed their due dilligence accurately?

Try telling that to the Nigerians . .