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

bigadaj

grumbler wrote: »

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

Ah the good old days in 2005 when you were one of only three people.

His view and approach hasn't changed since he started what fifteen years ago?

grumbler

Don't know about the 'views', but the approach has changed - since he jumped on the bandwagon, like I said.

grumbler wrote:

Personally, I even lost my respect to Martin Lewis when he jumped on the bandwagon of compensation claiming

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3765863, Jan 2012.

And that time it was just one Martin's article, not a whole sub-section that we have now.

MSE was sold in 2012 for ~£87M. I don't think that the number of members had risen dramatically in 2010-2012.

ETA: FYI

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/memberlist.php?&pp=50&order=asc&sort=username&joindatebefore=2010-01-01&page=7042

~7042*50 members joined before 01/01/2010

The total number is ~16376*50

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

We need to get over the logic that Bank liability = higher Bank charges, and move on to Bank liability = Bank due diligence.

Let's go back to writing cheques. Stop all this instant transfer business.

mgdavid

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

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?

Well, we know that most females born in the 1950s don't
(gratuitous reference to WASPI)

[Deleted User]

grumbler wrote: »

...................

That's one article from MSE against many more which suggest the Banks should simply refund people who fall for such scams...
It's not going to happen.

Missus_Hyde

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

Neither can I, some of the scams are so old they're pensionable!

mgdavid wrote: »

Well, we know that [STRIKE]most[/STRIKE] some females born in the 1950s don't
(gratuitous reference to WASPI)

Not true here! (Incidentally I'm nothing to do with WASPI!)

On receipt of a dubious phone call, I find a simple "foxtrot oscar, you scamming b!!!!rd" fits most cases and saves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing!

Senseicads

I think one of the most annoying things is that if you receive one of these requests that we are able to notify someone about it...there only seems to be a concern about these monies being stolen after the fact. We should be chasing them down and preventing them before that.

dggar

Senseicads wrote: »

I think one of the most annoying things is that if you receive one of these requests that we are able to notify someone about it....

How does that differ from putting the phone done and waiting 5 minutes and then phoning the bank/BS on a number you know to be genuine.

Ashen

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

The money doesn't magically reappear from the scammers if the bank refunds the customer - an entirely different set of money would be paid from the bank, so I don't understand how we are "funding it either way".

Cornucopia

Ashen wrote: »

The money doesn't magically reappear from the scammers if the bank refunds the customer - an entirely different set of money would be paid from the bank, so I don't understand how we are "funding it either way".

Whilst the discussion has become polarised into "always refunders" and "never refunders", I'm not in either of those camps.

I want to see SOME liability on the Banks in SOME circumstances so as to encourage them towards SOME degree of diligence.

I think the post I made is fairly self-explanatory as to how these funds are making their way into the criminal economy to the detriment of us all.


Taking the thread on, I am interested in understanding the psychology of the scams, and I think that this could help all parties avoid becoming victims in the future.

My suspicion is that the Banks' security systems are not properly understood by the victims, such that they do not understand the significance of the steps involved or the importance of the data being exchanged with the Bank to authorise access.

Even as an experienced user/builder of IT systems, I couldn't tell you why my Bank has two passwords to access their system, nor whether there is any difference between the two in terms of how secret they each are.