PIN taken a knifepoint

moneyfoolish

Comms69 wrote: »

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

I'm sure you're correct as I've yet to see any multinational financial institutes which have any ethics!

PeacefulWaters

Silks wrote: »

My 22 year old son got mugged last Friday night walking back home from the tube.

Five youths surrounded him, said they'd got knives and told him to hand over his wallet and phone. They demanded the PIN for his bank card and said one of them would run to an ATM and get cash. If he gave them a wrong number, he'd be sorry. They held onto him and tried to drag him into a dark playground while one of them went off for the cash. A number of people passed by but did nothing. Eventually a couple stopped and started to make a phone call. This spooked the gang and they fled.

My son got home and immediately cancelled the card, telling the bank (Santander) what had happened. He checked his account online and £200 had been taken. Later, while giving a full statement and his crime number to the bank, they revealed that the muggers had made four more attempts to get cash, all of them blocked.

Yesterday he got a letter from Santander saying they would not reimburse him. No reason was given (although the letter did say they hoped he would understand their reasons...) In a follow-up call they said there was no evidence of a mugging (a crime number is not good enough apparently) and my son was at fault for giving out his PIN. "Even at knifepoint?!?," he asked... "Yeah, sorry about that," was the reply.

Any suggestions what he could do as his next step to appeal against the decision?

I can see some logic in the bank's stance: it's a robbery; nothing to do with them. On the other hand, if banks wash their hands of the matter in such cases, what message are they sending to potential victims of violent crime? Try to fight off muggers because if they clean out your account, the bank won't help? This is the exact opposite of the advice I've given to both my sons which is that it would be stupid to risk serious harm by trying to fight off someone threatening you with a weapon.

The onus is on the bank to prove the mugging didn't happen.

They can't. Complain. If unsuccessful bring in the FOS.

Silks

Thank you for the informative and helpful responses.

My interest isn't so much the compensation (£200 is a lot for my son - about one-sixth of his take home salary - but not too much in the scheme of things). Rather, I am interested in the limits of the bank's duty to protect our money. Surely they have some role to play in combatting this type of crime? If the incident had not happened so close to home, my son would not have been able to cancel his card before the subsequent attempts at taking cash took place. Those attempts were £200 twice, £300 and £500: would the bank have honoured them even though my son has no record of ever taking out more than £50 in one go..?

I think the first thing is to find out the bank's reason for declining my son's "claim" - no reason was given in the letter; then to check whether they did look at CCTV/screenshots from the ATMs used and what conclusions they drew from that; and finally what their policy is in such matters.

With that information in hand we can decide on our next steps.

Comms69 wrote: »

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!

My son is fully aware that 5 people have been stabbed to death in January alone within a couple of miles radius of where he was accosted. He certainly was intimidated and did exctly what I've always advised him to do in such circumstances. But, as you say, everyone is different and only you can know how you would have reacted.

Comms69

Silks wrote: »

Thank you for the informative and helpful responses.

My interest isn't so much the compensation (£200 is a lot for my son - about one-sixth of his take home salary - but not too much in the scheme of things). Rather, I am interested in the limits of the bank's duty to protect our money. Surely they have some role to play in combatting this type of crime? If the incident had not happened so close to home, my son would not have been able to cancel his card before the subsequent attempts at taking cash took place. Those attempts were £200 twice, £300 and £500: would the bank have honoured them even though my son has no record of ever taking out more than £50 in one go..?

I think the first thing is to find out the bank's reason for declining my son's "claim" - no reason was given in the letter; then to check whether they did look at CCTV/screenshots from the ATMs used and what conclusions they drew from that; and finally what their policy is in such matters.

With that information in hand we can decide on our next steps.



My son is fully aware that 5 people have been stabbed to death in January alone within a couple of miles radius of where he was accosted. He certainly was intimidated and did exctly what I've always advised him to do in such circumstances. But, as you say, everyone is different and only you can know how you would have reacted.

No the first thing to do, is the last thing you want to do: and finally what their policy is in such matters.

Zanderman

I can't see that the bank should be liable. He gave his PIN away, under threat of injury. That's not surprising and is understandable.

But that's nothing to do with the bank.

If it had been, say, his house key that they wanted, and he gave it to them and they entered his house and stole things would that be the lock manufacturer's fault? Would Yale offer him compo?

Or his car key and they stole his car would that be the car maker's fault? Would Ford offer him compo?

A PIN is a key - to unlock the bank account at a cash machine. If taken from someone by force it's nothing to do with the bank.

The bank hasn't been attacked - the transaction they had was technically legit - right PIN number given. It's simply the same as £200 in cash being taken from his wallet.

And they, quite rightly, blocked later attempts to get cash, presumably after your son rang them to report the incident.

Distressing episode, and costly.

But as far as I can see the bank's done what it can. And so did your son - reporting it as soon as possible.

bengal-stripe

Silks wrote: »

If the incident had not happened so close to home, my son would not have been able to cancel his card before the subsequent attempts at taking cash took place. Those attempts were £200 twice, £300 and £500: would the bank have honoured them even though my son has no record of ever taking out more than £50 in one go..?

All banks have daily limits for cash withdrawals in place, which at Santander (for 'ordinary mortals') is set at £300. Unless the withdrawal attempts were before and after midnight, an ATM would not have paid more than that amount.

Biggles

Zanderman wrote: »

Would Yale offer him compo?
Would Ford offer him compo?

Yale have never said they would.
Ford have never said they would.

But the banks have said that and should be held to account.

Kim_13

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. I would have much more sympathy for the boy in this case than anybody who fell for a scam most of which could be avoided by using a bit of common sense! The fact is that these things only happen because the banks are saving huge amounts of money by us all using cards, mobiles and the internet and they know that people's details are going to be criminally used and have contingency funds for these situations.

Absolutely, I would return this lad's money over those falling for unsophisticated scams. The banks don't (yet) have to do this though, which gives less grounds for reimbursement.

One way or another, other customers are likely to end up footing the bill eventually, making it a difficult one.

Certainly worth adding into a complaint how a larger cash withdrawal was not usual activity.

Zanderman

Biggles wrote: »

Yale have never said they would.
Ford have never said they would.

But the banks have said that and should be held to account.

No they haven't.

You suggested:

Biggles wrote: »

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.

That's just a (probably unfounded) hope on your part, not a commitment from the banks. Their commitment is, as you say, to 'certain circumstances'. These are probably not those circumstances.

takman

Silks wrote: »

My 22 year old son got mugged last Friday night walking back home from the tube.

Five youths surrounded him, said they'd got knives and told him to hand over his wallet and phone. They demanded the PIN for his bank card and said one of them would run to an ATM and get cash. If he gave them a wrong number, he'd be sorry. They held onto him and tried to drag him into a dark playground while one of them went off for the cash. A number of people passed by but did nothing. Eventually a couple stopped and started to make a phone call. This spooked the gang and they fled.

My son got home and immediately cancelled the card, telling the bank (Santander) what had happened. He checked his account online and £200 had been taken. Later, while giving a full statement and his crime number to the bank, they revealed that the muggers had made four more attempts to get cash, all of them blocked.

Yesterday he got a letter from Santander saying they would not reimburse him. No reason was given (although the letter did say they hoped he would understand their reasons...) In a follow-up call they said there was no evidence of a mugging (a crime number is not good enough apparently) and my son was at fault for giving out his PIN. "Even at knifepoint?!?," he asked... "Yeah, sorry about that," was the reply.

Any suggestions what he could do as his next step to appeal against the decision?

I can see some logic in the bank's stance: it's a robbery; nothing to do with them. On the other hand, if banks wash their hands of the matter in such cases, what message are they sending to potential victims of violent crime? Try to fight off muggers because if they clean out your account, the bank won't help? This is the exact opposite of the advice I've given to both my sons which is that it would be stupid to risk serious harm by trying to fight off someone threatening you with a weapon.

Can you clarify if he was actually robbed at knife point (as in with a knife pointed at him) or did they just say they had knives and didn't actually show any?.