PIN taken a knifepoint

glentoran99

colsten wrote: »

What message would it send to criminals, and to would-be criminals, if banks just reimbursed money withdrawn at an ATM by criminals?

what message does it say to criminals who defraud people of thousands of pounds? OR simple hacking scam, of a few hundred? My (work) computer was hacked and I lost £400 from my account, Should this not have been refunded by the bank then?

Comms69

obviously everyone is different, but to be honest a 'gang' that 'have knives' but run off at the sight of a phone don't sound too intimidating!


That said I am in agreement with others, it's not for that bank to reimburse. I'm not sure if there is any insurance that exists to cover this kind of thing?

qwert_yuiop

colsten wrote: »

What message would it send to criminals, and to would-be criminals, if banks just reimbursed money withdrawn at an ATM by criminals?

Probably not a message they’d have any interest in. They’re robbers. They rob people.

moneyfoolish

I trust that all of you people who don't think this lad should be reimbursed aren't switching accounts left, right and centre to get paid for absolutely nothing from the banks.

Biggles

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

However, I am genuinely amazed that ANYONE can suggest the bank is at fault here.

Nobody has suggested the bank is at fault.

The banks offer various benefits with your cards, including protection and refunds under certain circumstances where there has been theft or fraud. What has been suggested is that the depth of this protection is tested in the hope that theft at knifepoint is covered.

It isn't as if they asked him pleasantly what his PIN was and he told them, they threatened injury or worse; most people here have agreed they'd have given them the PIN.

The OP should test the protection offered. I think the lad will get a refund at the end of it.

Comms69

moneyfoolish wrote: »

I trust that all of you people who don't think this lad should be reimbursed aren't switching accounts left, right and centre to get paid for absolutely nothing from the banks.

literally no idea what you're talking about

EachPenny

moneyfoolish wrote: »

By your rationale, nobody who has had their bank details stolen should be reimbursed by the banks either because that is very often not the fault of the bank.

The problem with it becoming the bank's problem is that the next step would be for the banks to limit daily cash limits to protect themselves - and, after all, if everyone is using their cards and phones to pay for everything then who needs to be able to withdraw more than £100 from a cash machine each day?

It is then only a small step to banks profiling customers and having far more restrictive limits on customers they regard as high risk - if you live in a dodgy part of London (which now is pretty much all of London) or use your cards late at night then you get a max limit of £50, if you live in leafy Surrey you get a limit of £500.

It is very unfortunate for individuals who are victims of crime, but if the banks are made to pay in all cases instead then the facilites their customers as a whole benefit will start diminishing over time.

I'm also a bit uneasy about the suggestions earlier in the thread to 'threaten' to go to the media. Demanding a bank pays up 'or else' doesn't sound a million miles removed from the behaviour exhibited by the knife using thugs the OP's son found himself up against. Who can the bank ask to refund them when they have had money demanded from them with threats? Going to the FoS makes far more sense, or failing that try a Facebook appeal.

AirlieBird

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

However, I am genuinely amazed that ANYONE can suggest the bank is at fault here. The bank has done nothing wrong; the posters above that suggest the bank should reimburse - why stop at the bank, why not some other business somewhere with money in the till or maybe just that neighbour you've never liked (she's got loads of money after all - more than you anyway the swine!). Utterly incredible. So disappointing and sadly not so surprising.

Whether or not the bank has done anything wrong is irrelevant. By law, a bank is required to refund all unauthorised transactions and restore the account to the state it was in before the unauthorised transactions unless the account holder had acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to take all reasonable steps to keep safe personalised security credentials relating to a payment instrument (ie the PIN). The bank is required to provide supporting evidence if they refuse to refund an unauthorised payment on these grounds.

moneyfoolish

Comms69 wrote: »

literally no idea what you're talking about

What I'm talking about is that IMO it's more ethical for a lad who has given away his details by force to be compensated for his loss by a bank than it is for the banks to pay out money to people to switch an account where they have no intention of ever using that account but do it merely to receive money from the bank.

Comms69

moneyfoolish wrote: »

What I'm talking about is that IMO it's more ethical for a lad who has given away his details by force to be compensated for his loss by a bank than it is for the banks to pay out money to people to switch an account where they have no intention of ever using that account but do it merely to receive money from the bank.

I'm afraid your ethics and the marketing and sales strategies of multinational financial institutes are not correlated in any meaningful way.