Scammed....

masonic

lardellion said:

General_Grant said:

DireEmblem said:

I'm sorry, but maybe there needs to be a compus mentas test for people of a certain age, or if you havent setup or initiated a new transfer in a while, a text back asking if you are aware what it is for and is it valid?

What "certain age" would you suggest?
How does that relate to your present age - younger, older, the same?

Should they also be tested on spelling of Latin phrases?

Surely phone scams will tend to work much more often on older customers, as a group, because they are more likely to have dementia and/or not know anything about how online banking works. That makes sense to me. How would you deal with phone scammer elder abuse?

Although based on US data, it would be well worth giving this a read: https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/you-may-be-surprised-whos-getting-scammed-the-most/

As one might expect, different types of scam are most effective against different age groups, but all age groups are falling victim to scams with younger people being more susceptible in general. So I don't think any age group needs singling out. Frankly, there are plenty of mugs throughout the population.

Edit: Some UK data - https://www.insider.co.uk/news/millennials-scammed-more-any-age-19163603

ANGLICANPAT

I tried  messaging HSBC  from our account 48 hrs ahead to say Id be moving removing 9k to elsewhere in the next  few days and they still queried it on the day , holding it up all day  as  they couldnt get hold of me  till late. It could have gone FP in the morning. 

NottinghamKnight

ANGLICANPAT said:

I tried  messaging HSBC  from our account 48 hrs ahead to say Id be moving removing 9k to elsewhere in the next  few days and they still queried it on the day , holding it up all day  as  they couldnt get hold of me  till late. It could have gone FP in the morning. 

HSBC are slow and quite old fashioned, add onto that they fines they've had for inadequate money laundering systems and they appear more likely to black and delay payments than many other banks.

Ciprico

Just to conclude this thread...
Whether for right of wrong, First Direct did refund the total loss from the push payment scam
...and we have invested in a "TrueCall" box which will  intercept all calls except those with whitelisted numbers to hopefully prevent this or similar from happening again.
If banks are forced (or morally obliged) to repay the fraud, hopefully they will be motivated to prevent unusual payments to unusual destinations from happening in the first place...
I hope this thread can help someone else in a similar predicament...

masonic

123mat123 said:

Just to conclude this thread...
Whether for right of wrong, First Direct did refund the total loss from the push payment scam
...and we have invested in a "TrueCall" box which will  intercept all calls except those with whitelisted numbers to hopefully prevent this or similar from happening again.
If banks are forced (or morally obliged) to repay the fraud, hopefully they will be motivated to prevent unusual payments to unusual destinations from happening in the first place...
I hope this thread can help someone else in a similar predicament...

Hopefully others can learn from this thread, but if banks are motivated to block payments they consider unusual, they must be forced (or morally obliged) to pay any consequential losses anyone suffers if their genuine payment is blocked in error.

MarkCarnage

The only time I've been asked by my bank to verify was for a card payment for £14.36 to Zoom to set up a monthly account.....hardly a large amount, or indeed an 'unusual' transaction in these times. I received a text from an unidentified number asking me to reply to confirm if it was ok. I called the bank as I had no idea who the number was , waited 10 minutes then went online and asked them to verify if it was them....they said, we can't tell you as our systems are running slow.....

I have made transfers for tens of thousands before without them batting an eyelid....time to get a new algorithm guys..

Ciprico

Compare the inconvenience
today to your future self (or your parents) being scammed for your/their life's savings.....

naedanger

masonic said:

123mat123 said:

Just to conclude this thread...
Whether for right of wrong, First Direct did refund the total loss from the push payment scam
...and we have invested in a "TrueCall" box which will  intercept all calls except those with whitelisted numbers to hopefully prevent this or similar from happening again.
If banks are forced (or morally obliged) to repay the fraud, hopefully they will be motivated to prevent unusual payments to unusual destinations from happening in the first place...
I hope this thread can help someone else in a similar predicament...

Hopefully others can learn from this thread, but if banks are motivated to block payments they consider unusual, they must be forced (or morally obliged) to pay any consequential losses anyone suffers if their genuine payment is blocked in error.

I have had payments that were legitimate blocked by the bank, although I suffered no losses. Now if I was planning to make an unusal payment that was time critical I would try to get it cleared in advance. (Though I am not sure this is possible.) I also now value having a local branch that I can visit in person to say here I am, with proof of my identity, ask me whatever security questions you wish but make this payment without delay or be liable for any consequential losses.

While I generally agree with what you say, I suspect the bank would not be liable even if the payment was genuine if they had reasonable grounds to be concerned e.g. if they were unable to contact the person (in the case of online payments), or the police advised them not to pay (in the case of branch transactions).  

masonic

naedanger said:

While I generally agree with what you say, I suspect the bank would not be liable even if the payment was genuine if they had reasonable grounds to be concerned e.g. if they were unable to contact the person (in the case of online payments), or the police advised them not to pay (in the case of branch transactions). 

This is the problem, and why banks should never be given the power to dictate what a customer may or may not lawfully do with their money. I have no problem with suspicious payments being held until the customer can be contacted and warned, or if the police or another authority instructs them to freeze the account or payments. That is what happens currently. My issue is with the notion that a bank could overrule the customer after speaking with them to avoid the liability associated with a fraud.

I have no faith in bank employees to know what is a genuine payment and what is not - based on my own experience of perfectly legitimate payments being stopped. Fortunately I had the right to insist they let those payments through at my own risk.

If there really is a market for bank accounts where the bank has the final say on what its customers do with their money, then that should be offered as a separate product, not imposed on everyone.

masonic

123mat123 said:

Compare the inconvenience
today to your future self (or your parents) being scammed for your/their life's savings.....

Should we all move into care homes today in case we should need to in the future?