Bank of Scotland poor

[Deleted User]

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

As annoying as it can be when a bank's fraud prevention system kicks in, your anger should not be directed against the bank but against the fraudsters. Presumably you would have been even angrier if a fraudster had managed to get £5K out of your account and BoS had done nothing to stop them.

You are obviously at liberty to cease all your dealings with BoS, and you should do exactly that if this makes you feel better, but be under no illusion that the same thing couldn't happen at any other bank. 

His account is simply a ledger balance on the bank's books. 

The fraudsters would have got 5k from BOS not the OP. If he didn't authorise the transaction  then BOS still owe him 5k.

It is absolutely not a given that any bank will take responsibility for all unauthorised transactions. If it was, it would be a money spinner for fraudsters and their accomplices. If the account holder has been negligent with their login data, for instance, and money gets taken from their account without their authorisation, the account holder will have to shoulder the responsibility.

No, you said that they would stolen the OPs money. This is simply not the case.

Negligence might mitigate the liability of bank to the OP but still doesn't mean they stole 'his' money. 

colsten

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

As annoying as it can be when a bank's fraud prevention system kicks in, your anger should not be directed against the bank but against the fraudsters. Presumably you would have been even angrier if a fraudster had managed to get £5K out of your account and BoS had done nothing to stop them.

You are obviously at liberty to cease all your dealings with BoS, and you should do exactly that if this makes you feel better, but be under no illusion that the same thing couldn't happen at any other bank. 

His account is simply a ledger balance on the bank's books. 

The fraudsters would have got 5k from BOS not the OP. If he didn't authorise the transaction  then BOS still owe him 5k.

It is absolutely not a given that any bank will take responsibility for all unauthorised transactions. If it was, it would be a money spinner for fraudsters and their accomplices. If the account holder has been negligent with their login data, for instance, and money gets taken from their account without their authorisation, the account holder will have to shoulder the responsibility.

No, you said that they would stolen the OPs money. This is simply not the case.

Negligence might mitigate the liability of bank to the OP but still doesn't mean they stole 'his' money. 

You must confuse me with somebody else. I never once said any bank has stolen, or would steel, anyone's money. 

sheramber

I have been reading and rereading to find where you mentioned anything about stealing money.

p3ncilsharpener

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

As annoying as it can be when a bank's fraud prevention system kicks in, your anger should not be directed against the bank but against the fraudsters. Presumably you would have been even angrier if a fraudster had managed to get £5K out of your account and BoS had done nothing to stop them.

You are obviously at liberty to cease all your dealings with BoS, and you should do exactly that if this makes you feel better, but be under no illusion that the same thing couldn't happen at any other bank. 

His account is simply a ledger balance on the bank's books. 

The fraudsters would have got 5k from BOS not the OP. If he didn't authorise the transaction  then BOS still owe him 5k.

It is absolutely not a given that any bank will take responsibility for all unauthorised transactions. If it was, it would be a money spinner for fraudsters and their accomplices. If the account holder has been negligent with their login data, for instance, and money gets taken from their account without their authorisation, the account holder will have to shoulder the responsibility.

No, you said that they would stolen the OPs money. This is simply not the case.

Negligence might mitigate the liability of bank to the OP but still doesn't mean they stole 'his' money. 

You must confuse me with somebody else. I never once said any bank has stolen, or would steel, anyone's money. 

They didn't say you did.

But if the customer isn't footing the bill for the fraud, because they've been reimbursement by the bank, the bank is footing the bill.

And we know they and the shareholders aren't footing the bill so it's the customers who keep themselves safe that pay the price.

colsten

p3ncilsharpener said:

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

Deleted User said:

colsten said:

As annoying as it can be when a bank's fraud prevention system kicks in, your anger should not be directed against the bank but against the fraudsters. Presumably you would have been even angrier if a fraudster had managed to get £5K out of your account and BoS had done nothing to stop them.

You are obviously at liberty to cease all your dealings with BoS, and you should do exactly that if this makes you feel better, but be under no illusion that the same thing couldn't happen at any other bank. 

His account is simply a ledger balance on the bank's books. 

The fraudsters would have got 5k from BOS not the OP. If he didn't authorise the transaction  then BOS still owe him 5k.

It is absolutely not a given that any bank will take responsibility for all unauthorised transactions. If it was, it would be a money spinner for fraudsters and their accomplices. If the account holder has been negligent with their login data, for instance, and money gets taken from their account without their authorisation, the account holder will have to shoulder the responsibility.

No, you said that they would stolen the OPs money. This is simply not the case.

Negligence might mitigate the liability of bank to the OP but still doesn't mean they stole 'his' money. 

You must confuse me with somebody else. I never once said any bank has stolen, or would steel, anyone's money. 

They didn't say you did.

 

Is it the heat, I wonder?

Don80

scotslad said:

Tried to transfer £5k to my new nationwide account. The app blocked it straight away saying they didnt think it was me. I had to call the fraud team. I had to wait nearly 80
mins to get an answer then was given the third degree. Some of the questions were really intrusive. They even asked me if i was lying to them. 

What reason would I have to lie about transfering my money to another account in my name at nationwide.

Am now going to close everything i have with BOS and move the lot.

credit card, current account , house insurance the lot

Shocking way to handle things by BOS

Anyone else had this issue

As others have implied, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.  As frustrating as it is, this is supposed to protect you.  If you look at some of the tactics fraudsters use to coerce people to transfer money it's good that they put these hurdles in the way.  I know someone who fell victim to this kind of scam, her bank (RBS) wasn't quite as thorough as the Bank of Scotland seem to have been with you.  It took her a while to get her money back because from the bank's perspective she had authorised the transaction.  She did get it back in the end but it took her a lot of work.  

maxximus75

Personally, I'd rather a bank ask me some dififcult questions when trying to transfer money (especially for the first time and to an unknown accout) than just letting it go through, without making any checks?