Fraudulent card use - HSBC refusing refund

SnowTiger

mrsjh wrote: »

I know that is how the bank sees it, that is why they've refused the refund and why I posted on this forum in the hope of receiving some useful advice rather than comments implying my husband is a liar. And for those suggesting he may have spent the money enjoying Las Vegas, it was spent in various Walmart & other food stores on the opposite side of the city to where he was attending a series of meetings as part of a conference, all these transactions were signed for not chip & pin. In addition to the store transactions there were 2 cash machine transactions that the bank are saying were chip & pin. If he did go on a whirlwind Walmart spending spree, I didn't notice the spoils in his one carry on bag when he returned the following day!
I really would appreciate useful comments from anyone who has experienced card fraud with cash machine withdrawals, thanks.

You have a tough battle on your hands.

In response to your husband being across the other end of the city from where the transactions were made, the bank may respond that they believe he gave his card (and PIN) to a third party.

Your husband might also be asked why he took a card to Las Vegas that he didn't intend to use; and why his personal card was stolen and not his business card. Were the cards together? If not, where was his personal card kept?

If the transactions pushed your husband's account in to overdraft there may be a very small glimmer of hope: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm.

DavidF

Pins and cards can be copied and cloned. CC security is not as secure as some people seem to think. But all that aside -
Did your hubby get a police report/number or whatever they call it in the us ?
Can your hubby "prove" beyond doubt that he was in a meeting or whatever at the times when the card was used ? Sign in and sign out times in a building for instance ?
Have the wall mart got cctv of the person using the card ?

Giving hubby the benefit of the doubt if he could answer yes to at least a couple of the above points then he may have a chance of getting reimbursed. Frankly you are going to have to provide good solid evidence that your hubby was a genuine victim of fraud.

It's a bad thing to happen but im afraid that the onus will be on your hubby to prove beyond doubt that he is a victim.

Candyapple

1. Was the HSBC card in his wallet along with his Amex card? Were there any other cards in the wallet?

2. How did he lose the card?

3. Did he call HSBC from the US and report it missing or did he want until he was back in the UK?

Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope in your husband getting his money back and may have to chalk this up to experience and don't take cards with you that you aren't going to be using.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2215223/Victim-chip-pin-fraud-Its-YOUR-fault-insist-banks.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/11527993/I-lost-650-because-Tesco-thinks-I-wrote-down-my-Pin.html

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/04/barclays-refuses-refund-stolen-6000-debit-card-lost

Voyager2002

The transactions with signature should be reversible: there are specialist techniques to compare the signatures at Walmart with his usual signature, and they usually work. Not to mention the fact that he can prove that he could not have been in the shops at the time the transactions took place.

As for the cash machine withdrawals: there are techniques to hack cards, and if you have a good search using Google (or even the credit card section of this forum from long ago) you will learn more. See if you can clarify whether the cash machines did indeed use the cards chip, or rely on its magnetic strip, which is of course much less secure.

ywlgy

Banks know easily which card (original chip card or cloned magstripe card) is used for ATM withdrawal. In this case, i believe the bank rejects your claim because they know chip and PIN is used. So the question is how the fraudster knows the PIN after it found the chip card.

This reminds me another story in this forum in which the wife came to find help after her husband's card was 'presumably' fraudulently used in a stripper club. Very similar story.

AllieKat

I find it odd the Walmart transactions were signed for as they have PIN support, that tells me that PIN was bypassed. Do you know if they were chip or magstripe (fallback)? In either case, I think that adds weight to his argument the card was stolen.

Same with the ATM transactions then - did they use the chip or were they magstripe? Was the PIN possibly written on the card (if it was, of course, no protection there) or anything?

I will say I know of at least two people who had money stolen and HSBC got away with not refunding it, so it may just be a lesson about what banks to use going forward...

chattychappy

First of all, with a DEBIT card it is for the bank to prove that you authorised the transaction or that you were grossly negligent - eg by allowing the details to become known to a fraudster or delaying reporting the card lost.

So if a PIN is used, the bank will hold to the position that you MUST have either used the card yourself, authorised someone else to, or were grossly negligent.

For a CREDIT card (or a DEBIT CARD USED WHILST OVERDRAWN), the bank cannot rely on gross negligence. They must prove you authorised the transaction, else they can only hold you responsible for up to £50 and then only if they can prove gross negligence. This is regardless of what the T+Cs say and it does represent an irritating "loophole" for the banks because it isn't as easy to establish cardholder liability.

SO, I would never travel with my debit card unless I have to. In fact, I don't want even want a debit card - it's just I need one to operate my card reader. (I asked Nationwide if I could just have a card to operate the reader, and they said they couldn't do it.)

NOW... take a look at this thread ... http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4041239

1) HSBC debit card
2) Lots of me-too posters blaming the OP
3) Established posters saying "you'll never get your money back"
4) Poor understanding of the law and the way the FOS works

But from post #84, some more useful stuff. For those that don't want to read the thread, look at this link: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-banking-disputed-cash-withdrawals.htm

And guess what? There was a happy ending when HSBC refunded the monies involved.

Every case is different. From my reading of these cases it is standard for banks in the case of ATM withdrawals (or any PIN transaction) to say that the use of the PIN proves conclusively negligence/authorisation. They were even doing it in the case of CCs despite the law not allowing them to rely on negligence. The FOS (if it gets that far) takes all the evidence into account and doesn't always find one way or the other.

Oh.. and by the way. Many years ago I also had HSBC current account. I had ATM withdrawals go through for which I wasn't responsible. Strange thing was the ATM was at my local branch, one that I never used. Turned out to be bank error. (Doubt it would happen these days, but same story. People don't really believe me and neither did the bank at first.)

Good luck.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Shakin_Steve

That second link is very interesting, thank you. I wasn’t aware of the £50 limit on monies owed to the bank, when (and why) did this come about?

[Deleted User]

mrsjh wrote: »

if you can't offer some useful advice please don't comment.

Why does everyone who ever comes on here with a "wild" story say this?

chattychappy

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

That second link is very interesting, thank you. I wasn’t aware of the £50 limit on monies owed to the bank, when (and why) did this come about?

1974 as part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - and the world of plastic we have today was probably never anticipated. A classic example of nobody really noticing what the law meant in a modern context.

I think it "made sense" to people that if they were careless with a credit card then the bank could make them pay. Also the banks created T+Cs to make it look that way. They generally said something to the effect of "once you let us know you'll only be responsible for up to £50" when the true position is that whether you tell them or not, legally you are only responsible for up to £50 and then only if you're grossly negligent. (Of course you are responsible if you are fraudulent or you have authorised someone else to use the card.)

When I lost a card, I was asked by MBNA "is it possible anybody knew your PIN". Of course I answered no, and there was no problem (I later found the card). But paradoxically people might be in a stronger position if they say something like "Well, yes. I have a terrible memory so I wrote the number in my diary and that was with the card. I am terribly stupid. Sorry." If the card is used fraudulently, the bank can't really claim you used when all along it is possible is that somebody got the number. On the other hand, if you swear blind that nobody could have got your PIN and in fact the card does get used with a PIN, the bank could well conclude that you must have used the PIN.

Anyway, as I say:

DEBIT CARD (POSITIVE BALANCE): Authorised transaction OR grossly negligent = cardholder pays

CREDIT CARD or DEBIT CARD (OVERDRAWN): Authorised transaction = cardholder pays. Gross negligence = bank pays.

Onus is on bank to prove cardholder liability.

On the gross negligence issue, see:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

but it won't be relevant to the OP unless her husband was overdrawn (or the transactions created an overdraft).