Starling Bank Security

[Deleted User]

I must say I'm glad so many people find this story amusing. Apparently drugging and robbing a bloke is acceptable behaviour.

[Deleted User]

Really? I went to Auschwitz in the day and stayed in Krakow. No need for yiur sarcastic response

Zanderman

Deleted_User wrote: »

I must say I was expecting a more grown up response on MSE website. The abuse is uncalled for. I paid for a round of drinks on card and I'm guessing that's how they got my pin.
I mean !!!!!! I know Auschwitz is not in Krakow but my hotel Was, was this really that big an assumption to follow through with?
My argument is that 5 other financial institutions are involved and they all either stopped the payments or have refunded. Starling are stating that chip and pin is too secure that it couldn't be fraud despite bring able to prove that I wasn't in the club at the time of some of the transactions.
As for the drugs I was either unconscious or severely incapacitated

I appreciate that some responses are not, um, entirely sympathetic. Or don't come across as such anyway. Such is the nature of forums, and especially in response to complex problems.

The difficulty some may be having is understanding what happened.

If you bought drinks on your Starling card and they got your pin that way and defrauded you that way, where do the other 5 financial institutions come into this? Surely you weren't using 6 different accounts to buy things that evening? You only mention one other person being involved. Surely you weren't using 3 accounts each?

So, unless you and your friend also used several other banks, the attempted fraud with those other banks won't be the same - as those cards weren't, presumably, actively used at the time so pins weren't available to the fraudsters?

Not trying to be difficult here, just not clear whether your view that Starling's response is unfair is actually a fair assessment. Were all the other bank accounts compromised the same way? If not then their differing responses are to be expected.

Westie983

Hi,

Just a few questions for you, you mention that there were multiple transactions taken from your card of various amounts.

How was these authorised? especially the larger amounts of £950 for example?

do you have your starling app on your phone? Did you not get the alerts each time your account was debited? Did you have the physical card with you which you lost? or are we talking about apple pay via your phone.

Did you have your wallet with you with other bank cards with you? how were they able to access your Barclays account? Was your friend also drugged and intoxicated for his card to be used to?

Hopefully with these answers myself and other forum member will be able to help you out further and try to make more sense of what happened, atm its a little confusing and something are not making sense.

Westie983

Jon357

K80_Black wrote: »

You went to Krakow, to visit Auschwitz, which isn't in Krakow, it's in Oswiecim. This is the first of many things that seems a little strange.

Doubt the OP will be back to answer questions and explain though.

Not so strange. Most visitors to the memorial at Auschwitz stay in Krak!w. The town of Oświęcim is small and not many people want to hang around there.

I agree there are other strange things though, like the amounts of money.

Krak!w is by the way notorious for things like this. And the police are very little use for a reason you might guess.

WillPS

Jon357 wrote: »

Not so strange. Most visitors to the memorial at Auschwitz stay in Krak!w. The town of Oświęcim is small and not many people want to hang around there.

I agree there are other strange things though, like the amounts of money.

Krak!w is by the way notorious for things like this. And the police are very little use for a reason you might guess.

Probably wasn't worth dragging up a thread that had been dead for 6 months to add that.

[Deleted User]

I know this is an old post now but I wanted to add a reply in the hope that other users will get a less judgemental response when they ask for advice or try to warn others.

There are lots of details I didn't give in the original post as it is a long and complex story.
Some details that I would like to add.
Following the event I instantly logged a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman. Because of their backlog of work they did not start looking at the case until July 2019.
It took them less than a week to rule in my favour (obviously i provided them all the evidence that i have left out of the original post).
Starling then appealed the Ombudsman decision.
The Ombudsman reaffirmed their judgement in my favour and added compensation.
2 months later they have still not paid.

So i guess my reason for posting is to redeem myself a little, hopefully most of you can accept that I wasnt just "off my tits" as one poster said. I was a victim and the ombudsman agrees.
And secondly to warn people that the Ombudsman seem to be completely toothless. They ruled in my favour 2 months ago and now Starling are ignoring them. Note that they are not appealing further, they are literally ignoring the demand to pay me.

And a final note to those who ridiculed and abused me. Thank you for paying your taxes, that money is now being used treating me for PTSD and depression. Please think before you post online.

colsten

Thanks for coming back with an update. What are your next steps now to bring the matter to a close?

NB. Have you got a link to your case on the FOS site, please?

[Deleted User]

I've sent a plea to the FOS to expedite along with a note from my GP.
I've emailed Anne Boden CEO of Starling to try to get her to push this through.

I'm not aware of the case being available online, I've been corresponding via email. If you point me in the right direction I can try to dig it up. I'm getting pretty desperate to close this out as its been a 15 month fight so far

eskbanker

Deleted_User wrote: »

And secondly to warn people that the Ombudsman seem to be completely toothless. They ruled in my favour 2 months ago and now Starling are ignoring them. Note that they are not appealing further, they are literally ignoring the demand to pay me.

Regulated businesses are legally obliged to abide by Financial Ombudsman decisions, but as seen in the current political sphere, it's one thing for something to be legally mandated and it's another for it to actually happen.

The relevant obligation is covered at https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/3/7.html:

3.7.12 A respondent must comply promptly with:

(1) any award or direction made by the Ombudsman; and
(2) any settlement which it agrees at an earlier stage of the procedures.

However, the next section highlights that FOS itself isn't the enforcement authority and that the consumer has to do the legwork via the courts:

3.7.13 Under the Act, a complainant can enforce through the courts a money award registered by the Ombudsman or a direction made by the Ombudsman.

There used to be more info about this published on the old FOS decisions site, but this no longer appears to be reproduced following its consolidation into the main FOS site - it was referred to in a very long-running thread where TSB didn't abide by an FOS adjudication:

masonic wrote: »

Sell your story to the media

But seriously, non-compliance with the decision is unlawful and a breach of their regulatory requirements. I'd expect the FOS to report non-compliance to the FCA and request them to take enforcement action against TSB. You would also be able to have the decision enforced in court as the link below outlines:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/final_decision.pdf
"but what if a business is just refusing to comply?
It is very rare that a business won’t do what an ombudsman tells them – once we have reminded them about the legal requirement to comply. But in cases where this happens – and although it isn’t our role to enforce the law – Parliament strengthened the power of ombudsman decisions in two ways. First, businesses that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) – which are automatically covered by the ombudsman service – are required to cooperate with us. This includes complying with our ombudsmen’s decisions. Second, Parliament made ombudsman decisions “legally enforceable” in court – which means that consumers have the back-up of the law to support decisions the ombudsman has made in their favour."

If you were to suggest to the FOS you'd be interested in taking this to court, they may be able to add court costs to the decision.

Failing that, perhaps contact your local MP and see if it can be raised in Parliament.