APP Scam - advise needed on how to get bank to reconsider

njb1001

It is interesting to read how many people seem to think my parent is at fault. I have spoken to other friends and contacts who have given further examples of well-educated, younger people with business acumen who have also fallen to similar scams. The stress that one is under at the time of getting the call can vary - in the CRM code it states that the vulnerability of a person can change. 
I think there are ways to make the banks think about how they approach customers in such situations. I don't want to comment on the exact proposals that I have in mind until our counter-argument has been clarified. Once we have a final decision, I am happy to name the banks involved along with a copy of the complaint that we will lodge. 
Yes, we all have a duty of care for our money, but the banks are making things very easy for predators to attack. 
I find it hard to accept that a victim of crime - with a valid police crime number, is being treated like this. I thought the code was there to help people in such a situation. The bank is playing with words "you have been scammed, he is a fraudster", rather than saying yes we were all culpable. I understand they don't want the loss, but there are at least 3 parties who could share the cost.
I am also shocked that the police are not interested in looking at the computer involved to check if there is any residual trace of the fraudster. My parent feels let down by the whole system and I am now talking them out of putting the remaining money in their mattress - my argument is that the fraudster has their address.....
So now we have someone living in fear, their life has been irrevocably changed. I am looking for ideas on how to help not just my parent, but other people in the same situation.

colsten

You still have not named the bank.

colsten

njb1001 said:

born_again 

Parent complained whilst the scam was in progress. Bank had ample opportunity to trace - and indeed stopped further transactions.

Complained about what, how, and when?

eskbanker

njb1001 said:

It is interesting to read how many people seem to think my parent is at fault.

Of course your parent is at fault here, but the matter at hand is the extent to which it would be reasonable to allocate some of the blame (and more importantly financial liability) to the bank too.

njb1001 said:

I have spoken to other friends and contacts who have given further examples of well-educated, younger people with business acumen who have also fallen to similar scams.

Indeed, it's not just older folk that fall for scams like this, which is why it's impractical to associate vulnerability with age.

njb1001 said:

in the CRM code it states that the vulnerability of a person can change

The code is understandably light on detail as to exactly how it would be reasonable to expect banks to assess that vulnerability, but yes, it is potentially an area worth exploring further when challenging them.

njb1001 said:

I find it hard to accept that a victim of crime - with a valid police crime number, is being treated like this. I thought the code was there to help people in such a situation. The bank is playing with words "you have been scammed, he is a fraudster", rather than saying yes we were all culpable.

The issue is that the victim of the crime is (not unreasonably) seeking ways of passing the cost of that crime onto someone else - the code does afford some protection but it's not a blank cheque.  It still seems to me that the more productive avenue is to challenge the bank on the fundamentals of exactly why they believe they have the right to reject reimbursement, rather than trying to find other ways of throwing mud at them by asserting flaws in their security processes, etc.

njb1001 said:

I understand they don't want the loss, but there are at least 3 parties who could share the cost.

That's not really the point though, is it - it's not about who could share the cost, it's about who is liable for the cost.

njb1001 said:

I am also shocked that the police are not interested in looking at the computer involved to check if there is any residual trace of the fraudster.

I fear your expectations of the police are even higher than of the financial services industry.  Realistically there won't be anything to go on, even if there were sufficient resources available to go after this sort of thing at that level - last year there were well over 100,000 such APP cases, with total financial frauds well into seven figures.

Uxb1

The OP says they do not live in the same country - so I assume abroad rather than merely in Scotland/Wales.....
In the UK such is the level of crime that the reality is that unless it is very serious - and in terms of fraud that means a very large amount of money indeed, the police simply do not have the manpower or the time to investigate.
For example, your house is burgled - just ring the police to get a crime number to pass on to your insurer and that's about all that will happen: its not going to be investigated: - unless what is stolen is very high value.
Proper forensic examinations of computer equipment take up a huge amount of resources to do in a legally watertight manner - to ensure any future defence team cannot claim the hard disk was corrupted or 'modified' by the police.  So unless it is at a seriousness of a rape case, a child !!!!!! case, or stuff where the amounts of money involved attract the attention of the serious fraud office you can forget the police seizing computer equipment as part of any investigation.

eskbanker

The computer angle is a complete red herring to be honest - even if banks or police had the resources and motivation to pursue such cases in detail then they'd follow the money itself, as the accounts to which the money was sent (and where it subsequently went) would be much more indicative than anything left on a victim's computer, and the installation of Teamviewer (by the victim, under instruction) wouldn't yield any clues anyway.

Boa21

Contact one of the newspaper money experts, Guardian money or similar. It's amazing how often press interests triggers a rethink on the part of big institutions!

colsten

Boa21 said:

Contact one of the newspaper money experts, Guardian money or similar. It's amazing how often press interests triggers a rethink on the part of big institutions!

Briiliant idea. In this specific case, it would give the yet unnamed bank a superb opportunity to explain publicly why they have taken the decision they have taken. 

eskbanker

colsten said:

Boa21 said:

Contact one of the newspaper money experts, Guardian money or similar. It's amazing how often press interests triggers a rethink on the part of big institutions!

Briiliant idea. In this specific case, it would give the yet unnamed bank a superb opportunity to explain publicly why they have taken the decision they have taken. 

On the other hand, if the bank does have a justifiable reason for declining to reimburse, the chances of this being shared and published are pretty slim, when these financial journalists pride themselves on fighting the good fight for the plucky consumers against the big bad banks, so stories not supporting this narrative don't tend to be the ones chosen for publication!

colsten

True......