Victim of romance fraud

Cardriver45

elsien said:

For information, definition of vulnerable with regards to adult social care:

A person is also considered vulnerable if they are unable to look after themselves, protect themselves from harm or exploitation or are unable to report abuse.  

. 

What about the fact she is a widow and was emotionally vulnerable? Could that come under the unable to protect herself from exploitation?

kaMelo

Upon reflection my post came across as a little sharp, I didn't mean it to.
APP is the the term used to describe Advance Push Payments, where you authorise payments to scammers. If the bank feels it let her down then it will reimburse her under the CRM scheme. It's essentially the same thing but not a 100% guarantee, it depends upon exact timelines and specifics of the case, who did what and when.

Health vulnerabilities are not necessarily relevant regarding finances however banks do have schemes in place whereby if you notify them that the account holder has vulnerabilities of any kind they will pay more attention to the account, questioning transactions etc.  Unless they're notified in advance then they cannot make this assumption and will treat them the same as any customer, competent in managing their finances.


I think you need to separate the issues here of which there is essentially three.

Does the bank think they are part of any financial fraud.
Does the police think they are part of any financial fraud.
How much has she lost in this event.


It would appear the answer is no to the first two.  As to the third, put a complaint into the bank keeping to factual information and let them do their thing. I know the emotional side matters to you and her but it's not important in the actual complaint which will be looked at factually.
 At the end, if the funds haven't been returned or is unhappy with anything else they she has the option to take that complaint to the FOS for a ruling.   The outcome of that will depend upon exactly what happened.

elsien

Cardriver45 said:

elsien said:

For information, definition of vulnerable with regards to adult social care:

A person is also considered vulnerable if they are unable to look after themselves, protect themselves from harm or exploitation or are unable to report abuse.  

. 

What about the fact she is a widow and was emotionally vulnerable? Could that come under the unable to protect herself from exploitation?

See my amended post.  Lots of people have lost partners for a variety of reasons which has an emotional impact on them. That doesn't make them vulnerable in the sense that is meant in these circumstances unless there are any other additional factors. 
Very capable people (which it sounds like your mum is) unfortunately end up getting scammed because these people know which buttons to press. 

Cardriver45

kaMelo said:

Upon reflection my post came across as a little sharp, I didn't mean it to.
APP is the the term used to describe Advance Push Payments, where you authorise payments to scammers. If the bank feels it let her down then it will reimburse her under the CRM scheme. It's essentially the same thing but not a 100% guarantee, it depends upon exact timelines and specifics of the case, who did what and when.

Health vulnerabilities are not necessarily relevant regarding finances however banks do have schemes in place whereby if you notify them that the account holder has vulnerabilities of any kind they will pay more attention to the account, questioning transactions etc.  Unless they're notified in advance then they cannot make this assumption and will treat them the same as any customer, competent in managing their finances.


I think you need to separate the issues here of which there is essentially three.

Does the bank think they are part of any financial fraud.
Does the police think they are part of any financial fraud.
How much has she lost in this event.


It would appear the answer is no to the first two.  As to the third, put a complaint into the bank keeping to factual information and let them do their thing. At the end, if the funds haven't been returned they she has the option to take that complaint to the FOS for a ruling.   The outcome of that will depend upon exactly what happened.

Thanks. That's OK no offense taken.

As far as the purchases go they were made by debit card.

kaMelo

Cardriver45 said:

kaMelo said:

Upon reflection my post came across as a little sharp, I didn't mean it to.
APP is the the term used to describe Advance Push Payments, where you authorise payments to scammers. If the bank feels it let her down then it will reimburse her under the CRM scheme. It's essentially the same thing but not a 100% guarantee, it depends upon exact timelines and specifics of the case, who did what and when.

Health vulnerabilities are not necessarily relevant regarding finances however banks do have schemes in place whereby if you notify them that the account holder has vulnerabilities of any kind they will pay more attention to the account, questioning transactions etc.  Unless they're notified in advance then they cannot make this assumption and will treat them the same as any customer, competent in managing their finances.


I think you need to separate the issues here of which there is essentially three.

Does the bank think they are part of any financial fraud.
Does the police think they are part of any financial fraud.
How much has she lost in this event.


It would appear the answer is no to the first two.  As to the third, put a complaint into the bank keeping to factual information and let them do their thing. At the end, if the funds haven't been returned they she has the option to take that complaint to the FOS for a ruling.   The outcome of that will depend upon exactly what happened.

Thanks. That's OK no offense taken.

As far as the purchases go they were made by debit card.

Debit card purchases are not covered under the APP scheme and in all honesty could be difficult to recover as purchases were made from a third party who, rightly, wants paying for their products. 

Your mother is simply going to have to wait for the bank to investigate and see what they come back with.

Zanderman

Cardriver45 said:

kaMelo said:

Upon reflection my post came across as a little sharp, I didn't mean it to.
APP is the the term used to describe Advance Push Payments, where you authorise payments to scammers. If the bank feels it let her down then it will reimburse her under the CRM scheme. It's essentially the same thing but not a 100% guarantee, it depends upon exact timelines and specifics of the case, who did what and when.

Health vulnerabilities are not necessarily relevant regarding finances however banks do have schemes in place whereby if you notify them that the account holder has vulnerabilities of any kind they will pay more attention to the account, questioning transactions etc.  Unless they're notified in advance then they cannot make this assumption and will treat them the same as any customer, competent in managing their finances.


I think you need to separate the issues here of which there is essentially three.

Does the bank think they are part of any financial fraud.
Does the police think they are part of any financial fraud.
How much has she lost in this event.


It would appear the answer is no to the first two.  As to the third, put a complaint into the bank keeping to factual information and let them do their thing. At the end, if the funds haven't been returned they she has the option to take that complaint to the FOS for a ruling.   The outcome of that will depend upon exactly what happened.

Thanks. That's OK no offense taken.

As far as the purchases go they were made by debit card.

As kaMelo says it's seems unlikely the debit card payments could be recovered.  The bank would take the view, arguably perfectly reasonably, that your mother either authorised those purchases (and there's no redress scheme for buying something, it's not really the bank's business what you buy, and anyway the things were bought) or, worse, your mother allowed her card to be used by a third party to buy things (which is strictly against the terms and conditions of every bank account).

That's not what you want to hear I know, but you need to be prepared for disappointment on that front.

There may be more mileage in the wider issues over transfers, which the bank does have some responsibility for policing, but the fact that this went on for some time, and your mother reassured the bank that all was well, may not help.  However, as you point out, it is surprising they didn't ask more questions, and even offered to help facilitate things more, so there may be some better news if they accept fault there.   

sheramber

Not only did the suspect manage to con £4250 out of my mother,

£1500 was a bank transfer. Was the balance the items she bought?

the rest of the money was coming into her account and she was passing it on, so not a loss for her.

born_again

Cardriver45 said:

elsien said:

For information, definition of vulnerable with regards to adult social care:

A person is also considered vulnerable if they are unable to look after themselves, protect themselves from harm or exploitation or are unable to report abuse.  

. 

What about the fact she is a widow and was emotionally vulnerable? Could that come under the unable to protect herself from exploitation?

While the bank should know she was  a widow for her account and being informed of her status. They would have no idea on her being "emotionally vulnerable" unless someone had informed them.

A question. In your Op you mention that your mother had " told them that she had met the suspect". That tends not to fall in the romance scams. As they like to operate without any personal risk. Which could explain why they did not go into full on romance scam questions.

Cardriver45

sheramber said:

Not only did the suspect manage to con £4250 out of my mother,

£1500 was a bank transfer. Was the balance the items she bought?

the rest of the money was coming into her account and she was passing it on, so not a loss for her.

Most of it was cryptocurrency. I think there was around £200-300 that was debit card purchases for gift cards and items that were made from my Mum's money.

Cardriver45

born_again said:

A question. In your Op you mention that your mother had " told them that she had met the suspect". That tends not to fall in the romance scams. As they like to operate without any personal risk. Which could explain why they did not go into full on romance scam questions.

The bank asked how she knew him. She didn't say she had met in person. She just said that they knew each other as they had both lost their partners as far as she can remember what she said.

.