Debit card fraud query

MalMonroe

funkycredit : although you are saying you are so wealthy you do not even need to check your statements, that way foolishness lies. If you are indeed as rich as you say, then you should have your own financial adviser, or accountant to do that job for you. To not check statements is a very foolish thing. I was the same, though apparently not as wealthy as you but eventually my debts caught up with me. If you really are as you say, VERY wealthy, then I doubt you are as careless with money as you say. In my experience, wealthy people are the ones who actually do keep a check on all their expenditure and income. You could be swindled left, right and centre. But that's your business. After I ended up in terrible debt I realised that I HAD to check all my incomings and outgoings. Paper statements of 5 sheets are nothing! Doesn't take long to check just five sheets. And with online banking, it's even easier to check statements. Being cavalier with cash is, as I know only too well, fatal.

funkycredit

I never once said I was so anything. I'm simply stating just cos I do different to you doesn't make either of us right or wrong. 

My issue was easily resolved. How? Because I retain all correspondence. Much quicker & easier to resolve if and when things do go wrong. 

Get over yourself. 

bigadaj

MalMonroe said:

Citibank certainly has branches in the UK. London (Canary Wharf) and Dublin. There needs to be far more information such as who the money went to, who originally authorised it and why has it been paid for so long?? Obviously the first place to contact is the bank issuing the debit card, wherever it is. Questions need to be asked! I'd lodge a complaint with the bank and then with the payee. This is all very vague, and so it's nigh on impossible to give a sensible answer!

Dublin isnt in the uk,

eskbanker

Brynsam said:

eskbanker said:

Brynsam said:

You'd need to prove it was unauthorised

Not strictly true, the onus is on the bank to prove that it was authorised, rather than on the customer having to prove that it wasn't.

However, a regular £50 per month would suggest a forgotten or inadvertent recurring payment authority rather than a series of genuinely unauthorised low-value transactions that just happen to be the same amount every month - what's the description against these transactions?

 But the bank can still refuse to refund and may well 'win' if, for example, the card holder has failed to take proper care of their card, acted negligently by failing to note and report the transactions (funky credit's overly-complacent post above relates), the unauthorised payment was 13 months+ ago (in which case no compensation would be payable). In this case it sounds like a subscription or similar which hasn't been cancelled - hence the onus being on the account holder to prove it was unauthorised.

It's perhaps semantics, but the onus of proof point I was making was that as a matter of logic a customer can't prove that a transaction was unauthorised (but can assert that it was), whereas the bank has the audit trail and is compelled by the FCA to use it in determining whether a transaction was authorised or not, as explained at https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account (which also encompasses your other points about negligence or delay):

Your bank can generally only refuse a refund for an unauthorised payment if:

• it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password, card or PIN conclusively proves you authorised a payment
• it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently or because you deliberately, or with ‘gross negligence’, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction
• you told your bank about an unauthorised payment 13 months or more after the date it left your account, so make sure you contact the bank as soon as possible.

jet01

My point was that Citi now only provide banking in the UK for high net worth individuals. Yes they have one branch at Canary Wharf, the very location of which shows the kind of clientele they are aimed at, but that doesn’t alter the service they provide. If the OPs friend has a UK based account with Citi then he/she will almost certainly have access to a relationship manager to deal with issues like this on their behalf. Therefore, it struck me as somewhat unlikely that someone in that position would get a friend to start posting messages on MSE to get advice from the likes of us when it would be quite easy for them to get this sorted out quickly by the bank.  Which lead me to believe that this is more likely to be a card linked to an account in a country where Citi provide mainstream banking services. In that context I think that was a valid point to make because if it is an overseas account any advice the OP gets on here will be of limited use as the law/card scheme rules in that territory are likely to be different to those in the UK. 

xlnc99

most important thing we learnt on this thread is that funky credit is loaded $$$$$$