Barclays Fraud Help

born_again

Md4751 said:

born_again said:

Md4751 said:

mab3000 said:

Have you got any details about the fraud? 

From the timescales this sounds like it has been raised as a merchant dispute case (where the transaction was authorised but you have an issue with the goods or services) or maybe logged as a fraud claim initially then reclassified as a merchant dispute case. Without knowing the details wouldn’t be possible to say if this is correct or not. 

I didn't make the purchase my card was used to spend £8k within an hour's time frame from binance without my knowledge. Thanks.

So why raise a >>I raised a unauthorised transaction case<< In bank speak that is I do not recognise that transaction. NOT I did not make that transaction...

You should have told them that it was NOT YOU and it is fraud...

That's what I raised it as, raised it as a fraudulent payment and that I don't recognise the payment, they put it as debit card fraud 

So why say "Unauthorised transaction" in the 1st post as that is a totally different reporting.
If you raised it as fraud (I take it that they stopped and replaced your card?) then you should have been refunded the same day. There is no waiting for a merchant to respond in either case. You just get advised that you could be re-debited depending on merchant response.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Md4751 said:

born_again said:

Md4751 said:

mab3000 said:

Have you got any details about the fraud? 

From the timescales this sounds like it has been raised as a merchant dispute case (where the transaction was authorised but you have an issue with the goods or services) or maybe logged as a fraud claim initially then reclassified as a merchant dispute case. Without knowing the details wouldn’t be possible to say if this is correct or not. 

I didn't make the purchase my card was used to spend £8k within an hour's time frame from binance without my knowledge. Thanks.

So why raise a >>I raised a unauthorised transaction case<< In bank speak that is I do not recognise that transaction. NOT I did not make that transaction...

You should have told them that it was NOT YOU and it is fraud...

That's what I raised it as, raised it as a fraudulent payment and that I don't recognise the payment, they put it as debit card fraud 

So why say "Unauthorised transaction" in the 1st post as that is a totally different reporting.
If you raised it as fraud (I take it that they stopped and replaced your card?) then you should have been refunded the same day. There is no waiting for a merchant to respond in either case. You just get advised that you could be re-debited depending on merchant response.

I'm sure there are all sorts of internal processes within banks that customers don't need to know anything about, but my understanding was that reporting a transaction as unauthorised is saying exactly that, i.e. that the transaction definitely happened without the authority of the customer - the FCA article linked in the first reply clearly shows that this is what 'unauthorised transaction' means in the terminology of the regulator and therefore the industry.  Many people do tend to refer to such events as 'fraud' but (certainly at the time of reporting) customers don't actually know enough about what the root cause is to be able to definitively state that, so there shouldn't be a 'fraud' process that differs from 'unauthorised transaction', as far as the reporting customer is concerned.

Presumably there is some alternative type of enquiry along the lines of 'I can't remember what that transaction was, can you remind me of the detail', is that what you're meaning?

mab3000

I agree with what Eskbanker has said in the above post. I cannot see why saying “unauthorised transaction” would mean the bank would raise a case for something other than a fraudulent transaction. 

The bank would likely ask different questions to check that an “unauthorised transaction” is actually fraud, for example, if someone had ordered some herbal medicine at a cheap price, then a month or so later, another payment comes out they aren’t expecting, so the person contacts their bank to say it’s an unauthorised transaction. But they have actually failed to read the terms and conditions saying it’s a subscription service. This wouldn’t be a fraud case. 

Barclays ask “did you authorise or participate in this transaction” when they log a case. Answering no would start a fraud case (which is the likely answer the OP would have given), answering yes would start to raise a merchant dispute case. 

born_again

eskbanker said:

Presumably there is some alternative type of enquiry along the lines of 'I can't remember what that transaction was, can you remind me of the detail', is that what you're meaning?

That would be the process to understand just what the OP is saying at the bank end. As a dispute & fraud are very different processes. Yet both would see the OP refunded straight away. So Barclays have made a major blunder there.
So that is why I find it odd that the Op used the phrase "I raised a unauthorised transaction case" rather than simply say it was fraud in the OP.

Will see if Op responds to the card being replaced. 

eskbanker

born_again said:

eskbanker said:

Presumably there is some alternative type of enquiry along the lines of 'I can't remember what that transaction was, can you remind me of the detail', is that what you're meaning?

That would be the process to understand just what the OP is saying at the bank end. As a dispute & fraud are very different processes. Yet both would see the OP refunded straight away. So Barclays have made a major blunder there.
So that is why I find it odd that the Op used the phrase "I raised a unauthorised transaction case" rather than simply say it was fraud in the OP.

Will see if Op responds to the card being replaced. 

I have to admit I'm struggling to follow what you're saying in your first sentence and your allegation of Barclays blundering, but I don't find it in the least bit odd that OP would use the phrase "I raised a unauthorised transaction case" as that's exactly what I'd expect - as I said, many would no doubt choose to refer to 'fraud' but that's not something definitively known to bank customers at the stage of spotting an unauthorised transaction on their statement, e.g. it could be some sort of error by a merchant or one of the banks, rather than fraud as such.

So, to me it's quite simple, spot an unauthorised transaction on your account and report it to the bank as an unauthorised transaction - it's then up to the bank to investigate whether or not it's actually fraud, the customer shouldn't need to allege fraud as such....

born_again

Unauthorised transaction has 2 clear meanings. Or at least to people that deal with Fraud & Disputes. The art is to find out which they mean.
I did not authorise that payment. eg, Continuous payment (amazon prime etc) but know the company.
or I did not make any transaction to that retailer, or any other retailer of that amount.

As you know from posts here "Fraud" is used all too often, so someone posting "Unauthorised" usually means they know the company, but did not expect the payment to go out.

Barclays blundering is due to them not refunding straight away. As you had already said.

From speaking to thousands of people "Unauthorised" is not a phrase that gets used much. It is always "Fraud"

As far as it goes there is no "Unauthorised" option. It is either "Fraud" or a "Dispute"

eskbanker

born_again said:

Unauthorised transaction has 2 clear meanings. Or at least to people that deal with Fraud & Disputes. The art is to find out which they mean.
I did not authorise that payment. eg, Continuous payment (amazon prime etc) but know the company.
or I did not make any transaction to that retailer, or any other retailer of that amount.

As you know from posts here "Fraud" is used all too often, so someone posting "Unauthorised" usually means they know the company, but did not expect the payment to go out.

Barclays blundering is due to them not refunding straight away. As you had already said.

From speaking to thousands of people "Unauthorised" is not a phrase that gets used much. It is always "Fraud"

As far as it goes there is no "Unauthorised" option. It is either "Fraud" or a "Dispute"

As I said earlier, I appreciate that there will be different internal processes, but from a customer's perspective, there isn't any difference - as the FCA clearly explains, an unauthorised transaction should be reported as such, and it's up to the bank to determine the circumstances and conduct the necessary investigation.  It may be "totally different reporting" from the bank's perspective but not the customer's, unless Barclays perhaps have completely separate entries on their website/app/phone system for 'unauthorised transaction where I deal with the company' and 'unauthorised transaction where I don't deal with the company'?

While it's possible that Barclays have blundered, it also seems entirely plausible that they're not refunding OP because they have reason to believe that OP is complicit in some way, so it doesn't seem to me that anyone can definitively assert that Barclays have got it wrong unless or until we find out more about the detailed circumstances.

brianposter

I can confirm that reporting an unauthorised transaction to Barclaycard seems to cause confusion as they appear to assume that the transaction is not fraudulent.

Md4751

brianposter said:

I can confirm that reporting an unauthorised transaction to Barclaycard seems to cause confusion as they appear to assume that the transaction is not fraudulent.

That's not the issue, they know it was a fraudulent payment and it wasn't me that made the payment (fraud) so if the payment was not authorised my me (unauthorised) it means my card was used without my permission. after 20 days they called and ask further questions such as "did you give your card to anyone" "does anyone else have access to your card" "where did you keep your card" "did someone call you acting like Barclays, royal mail or HMRC" "who lives with you" so I'm pretty sure they know it's a fraud case, it was raised as a Debit card fraud, so unauthorised transaction is not the main reason to confusion, I'm worried it has taken this long, they also mentioned they haven't hard back from the merchant (that's not my fault) I feel like Barclays is treating me unfairly.

mab3000

Md4751 said:

That's not the issue, they know it was a fraudulent payment and it wasn't me that made the payment (fraud) so if the payment was not authorised my me (unauthorised) it means my card was used without my permission. after 20 days they called and ask further questions such as "did you give your card to anyone" "does anyone else have access to your card" "where did you keep your card" "did someone call you acting like Barclays, royal mail or HMRC" "who lives with you" so I'm pretty sure they know it's a fraud case, it was raised as a Debit card fraud, so unauthorised transaction is not the main reason to confusion, I'm worried it has taken this long, they also mentioned they haven't hard back from the merchant (that's not my fault) I feel like Barclays is treating me unfairly.

All these questions are asked when you initially report the fraud. Did they not ask them when you first contacted them?