I’ve been scammed, what to do next?

born_again

colsten said:

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.

Read what I said....

But to make it even clearer.

FD part use HSBC systems, but also have their own main notes system. HSBC staff do not have access to that. So unless the FD staff had put their notes on the HSBC side of the system then the caller would not be aware of it.

pelirocco

sheramber said:

My husband got a message on the answering machine saying it was our bank calling him  about a transaction on his card and asked him to call a number and key in his date of birth.

He was reluctant to do this so called the number on the back of his card.

They confirmed it was correct and as he had not returned the call they had cancelled the card.

It was, in fact a  fraudulent charge for the  purchase of a mobile phone top up, in a store in the north of England but we lived in the far north of Scotland.

He very rarely used the card but had used it in a local shop ,a couple of days prior to that charge. Prior to that he had not used it for months.

While it was very efficient of the bank to spot the charge it seems a very bad practice to query it with a telephone call requesting personal details. 

My son confirmed he had had a similar call and that was how the bank operated.

That was a few years ago so I don't know if they still operate that way.

yes they still operate that way , at least Nat West does . I had a call recently from them about fraud on my account but was wary about giving any details out  so I called them back on the number on the back of my card . It was a genuine call , to be fair I am not sure how else they can alert you to fraud unless they call

colsten

born_again said:

colsten said:

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.

Read what I said....

But to make it even clearer.

FD part use HSBC systems, but also have their own main notes system. HSBC staff do not have access to that. So unless the FD staff had put their notes on the HSBC side of the system then the caller would not be aware of it.

This is all totally irrelevant. No customer should ever be expected to know how a bank organise their support systems (people, procedures and IT systems). FD have no excuses for their abysmal handling of this case.

masonic

born_again said:

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

If that is the case, either someone at FD messed up and recorded the safe word on the wrong system, or the safe word protocol is broken by design. Then we have 2 FD CS reps who could see it and one who could not. What a mess! Perhaps they should do some rudimentary testing before they roll these things out.

masonic

pelirocco said:

sheramber said:

My husband got a message on the answering machine saying it was our bank calling him  about a transaction on his card and asked him to call a number and key in his date of birth.
He was reluctant to do this so called the number on the back of his card.
They confirmed it was correct and as he had not returned the call they had cancelled the card.
It was, in fact a  fraudulent charge for the  purchase of a mobile phone top up, in a store in the north of England but we lived in the far north of Scotland.
He very rarely used the card but had used it in a local shop ,a couple of days prior to that charge. Prior to that he had not used it for months.
While it was very efficient of the bank to spot the charge it seems a very bad practice to query it with a telephone call requesting personal details.
My son confirmed he had had a similar call and that was how the bank operated.
That was a few years ago so I don't know if they still operate that way.

yes they still operate that way , at least Nat West does . I had a call recently from them about fraud on my account but was wary about giving any details out  so I called them back on the number on the back of my card . It was a genuine call , to be fair I am not sure how else they can alert you to fraud unless they call

Asking the customer to call back is the only way if the bank hasn't set up security questions the customer can ask to verify they are speaking to the bank. Banks seem to understand the importance of verifying they are speaking to the right person when the bank is called, and have made provisions for this, but there seems to be a failure to appreciate the importance of allowing the customer to verify they are speaking to the bank when the bank initiates the call. The initiator of the call, whether bank or customer, should always be willing and able to prove they are who they say they are before any sensitive information is disclosed by the recipient of the call.

Windsorcastle

Thank you so much to the several posters who have made constructive comments, it is much appreciated.  I will of course post an update when I have something to report.  Despite everything that has happened thus far, yesterday evening was the THIRD consecutive evening that I had promised a callback from the Fraud team within a 2 hour timeframe, peered at my phone hopefully for the 2 hours, and no call transpired.  Upon phoning the bank, I was apologetically told that the Fraud team had finished work.  I became quite tearful given the continual inertia being shown, and the very sympathetic chap I spoke to went on to find a manager in the Fraud team who was still online - he phoned him to outline my position and the Manager asked him to email him over further details, "to be picked up first thing Monday morning".  The guy I was speaking to typed out the email while I was on the phone to him, and told me he was also copying in an even more senior manager in the Fraud team, in the hope that 2 managers would finally be alerted to the situation.  

I felt slightly relieved that at least this employee had finally shown some gumption and willingness to help, and I can only hope and pray that I do indeed get some meaningful response on Monday.  Needless to say, that still means a long weekend in a very anxious limbo until then.

I was assisted to reactivate my online banking today, and was able to see all the rogue transactions.  All of the fraudulent payments went to a UK bank account (it took me 30 secs to check which bank from the sort code), so I'd like to think there is a clear paper trail for the Fraud team to follow.  A large fraudulent loan was also set up from my own bank and quickly withdrawn - I had laboured under the impression all week that the loan had been laundered from an external source.  I will be interested to know why that in itself did not raise any alerts, given that the fraudster set up, processed and withdrew the loan within the same 25 min window as my Current Account, Savings and ISA were being drained.  

Update to follow next week, thanks again to all who have posted helpful responses on my plight. 

ThisnotThat

WillPS said:

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.

Why can't you accept that A) The OP was wrong to say banks don't have different systems that not everyone has access to and Nobody claimed customers should know that.

I used to have some respect for your rational, level headed posts but I'm beginning to question that.

masonic

ThisnotThat said:

A) The OP was wrong to say banks don't have different systems that not everyone has access to

The OP was told by First Direct that the fraud team would have access to the safe word, so FD were wrong to tell the OP that. This constitutes wrongdoing from FD. Any misunderstandings by the OP flow from that error, although I don't recall reading the statement from the OP to which you refer. The unsuccessful attempts by the fraud team to assist the OP were caused by the same error. As such, the impact on the customer of this error has so far been significant.

Where a financial institution has got something wrong, and that has impacted the customer, then a complaint should naturally follow. The institution would normally welcome this and the opportunity to make amends, as well as the opportunity to improve the experience for future customers in the same position.

ThisnotThat said:

Nobody claimed customers should know that.

It was a valuable contribution from born_again to clarify that there are in fact separate systems, it is HSBC that deals with these matters, and the HSBC fraud team cannot access one system. This has helped to clarify that the wrongdoing lies with the initial FD customer service agents the OP spoke with. This is what you had originally supposed. In the interests of being "a little more understanding of these things", I'd suggest that the that doesn't excuse it and it's not for the customer to know that posts were naturally going to follow a fairly short post giving a reason for the blunder, but leaving the issue of whether that is satisfactory unstated. As you imply, nobody has claimed otherwise, so it seems like there is a consensus.

sheramber

25June   6.54am

The OP said

 To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  

WillPS

sheramber said:

25June   6.54am

The OP said

 To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  

I agree with the OP. It is ludicrous to suggest that the person calling wouldn't have access to the system with the safe word they are adamant the OP should stick to.

That it is true does not make it any more or less ludicrous, and I would suggest the distress caused here gives the OP significant cause for complaint when this is all said and done.

ludicrous is not the same as false