I’ve been scammed, what to do next?

colsten

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

To clarify - yes, it was the bank who raised the issue of a safe word, insisted upon it and repeatedly warned me not to speak to the caller if they did not provide it.  It is supposedly one of their security protocols, and yet THEY breached it.  To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  I feel I am perfectly justified in raising a formal complaint, given the incompetence and the fact that the fraud happened on Tuesday and I am still waiting for a meaningful contact from the bank as to what steps they’ve taken to retrieve my money.  

It's not ludicruous. I've worked for a bank.  Not every department has access to every system, or every part of each system.

It is indeed ludicrous, as it is not for the customer to understand the internals of a bank. Those bank employees who deal with customers can without a shadow of a doubt be expected to be in possession of all the relevant information, regardless of how they obtained such information.

In this particular case, a customer was advised that they should only accept calls from bank employees who know the agreed password. A bank employee, allegedly from the Fraud Dept, then proceeded by making a call to the customer without knowing of the password, or even the existence of the password. That is ludicrous. As is any attempt to defend the bank for this ludicrous failure.

GeordieGeorge

Windsorcastle said:

You are upset that they didn’t manage to follow their own protocol properly yet this whole issue came up because you didn’t do things right either.

Would a bit of give and take not be appropriate here rather than talk of the ombudsman and asking for transcripts if calls?

Even if you want to hold them to a higher standard that you hold yourself there’ll be some discretion when it comes down to who gets refunded and you’re running the risk of having your request put into the “do not compensate” pile.

I think I am entitled to be upset that the bank - having told me that I had been foolish during a very credible scam call, to give personal information that "we would never ask for" etc, when in fact I now have irrefutable proof that they do not adhere to their own security protocols.   How can they accuse a customer of stupidity when they blatantly disregard the very security protocols THEY have insisted on. As a further update - I rang them again this morning to request a specific timeframe for the callback from the Fraud team and guess what?  Was told YET  AGAIN that no safe word has been recorded.  It's beyond beliefe.  I'm now waiting again for a call from Customer Relations to explain what the hell is going on.  I think you'd be upset too at this point.

I’d not be upset, no, I’d be mortified at what I’d done and be exceptionally grateful that my bank, who were not in any way to blame, were trying to help, even though they were not doing a great job of it.

I’m sure you’re doing what you think is best though, it just comes across as a bit much.

ThisnotThat

colsten said:

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

To clarify - yes, it was the bank who raised the issue of a safe word, insisted upon it and repeatedly warned me not to speak to the caller if they did not provide it.  It is supposedly one of their security protocols, and yet THEY breached it.  To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  I feel I am perfectly justified in raising a formal complaint, given the incompetence and the fact that the fraud happened on Tuesday and I am still waiting for a meaningful contact from the bank as to what steps they’ve taken to retrieve my money.  

It's not ludicruous. I've worked for a bank.  Not every department has access to every system, or every part of each system.

It is indeed ludicrous, as it is not for the customer to understand the internals of a bank. Those bank employees who deal with customers can without a shadow of a doubt be expected to be in possession of all the relevant information, regardless of how they obtained such information.

In this particular case, a customer was advised that they should only accept calls from bank employees who know the agreed password. A bank employee, allegedly from the Fraud Dept, then proceeded by making a call to the customer without knowing of the password, or even the existence of the password. That is ludicrous. As is any attempt to defend the bank for this ludicrous failure.

That has nothing to do with my reply.  OP said it was ludicrous to suggest that one department might have access to a system that another doesn't have access to.  It is not ludicrous to suggest that, because it happens all the time, and not just with banks.

I never said that the customer should have been aware of it.

colsten

GeordieGeorge said:

Windsorcastle said:

You are upset that they didn’t manage to follow their own protocol properly yet this whole issue came up because you didn’t do things right either.

Would a bit of give and take not be appropriate here rather than talk of the ombudsman and asking for transcripts if calls?

Even if you want to hold them to a higher standard that you hold yourself there’ll be some discretion when it comes down to who gets refunded and you’re running the risk of having your request put into the “do not compensate” pile.

I think I am entitled to be upset that the bank - having told me that I had been foolish during a very credible scam call, to give personal information that "we would never ask for" etc, when in fact I now have irrefutable proof that they do not adhere to their own security protocols.   How can they accuse a customer of stupidity when they blatantly disregard the very security protocols THEY have insisted on. As a further update - I rang them again this morning to request a specific timeframe for the callback from the Fraud team and guess what?  Was told YET  AGAIN that no safe word has been recorded.  It's beyond beliefe.  I'm now waiting again for a call from Customer Relations to explain what the hell is going on.  I think you'd be upset too at this point.

I’d not be upset, no, I’d be mortified at what I’d done and be exceptionally grateful that my bank, who were not in any way to blame, were trying to help, even though they were not doing a great job of it.

I’m sure you’re doing what you think is best though, it just comes across as a bit much.

The fact that the OP should not have fallen for the scam in the first instance is neither here nor there. He has, and he has acknowledged that he shouldn't have.

Nobody has blamed FD for the scam. It is, however, totally ok to blame FD for shoddy customer service in this instance as it is simply not on that FD advises that a password must be used to discuss matters on a specific account, and then at the next contact with the customer not use, and not know of, the password.

To attack the OP about his displeasure of how this was handled, or to threaten his case could be  put into the “do not compensate” pile" as you suggested earlier, is really a new low. Luckily, if such attitudes existed in FD, there is the FOS who I am sure would take a dim view of the procedural failures in FD. But I think so will the FD complaints department, so it's unlikely to get to the FOS.

Cash-Strapped.T32

ThisnotThat said:

colsten said:

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

To clarify - yes, it was the bank who raised the issue of a safe word, insisted upon it and repeatedly warned me not to speak to the caller if they did not provide it.  It is supposedly one of their security protocols, and yet THEY breached it.  To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  I feel I am perfectly justified in raising a formal complaint, given the incompetence and the fact that the fraud happened on Tuesday and I am still waiting for a meaningful contact from the bank as to what steps they’ve taken to retrieve my money.  

It's not ludicruous. I've worked for a bank.  Not every department has access to every system, or every part of each system.

It is indeed ludicrous, as it is not for the customer to understand the internals of a bank. Those bank employees who deal with customers can without a shadow of a doubt be expected to be in possession of all the relevant information, regardless of how they obtained such information.

In this particular case, a customer was advised that they should only accept calls from bank employees who know the agreed password. A bank employee, allegedly from the Fraud Dept, then proceeded by making a call to the customer without knowing of the password, or even the existence of the password. That is ludicrous. As is any attempt to defend the bank for this ludicrous failure.

That has nothing to do with my reply.  OP said it was ludicrous to suggest that one department might have access to a system that another doesn't have access to.  It is not ludicrous to suggest that, because it happens all the time, and not just with banks.

I never said that the customer should have been aware of it.

Seems rather to make a mockery of even having a "safe word" if there's even a possibility that the CS chap calling the customer doesn't know about it. Does more harm than not having such a procedure, so ludicrous seems like an appropriate description? 

GrumpyDil

I work in IT in the finance area. Yes we have multiple systems and not all users have access to all systems as they do not have a need to but.

If a safe word has been agreed to be used for security purposes then I would expect that safe word to be available for the staff, both complaints and customer facing to be able to see it. 

Customers should be able to rely on what they have been told will happen and certainly not worry about whether or not the person calling them has access to any the safe word.

born_again

App scam through FD are dealt with by HSBC. they do not have access to FD main system.

WillPS

born_again said:

App scam through FD are dealt with by HSBC. they do not have access to FD main system.

The in's and out's of a banks internal systems are no concern of the customer's. What matters is they were told to stick to this 'safe word' only for the call to come and there be no record of a safe word.

It is incompetence on the part of the organisation.

soulsaver

There's a lot of it about.. probably be a lot less if banks stopped compensating for it.

colsten

born_again said:

App scam through FD are dealt with by HSBC. they do not have access to FD main system.

So you are trying to suggest that the folks who investigate app scams on a customer's account don't have access to that customer's account?

Must try harder.