Scammed

naedanger

MattMattMattUK said:

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The banks were not "bailed out", the British government loaned money and bought shares, it has made a profit on the project, there was no cost to the taxpayer. Meanwhile requiring banks to hand people money for transactions that those customers authorised increases the cost of banking for the general public. 

The government loaned them money and bought shares on non commercial terms, which is a bail out. Furthermore the economy has been run for years, with huge amounts of quantitative easing, at a huge cost to the general economy to help dig the economy out of the absolute mess the greed and/or ignorance and/or incompetence of the banks have caused.

Of course the banks and their lobbying groups are trying to rewrite history.

kaMelo

naedanger said:

MattMattMattUK said:

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The banks were not "bailed out", the British government loaned money and bought shares, it has made a profit on the project, there was no cost to the taxpayer. Meanwhile requiring banks to hand people money for transactions that those customers authorised increases the cost of banking for the general public. 

The government loaned them money and bought shares on non commercial terms, which is a bail out. Furthermore the economy has been run for years, with huge amounts of quantitative easing, at a huge cost to the general economy to help dig the economy out of the absolute mess the greed and/or ignorance and/or incompetence of the banks have caused.

Of course the banks and their lobbying groups are trying to rewrite history.

Bailed out, shares bought or whatever is not what actually matters. The important information is the British Government made clear they were not prepared to let them fail and in doing so it made borrowing from other sources relatively cheap, hence why Barclays whined about being penalised despite not receiving any state help, though of course what they did do was questionable to say the least.
What they and all the other banks seemed to miss is their ability to borrow what only because of the Government support, if at any time the Government made clear they would let banks fail then their ability to borrow from third parties would at best have been at credit card levels of interest.

Despite that we are talking about two separate issues here.  In my opinion the banks, or more accurately their shareholders and former/current board executives, haven't suffered the pain they should have.
That however is completely separate to whether banks should also be a nursemaid for people who fail to take sufficient care and no responsibility being applied to them for that lack of care. The consequence being a slower, more hindered banking process and paid for by everyone.

naedanger

kaMelo said:

naedanger said:

MattMattMattUK said:

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The banks were not "bailed out", the British government loaned money and bought shares, it has made a profit on the project, there was no cost to the taxpayer. Meanwhile requiring banks to hand people money for transactions that those customers authorised increases the cost of banking for the general public. 

The government loaned them money and bought shares on non commercial terms, which is a bail out. Furthermore the economy has been run for years, with huge amounts of quantitative easing, at a huge cost to the general economy to help dig the economy out of the absolute mess the greed and/or ignorance and/or incompetence of the banks have caused.

Of course the banks and their lobbying groups are trying to rewrite history.

Bailed out, shares bought or whatever is not what actually matters. The important information is the British Government made clear they were not prepared to let them fail and in doing so it made borrowing from other sources relatively cheap, hence why Barclays whined about being penalised despite not receiving any state help, though of course what they did do was questionable to say the least.
What they and all the other banks seemed to miss is their ability to borrow what only because of the Government support, if at any time the Government made clear they would let banks fail then their ability to borrow from third parties would at best have been at credit card levels of interest.

Despite that we are talking about two separate issues here.  In my opinion the banks, or more accurately their shareholders and former/current board executives, haven't suffered the pain they should have.
That however is completely separate to whether banks should also be a nursemaid for people who fail to take sufficient care and no responsibility being applied to them for that lack of care. The consequence being a slower, more hindered banking process and paid for by everyone.

Yes, I agree. And I forgot about the explicit debt guarantees, which even though not called upon would have cost any other business very signficantly. 

I also agree the banks bail out is separate matter from the regulatory requirements placed on banks to help prevent fraud. But I think it a bit rich for the banks or their apologists to complain about the costs of having to compensate customers when they themselves have benefited far more significantly from bail-outs.

Where I think we disagree is that I am content that banks should have a responsibility to help prevent customers being defrauded. And this is after having experienced the inconvenience of the extra checks that the banks are now having to take. I am not saying having an alternative view is wrong, just my vote would be for a system along the lines of the one we have.

Jeremy535897

Whilst I understand the comments about the banks being nursemaids, I have to confess that I do not look forward to the time when my faculties start to fail in this digital world. My grandmother was conned into selling things from her home, after she had been widowed and was starting to suffer from dementia (not that anyone understood these things so well fifty years ago). How much easier it is to rob the vulnerable online.

sheramber

And when banks try to help by stopping transfers people get annoyed.

They are damned if they do and damned of they don't.

naedanger

sheramber said:

And when banks try to help by stopping transfers people get annoyed.

They are damned if they do and damned of they don't.

A common situation in many jobs.

GeordieGeorge

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The “bail outs” were to protect customers, not the banks.

Nowadays banks are pretty much expected to hand their profits back to their most feckless customers to avoid the state being seen to be carrying them.

It’s a sad state of affairs.

[Deleted User]

GeordieGeorge said:

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The “bail outs” were to protect customers, not the banks.

Nowadays banks are pretty much expected to hand their profits back to their most feckless customers to avoid the state being seen to be carrying them.

It’s a sad state of affairs.

The banks that required bailing out had been reckless, hence why they needed bailing out. The bail outs benefited the banks not the tax payer. When we have a system where the banks take the upside and the tax payer takes the downside something has gone terribly wrong. 

The UK should have done what Iceland did and let the reckless banks fail and thrown the senior executives complicit in the bank failures in jail. 

CKhalvashi

GeordieGeorge said:

tacpot12 said:

Sorry lolls79. You should report the scam to ActionFraud, but they will not do anything about it. I'm afraid you are not going to be able to get this money back. 

I would suggest that you write to your MP because the banking system could be changed to avoid this - the problem is with overseas payments - once the money goes off shore the trail is lost. If the money has to remain on shore for 90 days there would be time for your fraud to be reported to your bank, the money traced and recovered. Evidence would be needed as to the source of money that was being sent off shore it it were to leave earlier than 90 days. I would also make it a rule that you can only send half of the money in the account, and the other half is locked up for 90 days in case the money sent abroad was stolen. These ideas would have a massive impact on international trade, but it would also create opportunities for banks to sell services to avoid the impacts while still protecting consumers.

You’re suggesting a 90 day holding period to send money out of the UK? That’s ludicrous. I pay money overseas all the time, why should the state impose controls on that?

Completely agree, lets propose keeping 15-20 months of profit in an account to get those I need to pay paid, having been closed for most of the last year (with company accounts constantly running close to 0 at the moment and the worry of getting everyone paid most months).

Absolutely ridiculous proposal.

CKhalvashi

sheramber said:

And when banks try to help by stopping transfers people get annoyed.

They are damned if they do and damned of they don't.

Being annoyed by banks refusing to transfer ones money to oneself is completely ridiculous (yes, I've had this one transferring money to another account held in my name, they did put this right very quickly without cause for complaint).

Lover_of_Lycra said:

GeordieGeorge said:

naedanger said:

GeordieGeorge said:

MalMonroe said:

Lolls79 said:

Looking for some advice. I've recently been a victim of a HMRC scam and they have taken from me over £8000. My bank can't refund any of the monies, so now im left gutted and heartbroken. Does anyone know or tjar could advise where I can seek advice next in relation to getting this money back. 

Why can't your bank refund any of the monies? How did the scammers get your money? There's some information from this very site in a link here -

The bank can’t refund it as the bank doesn’t have it.

They may be required to pay out themselves, unfortunately, as the regulator further infantilisés customers.

Nothing compared to the bank bail outs. 

The “bail outs” were to protect customers, not the banks.

Nowadays banks are pretty much expected to hand their profits back to their most feckless customers to avoid the state being seen to be carrying them.

It’s a sad state of affairs.

The banks that required bailing out had been reckless, hence why they needed bailing out. The bail outs benefited the banks not the tax payer. When we have a system where the banks take the upside and the tax payer takes the downside something has gone terribly wrong. 

The UK should have done what Iceland did and let the reckless banks fail and thrown the senior executives complicit in the bank failures in jail. 

Which likely would have cost more than an effective bailout.

I do think the bailout should have been on commercial terms, at share price minus around 10% following the bank asking the commercial markets for the cash, but the system wasn't designed to deal with a total collapse.

The British taxpayer bailed out Iceland following their deliberate and reckless actions in failing to regulate their financial institutions, that was the unacceptable part of this to me.