Santander ruthless attitude. Help!

Ben8282

GrahamJB wrote: »

. Until the police visited me many weeks after the pressure salesman demanded a cheque (and I stupidly wrote it) I didn't know I had been robbed.

So you were waiting patiently for many weeks for the double glazing work to start completely unconcerned by the delay then out of the blue the police just happened to turn up and tell you that you had been robbed. How did they know this?

GrahamJB wrote: »

The police have written to Santander too but have been stonewalled.

Really?

18cc

The Police don't write to banks

System

Thanks everyone who has replied. I don't have a defence for my foolishness. The police alerted me, by the way, as several neighbours had also been scammed and had alerted them. The police were visiting all properties in the known area of theft searching for witnesses and other victims. I was not the only one who, until the point of the police visit, did not know of the fraud. Several arrests have been made although no court case has yet ensued. Other banks although recognising that their customers have been foolish have, none-the-less, reimbursed them and, I think because of this, the police have tried to encourage Santander, in writing, to do the same. If a court case does lead to guilty verdicts being administered, Trading Standards has advised me that I might benefit from the criminal compensation scheme. A long way off though.

EachPenny

GrahamJB wrote: »

Thanks everyone who has replied. I don't have a defence for my foolishness. The police alerted me, by the way, as several neighbours had also been scammed and had alerted them. The police were visiting all properties in the known area of theft searching for witnesses and other victims. I was not the only one who, until the point of the police visit, did not know of the fraud. Several arrests have been made although no court case has yet ensued. Other banks although recognising that their customers have been foolish have, none-the-less, reimbursed them and, I think because of this, the police have tried to encourage Santander, in writing, to do the same. If a court case does lead to guilty verdicts being administered, Trading Standards has advised me that I might benefit from the criminal compensation scheme. A long way off though.

Did the other people also pay by cheque, and were the amounts comparable?

I know it is tough to hear, but if banks refund customers by default then there will be no incentive for people to be more careful about making payments to fraudsters, and there is a risk of people colluding with scammers for financial benefit.

If we arrive in that situation then it would be at the expense of other customers - in just the same way the 'crash for cash' scams sent insurance premiums soaring.

I hope the court proceedings turn out to your benefit.

System

The amounts were, I believe, in the range £2-£6k...and, of course, paid by cheque.
Thanks for your comments.

Does anyone with actual banking experience of Duty of Care have a view, please?

tempus_fugit

I very much doubt that the banks have a duty of care that covers how you choose to spend your money, nor to make sure that the companies that you deal with are genuine. I mean, how could they possibly know for a start who you are going to write cheques to or vet them for their suitability to be paid before sending money to their bank account as you have requested by signing the cheque? There is no such duty of care. Their duty of care only goes so far as looking after your money and providing a secure system in order to do so, and if that security system is breached then you would be duly reimbursed. But they can't with the best will in the world go much beyond that. And personally, I am glad that they don't have to pay put to all customers that just happen to have used poor judgement when handing out their money, and if the police really did write to the bank I consider this to be a considerable waste of the police's time, who should be catching the criminals rather than becoming intermediaries in a customer dispute. Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's my honest opinion.

pphillips

GrahamJB wrote: »

If a court case does lead to guilty verdicts being administered, Trading Standards has advised me that I might benefit from the criminal compensation scheme. A long way off though.

Unfortunately, there is no compensation scheme for victims of non violent crimes. The criminal court may only order the fraudster to pay you compensation is they are convicted of a crime. But as others have said there is nothing to stop you suing the fraudster yourself in the county court, where there is a lower standard of proof.

enthusiasticsaver

There is no duty of care to examine individual expenditure on people's accounts and many would consider it intrusive. Having said that the Santander fraud department are quite good at dealing with strange items appearing on their customers accounts in my experience. We are still not sure if my husbands debit card was cloned but a large item of around £1k appeared on our Santander joint account with eurotunnel narrative on it which we knew nothing about. I rung up, they investigated and said someone had tried to get a further £9000 out on the same card which had been spotted and declined as being outside our normal spending pattern. They refunded £1000 the same day. I guess though the difference between that scenario and yours is we reported a fraud immediately and had signed nothing whereas you signed a cheque authorising withdrawal.

Sadly being old and "poor" does not really mean that you are entitled to be reimbursed from any mistakes you made. I don't really get the poor thing either. Presumably the £3500 was a deposit of some sort or did the conman claim he could do all your double glazing for that in which case presumably you have other savings? If you could not afford to buy it then why sign a cheque?

A hard lesson to learn but due diligence is something we should all do before hand8ng money over to pressure salesman. I cannot see Santander have done anything wrong whereas the conman needs to be strung up.

spenderdave

And perhaps shows the danger in taking deals from random doorstop sellers. I tend to be fairly blunt with them. Thankfully never got into your sort of situation.

Zanderman

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

...I guess though the difference between that scenario and yours is we reported a fraud immediately and had signed nothing whereas you signed a cheque authorising withdrawal....

Precisely.
Fraud recompense after a dodgy debit card transaction is one thing.
But it doesn't (and can't possibly) apply to a cheque, personally authorised by the account holder.
The only recompense possible is from the payee, not from the bank.