PIN taken a knifepoint

Zanderman

adonis wrote: »

What about carrying a bigger knife than the robbers as an extreme example of how to stop being mugged.

Ah, the Crocodile Dundee solution!

boliston

EachPenny wrote: »

I don't think that would work - the muggers would just get you to confirm the callback enquiry with a knife poking in your ribs. In that situation nobory is going to tell the callback operator that they are being robbed.

Perhaps build in an "alert" word similar to that used by shop staff when they need to alert others of trouble without making it obvious. Once this word is used it could limit withdrawals to a low amount say 20 pounds so the thieves would get a token amount only.

BooJewels

adonis wrote: »

Or maybe the bank could set up a spoof pin so when the robber puts it in it says overdraft limit reached and doesn't give out any money.

I was just coming to post something similar. My husband's staff give hourly security checks using an automated system and have to enter a PIN - if there's a problem, they simply enter it backwards and all of the appropriate alerts go off behind the scenes, without any outward sign to the staff in difficulty.

Maybe on entering something in this manner, it would ensure that the images of the user at the cashpoint would be circulated to local Police in a timely manner. Let them have the dosh so that they're not aware (or something that won't cause retaliation to the card owner). Or maybe, once that's known about, crims will then just reverse any PIN given. This needs further thought . . . .

Sorry to hear about your son's horrible experience Silks, I hope at the very least the bank are co-operating with Police and will help them catch whoever did this. I can see several sides of the arguments about reimbursing him, but they do seem to have handled it pretty insensitively.

agrinnall

BooJewels wrote: »

...reverse any PIN given...

There is already a longstanding urban myth about this for ATM PINs. Sadly it'll never be possible if only because some people have a palindromic PIN that would be exactly the same if entered in reverse (I actually have one myself, albeit on a card that I rarely use).

benjus

Zanderman wrote: »

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.

I got my card cloned and PIN stolen (presumably from a gadget in an ATM or card reader) in Brazil a few years ago. They took about £700 before I realised, and the bank refunded it all. The bank hadn't done anything wrong, I'd just been robbed. The only difference is that the PIN and card were not taken by force. Is that really such a big difference?

benjus

EachPenny wrote: »

If it is established that a victim of a 'stolen' PIN is entitled to an automatic refund then what is to stop people saying they were 'attacked' and told to hand over their card and PIN? The police only have the resources to log a report and issue a crime number, and if there is no CCTV in the area then how can the story be disproved? Fake PIN thefts could become the new way for scammers to steal money from the banks.

What's to stop me saying that a transaction that I made was actually fraudulent? What's to stop me committing insurance fraud? What's to stop me doing any fraudulent or criminal activity that's hard to detect?

Ultimately there's a certain amount of trust involved. If I decided to break that trust and do something fraudulent, I might get away with it for a bit. But if I started to get greedy or careless I'm sure they would be onto me pretty fast.

Zanderman

benjus wrote: »

I got my card cloned and PIN stolen (presumably from a gadget in an ATM or card reader) in Brazil a few years ago. They took about £700 before I realised, and the bank refunded it all. The bank hadn't done anything wrong, I'd just been robbed. The only difference is that the PIN and card were not taken by force. Is that really such a big difference?

Yes.
The bank are responsible for their machine - the ATM that was tampered with and caused your card cloning.
The bank aren't responsible for muggings.

benjus

Zanderman wrote: »

Yes.
The bank are responsible for their machine - the ATM that was tampered with and caused your card cloning.
The bank aren't responsible for muggings.

How is that relevant? The ATM was owned by a different bank in a different continent. And I don't even know that it was an ATM - it could just as easily have been a card reader in a shop or restaurant.

Flobberchops

Sorry to hear about your son.

On balance though I don't the bank is liable for the money - what happened was theft, similar to if your son had been mugged ten seconds after voluntarily withdrawing the money. Just because a crime took place and the bank was party to it doesn't necessarily mean the bank is at fault; the bank's systems were working as intended. And if push came to shove couldn't it be argued that the knifepoint withdrawal was authorised (as evidenced by the PIN being divulged), albeit involuntary?

Your son absolutely is the victim here and deserves to get him money back, but the parties you should be pursuing are the thieves via prosecution and/or any personal items insurance he has in place. Hope you get a favourable outcome whatever happens.

Chrysalis

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Firstly, I have real sympathy for the OP's son - it must have been terribly traumatic and an utterly awful experience. I don't blame OP's son at all for giving out his pin - I would have done the same.

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.

The thing is, my cards got stolen in a burglary and I got reimbursed by barclays for a contactless transaction.

This guy got mugged at knife point massively outnumbered so provided the pin, most sane people would have acted the same.

I dont see any difference between the 2 scenarios.

Ultimately the pin system is not 100% secure its vulnerable to situations like the OP has described and for the same reasons providing the crime is reported in a quick manner transactions should be reimbursed in my opinion.

We employ banks to look after our money, they get perks for doing so, such as been able to invest money held in savings etc., loan it out for profit etc. They also should deal with the downsides which is they are the ones who take the hit when a crime steals some of that money.

My honest opinion is someone at the bank is not convinced its a true story so wont pay out. With the way police treat crime now days, a crime reference number is hardly proof, its very easy to report a crime after the fact.