Debit card stolen. possible to cancel store transactions?

stuartJo1989

arcon5 wrote: »

Oh my you've gotta love the keyboard detectives that have come out. Obviously you guys are more capable than the police... since ops already said the bank aren't interested in the fact she has a crime number, implying she has involved the police.


Her position, although not one I'd be happy to accept, is not really that hard is it. In fact it's very simple, the bank are on the verge of saying she's liable for the fraud and she is therefore looking at damage limitation.

So rather than inspector mse coming out to play maybe we should take the facts at face value.

I agree, OP has done everything by the book here and their story seems congruent. Ultimately, if OP is lying about the particulars or anything like that then they simply won't get anywhere with their claim.

Good luck OP, hope you get it back. I had something like that over xmas, a standing order was set up on my account without my knowledge and my bank promptly refunded it. But if I'd have posted that problem on here, I'd be faced with a number of people who would be like "well how did a direct debit get set up on your account? Obviously you gave them permission to do so". Just ignore them and do what you need to do.

theonlywayisup

stuartJo1989 wrote: »

I had something like that over xmas, a standing order was set up on my account without my knowledge and my bank promptly refunded it. But if I'd have posted that problem on here, I'd be faced with a number of people who would be like "well how did a direct debit get set up on your account? Obviously you gave them permission to do so". Just ignore them and do what you need to do.

No, you'd just have a lot of posters asking if it was a standing order or a direct debit.

The issue with the OP is that the story just doesn't sound plausible and the OP accepting some of the debt from the situation isn't plausible either.

LadyDee

jrothwell2 wrote: »

my card was stolen at the self check out. you can see on cctv someone stood behind me. which I didn't notice at the time as I had a baby n toddler with me. I'm not going into the whole situation of the cctv as that wasn't my question. shoulder surfing happens all the time apparently since I've been looking it up.

that wasn't my question anyway. I was wondering why would they only take back the atm refund back so far. why wouldn't the shop purchases be took off yet as well.

My friend had this happen to her a short time ago (although her purse, rather than her card, was stolen immediately after using the self-service till. Her bank, Halifax, refunded the cash and the money the thieves had spent on lunch and a couple of items. Police put it down to shoulder-surfing so no fault attached to her.

unholyangel

theonlywayisup wrote: »

No, you'd just have a lot of posters asking if it was a standing order or a direct debit.

The issue with the OP is that the story just doesn't sound plausible and the OP accepting some of the debt from the situation isn't plausible either.

To be fair to OP, its obviously plausible enough for my local force to put out a specific warning there being a rise in incidents like these.

In fact its so plausible, they even coined a phrase "shoulder surfing" to describe it


As for posters saying the bank is obviously suspicious - no, they're just trying to use whatever they can to ensure they don't end up covering the losses for paying out on payments which were unauthorised.

They are likely claiming OP was negligent with their card by putting it into the hood of the pram (would you put £2000 in the hood of a pram while you packed?). However the ombudsman will likely be sympathetic to the argument that even if OP was negligent with their card, the bank haven't provided any evidence that OP was negligent with their PIN.

And OP is also probably correct that they were targeted because they weren't paying as much attention as they should have been. Most criminals are opportunistic in nature, they look for easy marks. Body language plays a large part in victim selection - even if they aren't aware thats whats influencing their choice.


As for the card payments, despite withdrawing money with a card, its not the same as using it to pay for goods so they won't be subject to the same process. However the bank would have up to 6 years to claim back the money so you would be wise to discuss it with them rather than burying your head and hoping for the best.

sheramber

Only the bank can tell you why they haven't taken the money.

Posters on here can only suggest reasons.

The online trader may not have asked for the money yet. We had one purchase take three months to be asked for. So, if you don't have confirmation from the bank that it will not deducted don't spend the money incase it is taken later.

The bank may have blocked the charge and so will not be taking it out.

If it was an online order there would be a delivery address for the order which the police could obtain to trace the person.

theonlywayisup

unholyangel wrote: »

To be fair to OP, its obviously plausible enough for my local force to put out a specific warning there being a rise in incidents like these.

The OP is not plausible in accepting a £500 debt that she/he claims isn't theirs. That isn't plausible. Not in the slightest.

montyrebel

sounds like someone spent too much over xmas and is now trying to defraud the bank and make up for her possibly drunken mistakes

harrys_dad

Wow, the judgmental nature of a couple of the posters on this thread appalls me. If the OP was deliberately trying to perpetrate a fraud why would they even come on here?

None of us know the circumstances of the OP, other than what has been described to us. There are just two things that can be stated as facts here:

This sort of crime is on the increase.
Banks will do anything they can to deny liability for everything.

[Deleted User]

harrys_dad wrote: »

This sort of crime is on the increase.
Banks will do anything they can to deny liability for everything.

Where is your evidence that those are facts?

unholyangel

theonlywayisup wrote: »

The OP is not plausible in accepting a £500 debt that she/he claims isn't theirs. That isn't plausible. Not in the slightest.

Why? Because its not what you would do in the same circumstances?

As the other phrase goes....nowt so queer as folk. While I might disagree with OP's attitude towards it (sticking your head in sand and hoping it doesn't bite you in the !!! rather than dealing with the situation), I find it perfectly plausible that someone might (upon being told by their bank that they're liable for the payments due to their PIN being used) be keen to limit their liability to £500 rather than £2000.