bank closed sons account and accused him of fraud

optomystic

yes hes 18,
you can see why im really struggling as to what to do next,
hes been dealing with the bank by himself, as he wanted to try and sort it out, but hes so naive, and still in shock.
we have been with him to the bank and been on speaker phone to the fraud dept but they just keep insisting that his finger print was used and that makes him at fault,

masonic

optomystic wrote: »

we have been with him to the bank and been on speaker phone to the fraud dept but they just keep insisting that his finger print was used and that makes him at fault,

I agree with xylophone, get a final response from the bank and take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is clear that a fingerprint reader is not sufficient security in and of itself to authorise a new payee and transfer of funds. Apart from your son's predicament, I can think of numerous examples of someone losing money through no fault of their own in this situation:

- A heavy sleeper in a camp site
- Someone who fell ill and lost consciousness in a public place
- Someone whose fingerprint reading device was defective

Most banks require a password to be entered at some stage during the process and this would have prevented the bank's money being stolen.

Your complaint should focus on the fact that your son cannot prevent his finger being placed on the device if he has been drugged. The bank should have had additional security measures in place to confirm he was conscious at the time his finger was used, such as asking for memorable information or a password that he would have had to share with anyone trying to fraudulently transfer funds.

PasturesNew

optomystic wrote: »

... what they would have done to a girl....

Not just girls. About 30 years ago I was parked up in a quiet town,minding my own business. I had an 18 year old male friend who was having a drink down town and he decided to walk up the road to see if our "crowd" were parked up/available for a chat.

En route, he was dragged onto the common by a random pervert in waiting.... after being served and left ... he managed to get it into his head to come looking for "the crowd" again, I was alone/first to see him and had to deal with the aftermath.

It's not pleasant having to knock on the door of an 18 year old's mother's house after midnight to explain that her nice young lad's currently in hospital ... and to let her know I was there to give her a lift to see him....

To be honest, he didn't want his mum to know, he was in bits .... but I took the "I know better than you" stance on that and drove across town to introduce myself to her...

EachPenny

masonic wrote: »

Even if not, it certainly seems wrong for the bank to hold him grossly negligent, which is the requirement not to write off the debt.

In this case they have gone further than that though - they are accusing him of fraud, not just refusing to refund the money.

If the police are investigating this as a criminal act with the OP's son as the victim it is inconceivable that the police haven't been in touch with the bank to gather evidence/verify the story, in which case the bank should never have reached the conclusion that fraud (by the OP's son) was involved - or at least not until the police have completed the investigation.

Something really doesn't sound right.

masonic

EachPenny wrote: »

In this case they have gone further than that though - they are accusing him of fraud, not just refusing to refund the money.

If the police are investigating this as a criminal act with the OP's son as the victim it is inconceivable that the police haven't been in touch with the bank to gather evidence/verify the story, in which case the bank should never have reached the conclusion that fraud (by the OP's son) was involved - or at least not until the police have completed the investigation.

Something really doesn't sound right.

True, I'd overlooked this. Certainly if this was in any way staged, then the impact on him will be much further reaching than having to repay the debt.

Butch_Dingle

masonic wrote: »

Those are both very concerning lapses in security. Fortunately, I don't bank with Santander and First Direct has better security on Android.

The OP's son should have a strong complaint if either of those apps were used for the fraud.

But you have the option of turning off touchID/faceID if you want on the FD app. I would argue its more secure to use biometric methods rather than passcodes/passwords to login into smartphone apps as the the latter can be guessed by any potential thief - especially considering some people are stupid enough to use 1234 or their DoB as passcodes.

Yes, in the case of the OP the victim's finger was used while he was unconscious but if he had not setup touchID, the criminal/thief could have waited for him to wake up and put a gun/knife/weapon to his head and asked him for the phone password. I don't think any sane person would choose their phone over their life.

Oh and i can also setup up new payees in the Lloyds banking app using my faceID on my iphone X so its not just Santander and FirstDirect who operate their iOS apps in this way. I imagine the same also applies to Halifax and BoS iOS apps as they're all part of the same stable.

robatwork

Get your local and national newspapers involved. This is a "juicy" story, and as long as it makes sense this may put pressure on the bank to recant.

18cc

I have set up my (Samsung Galaxy android) phone specifically to stop anything like this happening.

My phone can be unlocked using fingerprint or PIN. Fingerprint is convenient for quick access and day-to-day use

However, my banking apps are installed in the Secure Folder, which has fingerprint access turned off and a different PIN to my unlock PIN.

masonic

Butch_Dingle wrote: »

But you have the option of turning off touchID/faceID if you want on the FD app. I would argue its more secure to use biometric methods rather than passcodes/passwords to login into smartphone apps as the the latter can be guessed by any potential thief - especially considering some people are stupid enough to use 1234 or their DoB as passcodes.

Clearly the ideal solution is to use both, as some apps do. Require the fingerprint to log in and ask for 'something you know' when performing a sensitive action such as setting up a new payment.

Yes, in the case of the OP the victim's finger was used while he was unconscious but if he had not setup touchID, the criminal/thief could have waited for him to wake up and put a gun/knife/weapon to his head and asked him for the phone password. I don't think any sane person would choose their phone over their life.

It takes a different sort of person to carry out this kind of violent crime, and people can behave quite unpredictably when threatened in this manner.

Oh and i can also setup up new payees in the Lloyds banking app using my faceID on my iphone X so its not just Santander and FirstDirect who operate their iOS apps in this way. I imagine the same also applies to Halifax and BoS iOS apps as they're all part of the same stable.

Halifax asks for a password when setting up a payment on Android when fingerprint login is enabled. Perhaps the weak link here is iOS.

masonic

18cc wrote: »

However, my banking apps are installed in the Secure Folder, which has fingerprint access turned off and a different PIN to my unlock PIN.

This is a nice tip, I wasn't aware such a thing was possible.