Nationwide, Team Viewer fraud, ombudsman

Shakin_Steve

Jeez, those rules cover just about everything that happens in normal, day to day banking. As I've said before, I can, maybe, understand why banks freeze accounts to protect both the customer and themselves, but the time they take to resolve these issues is outrageous.
Earlier, much earlier, in the thread, I suggested that your story was BS. For this, I apologise profusely.

colsten

Shakin_Steve said:

but the time they take to resolve these issues is outrageous.
.

Sounds like you should offer them Consultancy on how to shorten the resolution time? I reckon they’d be delighted with the efficiency gains, the customers would be much happier, and you could get paid handsomely. Win, win, win 😀

Stenwold

ivanp said:

Nationwide paid out compensation in full last week + 8% interest + additional funds (around 3k) which was stolen in same incident. I took the case to FOS after the bank refused to even consider restoring the funds. The ruling was in my favour. The investigator provided a detailed and nuanced assessment - the fact that nationwide failed to block or request confirmation of the 4 transactions within 30 mins 23.30 Saturday night for 10k total value was given weight. The investigation was done during lockdown (Feb-May this year) and communication was always good and detailed.

The case was helped by providing detailed evidence including bank statements, phone logs, WhatsApp history and very clearly stating what happened and the outcome I was looking for. After the FOS accepted the case, I contacted FOS by phone every two months for an update. As it was advanced fraud they took their time (approx two years) and I eventually raised a service complaint against FOS with intention of getting a decision from the Independent FOS. The case was assigned at the same time so I didn't need to take this further. With some bias due to my family having our savings back, I'm very happy with how FOS handled the case as it was clear that the investigator was very diligent and objective.

Great news, well done!!

All the more satisfying considering some of the posts on this thread! 

kaMelo

SnowTiger said:

kaMelo said:

It's great that you've got your money back but I'm absolutely staggered by it.
I really don't know what Nationwide did wrong or how it was meant to prevent this happening and more to the point, rulings like this simply say to customers you have absolutely no personal responsibility whatsoever and give a green light to  participate in the "scam" knowing they will get it back. 
 I can also see an increased number of Nationwide customers complaining about having genuine payments blocked and accounts on hold.

If the OP could quote the DRN number I too would be interested in reading their reasoning behind the ruling.

I don't think Nationwide did anything wrong.

I think the FOS is of the opinion that customers who have been scammed shouldn't be left out of pocket.  I highlighted this story earlier in the thread.

I wonder what the FOS would make of this case: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175773/bank-fraud-can-anyone-help-me-make-sense-of-this.

Based on what the FOS are saying, the bank will have to repay all monies, with interest, offer a grovelling apology and a substantial goodwill payment too.

Seriously though even the OP thinks he's only getting a partial story. His daughter, through either embarrassment, shame and/or fear of threats seems to be telling enough to keep him of her back rather than going into the full details so it's difficult to know how that would play out.   
 Can the Ombudsman insist of a police report being made or refuse to take the matter further if one is not made?

Back to this thread, no one is upset or annoyed the OP has got their money back, just surprised.
Every single case I've ever read of push payment fraud there has been a point in the process that raised huge red flags, rang bells and blew whistles and this case is no different.
I got my first cash till card back in the early 1980's, the warnings that came with it were;
Ensure no one can see your pin when you enter it into the machine and never share your pin with anyone.  That advice is still given today except it applies in more places than just at a cash machine, it applies at POS terminals and it definitely applies to onlne banking. Using team viewer whilst logging in to online banking is almost like letting someone look over your shoulder at a cash point. I say "almost" as passwords are not displayed in clear text when logging in.

The OP said the money was gone in minutes without their knowledge or participation so logically, following that statement, the scammer must have had everything they needed at hand so let's break this down to the bare minimum. 
Even though the Op talks about passwords when logging in with a debit card and card reader the only other information you required was a username.   A payee would need to be set up and require verification as would the first payment to that payee. Verification was (in 2018 at least) carried out using a debit card and card reader.
For the scam to work the scammer would require the username debit card and pin no. The username could be acquired using team viewer, the password and other information too but it doesn't answer the debit card question. This could not happen without the debit card and pin no and nowhere has the OP indicated the debit card was lost/mislaid/lent/stolen etc. or the PIN was compromised

Knowing all this is why I'm staggered if the Ombudsman found in their favour, hence my interest in reading the decision if the OP would be so kind as to supply the DRN number.
I will repeat what I said earlier, if this is the case then the need for personal responsibility has gone and banks are on the hook for everything. Scammers have no need to come up with sophisticated methods, all they have to do is convince someone be "scammed" complain to the ombudsman knowing they will get it all back from the bank and then split the proceeds.
In a wider context, as banks tighten the security to protect themselves many more innocent people are going to be caught up in their security checks with payments blocked and accounts on hold whilst those checks are carried out.

SpreadableToast

Calling BS on this entire story.  OP has never answered how the fraudsters got the code from the card reader to set up a new payee, and I refuse to believe that the FOS is THAT blind as to give people carte blanche to act like complete morons by letting people take control of their PC, watch them access their online banking AND even pull out their debit card and card reader and happily pass over a code required to set up a new payee?

Pull the other one...

born_again

SnowTiger said:

kaMelo said:

It's great that you've got your money back but I'm absolutely staggered by it.
I really don't know what Nationwide did wrong or how it was meant to prevent this happening and more to the point, rulings like this simply say to customers you have absolutely no personal responsibility whatsoever and give a green light to  participate in the "scam" knowing they will get it back. 
 I can also see an increased number of Nationwide customers complaining about having genuine payments blocked and accounts on hold.

If the OP could quote the DRN number I too would be interested in reading their reasoning behind the ruling.

I don't think Nationwide did anything wrong.

I think the FOS is of the opinion that customers who have been scammed shouldn't be left out of pocket.  I highlighted this story earlier in the thread.

I wonder what the FOS would make of this case: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175773/bank-fraud-can-anyone-help-me-make-sense-of-this.

FOS often take the stance that 2It is a known scam" and as such customer should be refunded.
We had to do it on cases where customers were told a courier was coming to pick up card, they then entered PIN into a reader the courier had to prove it was their card & wham lots of ATM of high value PIN transactions.

As said personal responsibility has long gone. It's a case of banks can afford the loss.

colsten

born_again said:

FOS often take the stance that 2It is a known scam" and as such customer should be refunded.
We had to do it on cases where customers were told a courier was coming to pick up card, they then entered PIN into a reader the courier had to prove it was their card & wham lots of ATM of high value PIN transactions.

As said personal responsibility has long gone. It's a case of banks can afford the loss.

Scammers heaven then.

Not surprising that reports on here about scams are invariably treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.

FloJo12345

Hi Wilburw
My mother has been the victim of APP fraud in 2018.
I wonder if you have the pdf of PSI 17271 as her bank are now refusing to assist in managing the case against the receiving bank  despite the FCA stating they have to.
Clause 2.21 - If a complainant makes a new complaint, or if a PSP is still handling a complaint, on or after 14 December 2018 (relating to an act or omission on or after 13 January 2018), then the PSP must handle the complaint in line with the new rules under DISP.

eskbanker

FloJo12345 said:

Hi Wilburw
My mother has been the victim of APP fraud in 2018.
I wonder if you have the pdf of PSI 17271 as her bank are now refusing to assist in managing the case against the receiving bank  despite the FCA stating they have to.
Clause 2.21 - If a complainant makes a new complaint, or if a PSP is still handling a complaint, on or after 14 December 2018 (relating to an act or omission on or after 13 January 2018), then the PSP must handle the complaint in line with the new rules under DISP.

I don't recall seeing any mention of the BSI PAS 17271 code of practice before but its status is unclear to me, in terms of the extent to which organisations can be sanctioned for failing to follow its recommendations - personally I'd have thought that the final quoted wording above is more pertinent, i.e. rules enforced by the regulator, rather than recommendations put forward by a generic standards organisation.  Did your mother's bank sign up to the BSI code?

Has this case been escalated to FOS yet, surely they'd take an informed position on whether the bank should be expected to assist?

FloJo12345

The bank has signed up to BSI 17271 hence why i need a copy.
It is far too complex a case to go into detail at present.