MSE News: Santander refuses to refund pensioner tricked out of £40,000 life savings

Cornucopia

teddysmum wrote: »

How many 'not my fault' actions are there, nowadays? :


I put £2000 into an account because 'my bank' asked me to by email (despite email and website warnings from them, that they won't do this)


I paid the nice man from Nigeria, £10000, as he said it was needed to process the million I've inherited.


I paid £500 process money to claim a huge money prize (regardless of never having entered a competition anyway)


I am a vulnerable £50 year old that no one has loved before, so I gave my 20 year old toy boy £90000, so he could come over and live with me.


My son ran up a £3000 phone bill after playing games on my mobile.


I had debts,so I spent all my savings on Lotto. I didn't win and now have more debt as the bank won't refund my gambling money.


Evil Skynet sent me a huge phone bill, when I have a calls package, just because I spent 3 hours calling my friend in Australia.


How dare Skynet charge me for cancelling a contract , after 6 weeks? I didn't like the programmes and didn't know the T&Cs said there was a charge.

Sounds like a summary of recent MSE threads.

Not all of your examples are in scope for this discussion, though.

There will always be idiots, so why should the rest of us fund their actions ?

We are funding it either way - at the moment it's money disappearing from the legitimate economy into the criminal one, and it's funding who knows what both in the UK and abroad.

At least through increased Bank diligence we could conceivably reduce the risks and the flow of money to the scammers without significant cost to the Banks or the Public.

Unless the Banks act voluntarily, it is only a matter of time before something is imposed upon them, anyway.

JuicyJesus

When I moved my account balance (~£1000) from the Halifax to the Co-op it triggered fraud checks. I had to call Halifax and it became clear that they were very much aware of these types of scams and indeed insisted on reading out a script about how you should never, ever listen to any calls claiming to be from the police or the bank asking them to move money to another account or asking for security codes (to both of our amusement since I'd worked for a bank and was fully aware of the scam, and indeed stated precisely what the scam was; had to listen to the spiel anyway mind).


So they are looking out. There is only so much they can do though without totally ruining the utility of the system through excessive fraud checks or incurring so many costs that it becomes unworkable. Ultimately a bank's responsibility is to accept and process the instructions of its customers; it is not responsible for whether those instructions are a good idea or not.


If you don't want money going into the criminal economy, don't ignore abundant warnings about scams, don't hand over security codes to strangers and don't do whatever someone on the other end of a phone tells you to. As soon as you yourself compromise the security controls the bank sets out for you, then you're at fault.

Cornucopia

JuicyJesus wrote: »

So they are looking out. There is only so much they can do though without totally ruining the utility of the system through excessive fraud checks or incurring so many costs that it becomes unworkable. Ultimately a bank's responsibility is to accept and process the instructions of its customers; it is not responsible for whether those instructions are a good idea or not.

I disagree. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Bank customers are not setting up new Payment instructions every day. In fact, if the Bank was able to automatically approve all such instructions with major companies and small amounts that the customer would tick box as being to "friends or family", what is left would be a minuscule amount of effort in order to apply fraud checks to. Even then you could apply transaction limits so that the £150 you paid someone on eBay for a sofa goes through easily, but the 15 x £150 to the courier for the Nigerian Lottery win fails after, say 3 payments.

As for "acting on instructions", that's just a simple change to Ts & Cs, I would have thought. Something like "we will always act on your instructions subject to the fraud prevention rules stated here..." should do the trick.

If you don't want money going into the criminal economy, don't ignore abundant warnings about scams, don't hand over security codes to strangers and don't do whatever someone on the other end of a phone tells you to. As soon as you yourself compromise the security controls the bank sets out for you, then you're at fault.

You misunderstand. MY money (hopefully) is never going to fraudsters. What concerns me is the economic and other damage that is caused when other people allow their money to disappear in that direction. To me, it is a social duty for this to be made much, much harder, and given how easy it would be to do, it needs to get done, soon.

JuicyJesus

Cornucopia wrote: »

I disagree. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Bank customers are not setting up new Payment instructions every day. In fact, if the Bank was able to automatically approve all such instructions with major companies and small amounts that the customer would tick box as being to "friends or family", what is left would be a minuscule amount of effort in order to apply fraud checks to. Even then you could apply transaction limits so that the £150 you paid someone on eBay for a sofa goes through easily, but the 15 x £150 to the courier for the Nigerian Lottery win fails after, say 3 payments.

As soon as you make it so that only payments to major beneficiaries have less scrutiny, the scams will shift to credit card or catalogue accounts being used to receive scam funds; that or the scammee will tick the "friends and family" box because the scammer tells them to. Point blank guaranteed. Fraudsters and scammers always move into any chink in a bank's armour. The only way to avoid being scammed is to ignore the scammers.


Also, nobody is scammed by doing fifteen small payments. They're scammed by being encouraged to do one large payment; exactly the sort of thing a good number of such payments are for. Good luck picking out the scam ones!

I think you're genuinely ignorant as to the number of genuine payments there are each day and the amount of work that would go into checking a vastly higher amount of them.

As for "acting on instructions", that's just a simple change to Ts & Cs, I would have thought. Something like "we will always act on your instructions subject to the fraud prevention rules stated here..." should do the trick.

It's not a T&Cs issue, or a fraud prevention issue. It's the basic logic of banking and always has been; a bank acts on the instructions of its customer, and is not responsible if those instructions are defective or the customer regrets issuing them. You don't get to stop cheques after they've been paid and you don't get to call up the bank and say you regret gambling your wages away and want them back.

You misunderstand. MY money (hopefully) is never going to fraudsters. What concerns me is the economic and other damage that is caused when other people allow their money to disappear in that direction.

It's positive to see that you're finally acknowledging that it is in no way the bank's fault if their customer wants to send all their money to a random account because a stranger phoned them and told them to.

To me, it is a social duty for this to be made much, much harder, and given how easy it would be to do, it needs to get done, soon.

Or people could not do the above and not expect private organisations to compensate for their poor decisions.

Yorkshire_Pud

If I got such a smishing text the first thingi would do is open my internet banking and have a look at any transactions. As we are protected against fraud one doesn't have to do anything personally, the Bank does it all, e.g. Freeze the account, not encourage you to set up and make more payments from your account! The Bank has the money its not a leaking sieve that it can't control.

Common sense.

I know some people will do anything they are told especially in a stress situation but come on, some people shouldn't have a bank account if the are not sensible and responsible enough to run it properly. If you are complicit in a fraud you put yourself on the wrong side of the fence. Giving the OTP to the fraudster! Are you kidding me?!:o

No the Bank shouldn't payout as it would really open up the floodgates of easy scamming.

Plus call me cynical but the story doesn't really 'add up'?

Cornucopia

JuicyJesus wrote: »

As soon as you make it so that only payments to major beneficiaries have less scrutiny, the scams will shift to credit card or catalogue accounts being used to receive scam funds;

It just requires breaking down further: destination accounts where the balance can be readily translated into cash or goods, and those where it isn't. It's not rocket science - the Credit Card industry has been offering selective validation for years. We aren't talking about blocking these transactions, merely applying a value cap to them that invokes additional anti-fraud checks.

... that or the scammee will tick the "friends and family" box because the scammer tells them to. Point blank guaranteed. Fraudsters and scammers always move into any chink in a bank's armour. The only way to avoid being scammed is to ignore the scammers.

Yes. I did say "small amounts", did I not?

Most people are not making large transfers via Bill Payment or Standing Order.

Also, nobody is scammed by doing fifteen small payments. They're scammed by being encouraged to do one large payment; exactly the sort of thing a good number of such payments are for. Good luck picking out the scam ones!

That makes it even easier to spot.

I think you're genuinely ignorant as to the number of genuine payments there are each day and the amount of work that would go into checking a vastly higher amount of them.

You just haven't thought it through. This is not about ALL high value transactions, its about the small number of high value Bill Payment and Standing Order transactions being undertaken by ordinary account holders.

It's not a T&Cs issue, or a fraud prevention issue. It's the basic logic of banking and always has been; a bank acts on the instructions of its customer, and is not responsible if those instructions are defective or the customer regrets issuing them. You don't get to stop cheques after they've been paid and you don't get to call up the bank and say you regret gambling your wages away and want them back.

Make the Banks liable (even on a fractional or conditional basis) and watch how quickly the Ts & Cs change.

POPPYOSCAR

I cannot believe some people are still being fooled by these scams.

It is talked about everywhere.

Do they never watch TV or read the papers?

JuicyJesus

Cornucopia wrote: »

It just requires breaking down further: destination accounts where the balance can be readily translated into cash or goods, and those where it isn't. It's not rocket science - the Credit Card industry has been offering selective validation for years. We aren't talking about blocking these transactions, merely applying a value cap to them that invokes additional anti-fraud checks.

One that more or less already exists and that already happens, happened in my case and also happened with the person in the MSE article who went on to confirm that the payments were legitimate? You're forgetting that the customer is often insistent that these payments go through, and is the one issuing the instructions. Why should the bank be liable for their stupid actions?

Yes. I did say "small amounts", did I not?

So the scammers will just get less money. They'll still scam people. As soon as the limit is found (and through trial and error, it inevitably will) that will be the amount that the scammers ask for and the customers send.

Most people are not making large transfers via Bill Payment or Standing Order.

Most people do not make large transfers via Bill Payment. A great deal of people do. They would be inconvenienced if the bank decided to interpose themselves in more than a small fraction. Half the people on MSE who send money around for funding requirements would want to cut your nads off if thanks to your wonderful idea they had to call the bank to justify why they're sending the money to places.

Once again - why is it the job of the bank to ensure that what the customer is doing is a good thing?

That makes it even easier to spot.

And makes it harder for the 99.9999% of legitimate payments.

You just haven't thought it through. This is not about ALL high value transactions, its about the small number of high value Bill Payment and Standing Order transactions being undertaken by ordinary account holders.

Quite frankly, being told that I haven't thought this through by someone whose position is that banks are responsible for reimbursing for the results of the independent actions of their customers, something which flies in the face of just about every known banking law and principle there is, is hilarious.

Once again, you severely underestimate the number of such transactions undertaken by "ordinary" account holders.

Make the Banks liable (even on a fractional or conditional basis) and watch how quickly the Ts & Cs change.

And if you simply make it so that shop owners get a big electric shock through their genitals every time I buy pizzas, cakes, chocolate or fizzy drinks, they'll only sell salad and my diet will go amazingly well. And why shouldn't that happen? The arguments for it run along exactly the same line as your idiotic idea - incentivise a private business to police its customers' behaviour - and irritate/restrict the sensible ones - by punishing it for those customers' usage of their products.

You're assuming that there is any case for making the banks liable at all. There isn't.

bigadaj

grumbler wrote: »

I don't think so.
IMO, this started with claiming campaign, then worsened after acquisition by Moneysupermarket.

What, with Martin dressing up as a woman at the slightest opportunity, dramatic headlines, it's not exactly the ft is it?

And never has been.

grumbler

Well, you joined in 2010. Do you really remember well how it was before you joined?
Martin jumped on bank charges reclaiming bandwagon well before 2010.