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

tempus_fugit

soulsaver wrote: »

Because it isn't the bank you're talking to, it's the scammers still on the line.
And you can use telephone banking to pay the scammers. They're very accommodating..

That's not the point. The scammee *thinks* they are talking to the bank, but if your funds were "at risk", then the bank would not need to call customers to get them to move their money, they could do it themselves.

tempus_fugit

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

Sorry, Mr Smith, you are too stupid for us to open an account for you. We suggest you stick to cash.

(Message too short)

tempus_fugit

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

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?

I actually think the number of people falling for it will get less over time, as the newer generations are more internet savvy and not so much from the old era of politeness, which is often what stops the current older generation from stopping to think if what they are being told is a load of nonsense. They tend to believe what people tell them more than younger generations and have less understanding of online systems as well.

AnotherJoe

tempus_fugit wrote: »

I actually think the number of people falling for it will get less over time, as the newer generations are more internet savvy and not so much from the old era of politeness, which is often what stops the current older generation from stopping to think if what they are being told is a load of nonsense. They tend to believe what people tell them more than younger generations and have less understanding of online systems as well.

I think the very old might fall for this right now, but there will be plenty of other scams that fool all ages because we don’t teach any financial basics at school so there will always be a steady stream of new punters to be fleeced with the scam of the day, there are plenty of others that haven’t been mentioned here

However, at present these scams are too easy to perpetrate so at least this loophole will be slightly narrowed.

GingerFurball_2

michaels wrote: »

Sounds like a new way to easily defraud the banks no doubt paid for by all of us.

Similar to fake car accidents, scammer and friend agree that friend will be 'caught out' by scam and get their money back whilst scammer takes the 'wrongly sent' money and gives his friend back 50% of the profit.

No it wouldn't.

In this example the fraud recipient would probably have their accounts shut and would get a nice wee CIFAS marker for being a fraud beneficiary.

Also in this case, what's the scam? If you're claiming that you were duped into sending money, why does the payee name match the account holder's name? And if it doesn't, then why did you complete the transfer when you knew the name didn't match.

I actually don't think displaying the account name will make a great deal of difference to whether banks refund. It might stop customers sending money, however when people are duped into sending money into 'safe accounts' at entirely different banks because 'Santander and Halifax combine to fight fraud' then I'm sure good scammers will have their responses ready to objection handle someone who notices that this isn't their new Barclays safe account. If you're displayed the account name when setting up a payee and send the payment anyway then I'm pretty sure there's a reason right there why a bank won't refund.

Missus_Hyde

aj23 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm just too suspicious but I still wouldn't do it. I have had it when it's been clearly a scam, like in an email, and legitimate. I just don't answer it and listen to the voicemail, then ring the number on the back of my card.

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

This particular scam is such a hoary old chestnut and has been around for so long, I can’t believe that anyone still gets caught by it. :huh: Obviously they do, or the scammers wouldn’t continue to use it as a means to extricate money from their victims.

tempus_fugit wrote: »

I actually think the number of people falling for it will get less over time, as the newer generations are more internet savvy and not so much from the old era of politeness, which is often what stops the current older generation from stopping to think if what they are being told is a load of nonsense. They tend to believe what people tell them more than younger generations and have less understanding of online systems as well.

That may be the case; it’s quite possible that an older person would be less likely to tell a scammer to foxtrot oscar ( not true in my case!! )

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

Why should the banks compensate people for their own stupidity?:cool:

michaels

GingerFurball wrote: »

No it wouldn't.

In this example the fraud recipient would probably have their accounts shut and would get a nice wee CIFAS marker for being a fraud beneficiary.

Also in this case, what's the scam? If you're claiming that you were duped into sending money, why does the payee name match the account holder's name? And if it doesn't, then why did you complete the transfer when you knew the name didn't match.

I actually don't think displaying the account name will make a great deal of difference to whether banks refund. It might stop customers sending money, however when people are duped into sending money into 'safe accounts' at entirely different banks because 'Santander and Halifax combine to fight fraud' then I'm sure good scammers will have their responses ready to objection handle someone who notices that this isn't their new Barclays safe account. If you're displayed the account name when setting up a payee and send the payment anyway then I'm pretty sure there's a reason right there why a bank won't refund.

Oh dear, I received an email from my conveyancing solicitor with their bank details, the payee name 'Gerard and co solicitors' sounded like my solicitor 'Gerard &Co' so I went ahead. I had no idea that it was a fake email and the 'Gerard and co solicitors' account had been cleared out by the time Gerard and Co rang asking where my house purchase funds were....

Luckily the bank has refunded me and my mate who set up the scam account has paid me my share (in cash).

Kamelo_2

Why should the banks compensate people for their own stupidity?:cool:

Because personal responsibility and common sense are a dim and distant memory.
In their place we now have;
'I know my rights'
'It wasn't my fault'
'WAAAAA, 'I'm a victim'

It's like a lot of things now, all dumbed down to the lowest common denominator to avoid it being 'Too Complicated'. As a result there is no need to take personal responsibility any more because there is always someone/something to pick up the pieces for you when it goes wrong.

I blame the 'everyone's a winner' school sports days.

Eco_Miser

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

No, I don’t think a lot of younger people would fall for it, only the stupid ones who fail the IQ test.

90% of the facebook users then.

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

As for the oldies dying off, they would be replaced by more oldies.....wouldn’t they?

What do you think an oldie is, and why would an oldie automatically fall for a scam?

ffacoffipawb

Eco_Miser wrote: »

You don't think naive teenagers and twenty-somethings would fall for these scams?

Well, they fell for Corbyn's lies.