I’ve been scammed, what to do next?

masonic

sheramber said:

25June   6.54am

The OP said

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

Yes, that's probably it. FWIW, my interpretation of that comment differed from its literal meaning - I don't think it was intended to accuse anyone offering such an explanation of being ludicrous - rather, what's ludicrous is that something like that could be the cause of the failed call and subsequent (at the time ongoing) confusion by the bank. Though I can see how it could be taken to mean something else.

robatwork

ThisnotThat said:

tempus_fugit said:

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

masonic said:

The Ombudsman won't be able to take up your complaint until First Direct have had a chance to resolve it and either given you their final response or 8 weeks have elapsed.

Very poor show regarding the safe word. There will no doubt be recordings of your prior calls.

Thank you, good to know.  I’m completely shocked about the safe word.  I did point out to them that all calls are recorded so I will certainly be asking for copies/transcripts in due course, if necessary.  

Not every employee has access to every system.  It's possible that there was a note set up to ask for a safe word on the CS side of things, but not on the Fraud department side.  It's incompetence, yes, but you need to be a little more understanding of these things

In most cases, yes, but in this case I think it was gross incompetence. It sounds like it was the bank that first raised the fact that a safeword would be used, so you'd think that CS and the fraud dept would be on the same page. The fact that they were not, and in a case that involves a breach of security, just seems ridiculous to me, and this is, presumably, First Direct, who are supposed to have a good reputation for customer service. it's not very reassuring that the banks, who lecture us (and rightly so) on security can't follow the same rules themselves. If THEY are calling YOU, then THEY should prove who they are and not the other way round. None of this is looking particularly good for the bank at all.

You might think that but it's not necessarily true.  What two departments have access to is not always the same.

It's probably poor training on the CS side, rather than the fraud side.  And I agree that the OP has been messed around, but understanding, rather than aggression is what is needed here.  It will get sorted out a lot more easily if the OP approaches them without accusations of wrongdoing.  Mistakes happen.

This kind of limp excuse has been trotted out by the banks for many years. It's frankly pisspoor. I wonder if you work in IT for this bank. 

I had similar way back in the 1980s with my first bank account with the Midland. They one day magically removed my overdraft and started charging me for every transaction. Following a complaint I always remember their "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing" excuse. It didn't wash then and it certainly doesn't wash now 30 years later. Why wouldn't the OP accuse them of wrongdoing when they have done wrong?

It's a mistake yes, but a real doozy. 

Windsorcastle

***UPDATE***  I can finally update to say that, after some considerable correspondence, FD have refunded me the money stolen from my account, although 3 weeks on, I am still waiting for them to wipe out the loan, which I keep being told will happen imminently.  So obviously I am very relieved.  However, I am sure that there are many vulnerable customers falling victim to APP scams, who do not have the same ability to argue their case, and will not be getting refunded.  

Thanks again SO MUCH to everyone who responded to my plight with helpful and constructive comments/advice.  It is very much appreciated.