bank closed sons account and accused him of fraud

masonic

jonnygee2 wrote: »

How could it backfire?

I thought that would have been obvious. If you submit a complaint to the FOS without being in possession of the facts, then you run the risk of omitting critical details, or portraying the situation in a manner that is not in your interests, and therefore risk the complaint being rejected. At that point your only recourse would be potentially expensive litigation.

optomystic

Butch_Dingle wrote: »

OP,
If you don't mind, can you tell us who your son banked with? From my own experience, some banks are a nightmare to deal with wrt fraudulent/unauthorised transactions (Barclays is the standout candidate IMHO) while some are pretty good such as Nationwide and First Direct.

it was with the santander

EachPenny

jonnygee2 wrote: »

How could it backfire?

masonic wrote: »

I thought that would have been obvious. If you submit a complaint to the FOS without being in possession of the facts, then you run the risk of omitting critical details, or portraying the situation in a manner that is not in your interests, and therefore risk the complaint being rejected. At that point your only recourse would be potentially expensive litigation.

On top of that - and speaking in general terms rather than this having anything to do with the OP's case - if someone were to make a 'youthful mistake' and attempt to fraudulently reclaim money from a bank they might (if exceptionally lucky) get away with having their accounts closed and possibly a CIFAS marker against their name.

If they then went on to make a complaint to the FOS the bank may decide to take a less compassionate approach towards the situation. In some circumstances the FOS complaint might constitute a second count of attempted fraud, and would at least be an aggravating factor in any decision to prosecute.

Exposing the bank to further costs with the FOS complaint and possible reputational harm (i.e. by alleging "a significant failing of this banks anti-fraud procedure") would simply dig the hole deeper.

Therefore not being absolutely certain of the facts before making a complaint to the FOS could backfire very seriously. Get the facts straight first, then consider a complaint to the FOS.

jonnygee2

If you submit a complaint to the FOS without being in possession of the facts, then you run the risk of omitting critical details, or portraying the situation in a manner that is not in your interests, and therefore risk the complaint being rejected. At that point your only recourse would be potentially expensive litigation.

No it wouldn't you have the right to reject the findings of the initial FOS case handler's decision. You are also given plenty of opportunity to discuss misgivings and supply more evidence along the way. It's an interactive process and if they are missing details the case handler will normally request them.

herefore not being absolutely certain of the facts before making a complaint to the FOS

The OP is certain of the facts. The only thing being waited on is a police report.

EachPenny

jonnygee2 wrote: »

The OP is certain of the facts. The only thing being waited on is a police report.

I'm fairly sure the answer is 'no', but just checking, are you the OP's son?

If not, then how do you know this?

The OP's latest post makes it clear:-

optomystic wrote: »

...its so hard for him, and us to understand the whats and whys, because he cant remember, and what he does remember is crucial, especially in regard to the bank transaction, its an awful situation.

How can the OP be certain of the facts if there is a great big gap in the middle of the story? The police investigation will hopefully help to fill some of that gap. Until then the OP would be wise to exercise a bit of caution.... just in case something unexpected comes up.

masonic

jonnygee2 wrote: »

No it wouldn't you have the right to reject the findings of the initial FOS case handler's decision. You are also given plenty of opportunity to discuss misgivings and supply more evidence along the way. It's an interactive process and if they are missing details the case handler will normally request them.

While this is true, if you go in stating certainty about the facts, then start changing some of those 'facts' and having to backpeddle and feign confusion/uncertainty about the events, then it isn't going to do you any favours.

The OP is certain of the facts. The only thing being waited on is a police report.

The OP is not a witness to any of the events. All the OP knows is what the son has told her. There are obviously details unknown to both of them, and could be relevant details known by the son and not yet mentioned. As above, the police investigation may prove enlightening.

robatwork

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46445299

Almost identical story, and refunded. I did recommend going to the papers to embarrass the bank. Although some said this wasn't a great idea, I'm sure if you get Watchdog, MoneyBox, Martin Lewis or even Tony Hetherington or colleagues from a national paper involved, they will refund.

If the story holds water, of course.

EachPenny

robatwork wrote: »

Almost identical story, and refunded. I did recommend going to the papers to embarrass the bank. Although some said this wasn't a great idea, I'm sure if you get Watchdog, MoneyBox, Martin Lewis or even Tony Hetherington or colleagues from a national paper involved, they will refund.

If the story holds water, of course.

There are some possibly very significant differences.

In the reported case the theft was via a stolen debit card used for transactions including "£8,300 in a single transaction at a designer clothing store". I understood in the OP's son's case it was a case of a large sum of money being transferred to a third paty using online/mobile banking. In the reported case it would be simple to ask the store to check the CCTV to see who made the purchase, and the victim may well have been in a different location (e.g. hospital) at the time. In the OP's son's case I would guess there is no CCTV showing whether or not he was involved in authorising the transaction.

A significant passage from the BBC article says "The case raised by Arthur was a complex one and there existed a number of inconsistencies between the version of events presented to us by him and following our own internal investigation." It would appear that the bank failed to properly investigate and allow the victim to account for these inconsistencies. In the OP's son's case, it would appear there might be some apparent inconsistencies which the bank and police are still investigating.

The problem with getting the media involved and having the story splashed all over the news is that if it turns out the story isn't all as it appeared to be then it is too late to have that publicity retracted. If the OP was sure of the facts and no police investigation was ongoing, then going to the media might be a good idea.

However, the media might decline to get involved for fear of prejudicing the police enquiries, and there is an inherent risk if you aren't sure of the facts then alerting the media to the story might result in headlines of a very different kind to those you were hoping for.

Hence the advice to the OP to find out more about where/how the police investigation is going before making a decision on the next move.

pmduk

The essential quote to be taken from that article, which banks always choose to ignore is

It's not for Arthur to prove his innocence - it's for the banks to prove Arthur is in the wrong.

For Arthur, you could insert any victim's name.

pmduk

robatwork wrote: »

I did recommend going to the papers to embarrass the bank.

It seems to be the fastest way to get banks to do the right thing these days, despite the concept of treating customers fairly.