MSE News: Banks may have to refund victims of cash transfer scams from next year

aj23_2

societys_child wrote: »

They don't, that's how the scam works.

The fraudster tells the victim to end the call and phone the bank using the number on the card.
However the fraudster keeps the line open and so is able to intercept the call and pretend to be the bank.
It works on the [STRIKE]stupidity[/STRIKE] naivety of the victim . .

Banks do try and warn customers that they would never tell anyone to transfer cash in this way, and why would they when they can simply protect the account (if a fraud attempt had been detected) by the blocking it. People don't think things through . . .

Well that's the thing, they always say about not contacting you by email, phone, asking you to transfer money. You'd think people would know that by now.

miller

Sorry, I was referring to when the new rules come into force:

From next year, when transferring money, customers will also be shown the name of the person they are sending cash to (as well as the name of the bank) - this should ring alarm bells if it's not who the sender thought it was, and allow them to stop the payment.

So AFAIK bank details will be sufficient to obtain the account holder's name(s).

RG2015

“From next year, when transferring money, customers will also be shown the name of the person they are sending cash to (as well as the name of the bank) - this should ring alarm bells if it's not who the sender thought it was, and allow them to stop the payment.”

miller wrote: »

So an account holder's name(s) can be harvested from a sort code and account number pumped into online banking?

Exactly what I thought. It is good for reassurance but how will the banks stop this being abused.

I will continue to send £1.00 test payments to new payees just to be on the safe side.

miller

I actually had it happen in the past when sending a payment to a friend who also banked with Halifax. It came up with their surname (not entered by me). It was a long time ago and may have been before everything transferred over onto Lloyds' systems.

Shakin_Steve

I’m sorry for anyone that’s been scammed in this way, but...........as the population ages there can only be more and more of these cases. I really don’t see why the banks and, ultimately, we should have to pay for it.
On the other hand, banks are definitely not stupid and are bound to find a way around it. Something in the T&C’s maybe, telling you in no uncertain terms the steps that you must take in the case of someone purporting to be from the bank calling you. Or insisting that you must download the app and allow notifications so they can contact you that way.
My favourite would be a face-to-face IQ test when you open an account.

Sorry, Mr Smith, you are too stupid for us to open an account for you. We suggest you stick to cash.
Or, maybe, you have to sit an exam and pass it to get an account.

AnotherJoe

Reaper wrote: »

I am a bit uneasy about the banks paying compensation when they have done nothing wrong though.

One of the things they frequently seem to do wrong is make it easy for thieves and fraudsters to open up bank accounts (despite all the hoops the normal non thieving populace has to jump through) and then be very tardy about freezing such accounts even after theft has been perpetrated and reported, such that other frauds can still happen using the same account.

AFAIK they also don’t check on the identity of the person being paid, eg if you pay £50,000 to Smith the Builders ac no x sort code y, they will happily pay into the acc no and sort code x and y, but the name of the account is Mr Wescamyou. If the6 checked, This would make it much more difficult for theives to perpetrate these frauds, since first they would have to fake identity of SMith The Builder as well, and second they could only use one account per fraud, not one account for multiple frauds.

Shakin_Steve

aj23 wrote: »

Don't do online transfers. Simple. I don't know how people even end up transferring money to fraudsters.

What if Bob the builder accompanies you to the bank to withdraw the eight grand he wants for fixing your leaky gutter. Is that covered?

Eco_Miser

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

I’m sorry for anyone that’s been scammed in this way, but...........as the population ages there can only be more and more of these cases.

You don't think naive teenagers and twenty-somethings would fall for these scams?
Or maybe you mean that the oldies who would only transact in branch dying off?

Shakin_Steve

Eco_Miser wrote: »

You don't think naive teenagers and twenty-somethings would fall for these scams?
Or maybe you mean that the oldies who would only transact in branch dying off?

No, I don’t think a lot of younger people would fall for it, only the stupid ones who fail the IQ test. As for the oldies dying off, they would be replaced by more oldies.....wouldn’t they?

tempus_fugit

aj23 wrote: »

Why would the bank, by calling the legitimate phone number on the back of the card, tell you to move money to another account?

Exactly, there is no earthly reason for them to do this.