Suspect credit card transactions

Exodi

TallulahT said:

There are also 2 payments made to Revolut from John Lewis credit card back in April 21 on the same day, one for £169 and one for £856. She wouldn't have bought anything for such a big amount. When we were at hers at the weekend I found a gold coloured metal Revolut credit card, which has only added to the mystery! I've not come across any sort of paperwork regarding Revolut and there are no more charges to any of her accounts from Revolut. Not knowing how they work, I've no idea what's going on, why she made those payments and why she's got this credit card from them (she says she has no idea).

I'm impressed that a 77 year old has seeminly opened a modern app-based bank account... my stepdad of the same age can't even use a mobile or answer his own security questions (and he doesn't have dementia)...

But the fact she has the card and dementia, I think you should probably consider other things before instantly jumping to fraud.

Does anyone else visit your auntie? You see what I'm driving at...

I often help my stepdad with his banking affairs - usually when I call up to sort something out for him, they'll ask to speak to him to confirm that I'm able to speak on his behalf... this usually consists of them asking his full name and date of birth, then passing the phone back (bullet-proof security). You can have your name added to the account to show you're OK to act on their behalf.

Next, I'd try and get access to statements for Revolut - does she have the app on her phone? As she is the 'account owner', she will be able to get statements regardless. You should go through these also.

born_again

brianposter said:

Thanks. It would appear that the time limit is with respect to providing a refund.

I would expect a bank to act on a fraud report whatever the timescale.

Report will be taken but no action taken, other than stopping & replacing card.
 
Not sure what actions people think banks do?

TallulahT

Thanks everyone.

She doesn't live nearby at the moment, so it's not as simple as being able to pop round and check on her phone or call the bank with her being there. We're moving her nearer to us in about 3 weeks time, so will be easier to keep an eye on her then.

We're going over on Sunday, so first thing I'll be doing is checking her phone for the Revolut app.

She's very much not tech savvy at all, and needs help with anything to do with her phone, which makes it even more puzzling how on earth she's managed to get the Revolut card. It has her name on. Can't understand why I've not come across anything else re. Revolut other than a couple of charges on her John Lewis credit card.

Will report back after we've been on Sunday.

born_again

Can she call bank & stop card & ask them to stop these companies in the meantime?

Although if one had triggered fraud & been refunded she should have had a new card. But CPA will transfer to the new card as part of the Visa/Mastercard systems (Account Updater) unless they are marked to stop them.

brianposter

born_again said:

brianposter said:

Thanks. It would appear that the time limit is with respect to providing a refund.

I would expect a bank to act on a fraud report whatever the timescale.

Report will be taken but no action taken, other than stopping & replacing card.
 
Not sure what actions people think banks do?

The bank could easily provide the OP with instructions on how to stop payments to scam sites, and in some cases, instructions on how to recover previous payments.

MalMonroe

Exodi said:

TallulahT said:

There are also 2 payments made to Revolut from John Lewis credit card back in April 21 on the same day, one for £169 and one for £856. She wouldn't have bought anything for such a big amount. When we were at hers at the weekend I found a gold coloured metal Revolut credit card, which has only added to the mystery! I've not come across any sort of paperwork regarding Revolut and there are no more charges to any of her accounts from Revolut. Not knowing how they work, I've no idea what's going on, why she made those payments and why she's got this credit card from them (she says she has no idea).

I'm impressed that a 77 year old has seeminly opened a modern app-based bank account... my stepdad of the same age can't even use a mobile or answer his own security questions (and he doesn't have dementia)...

But the fact she has the card and dementia, I think you should probably consider other things before instantly jumping to fraud.

Does anyone else visit your auntie? You see what I'm driving at...

I often help my stepdad with his banking affairs - usually when I call up to sort something out for him, they'll ask to speak to him to confirm that I'm able to speak on his behalf... this usually consists of them asking his full name and date of birth, then passing the phone back (bullet-proof security). You can have your name added to the account to show you're OK to act on their behalf.

Next, I'd try and get access to statements for Revolut - does she have the app on her phone? As she is the 'account owner', she will be able to get statements regardless. You should go through these also.

Why impressed that someone has opened a modern app based bank account? I'm also in my 70s and becoming more and more frustrated and offended by people thinking (to quote another forumite) that all my marbles suddenly dropped from my brain when I became a pensioner!  All my banking is online, as are most of my other financial transactions. I'm well able to do everything a younger person can do, and then some. I just started my own business too and manage that on my own. Including my own income tax returns and HMRC correspondence.

I have two friends in their 50s who don't have a clue about modern technology and often ask me for help, as well as a relative in their 30s who just doesn't want to know. 

As a savvy senior, I don't think that this - "them asking his full name and date of birth, then passing the phone back" - is bullet-proof security. I know of cases where people suffering from dementia have been coached what to say when prompted by others who also know their full names and dates of birth - and in some cases, their National Insurance numbers. ('When I pass you the phone, you say this') - doesn't mean that the account holder knows why they are being asked to give that information over the phone. Nothing bullet proof there, in my opinion.

But really I want to say please trust that many seniors, as with the younger population, are quite able and capable. Because we are.  

born_again

brianposter said:

born_again said:

brianposter said:

Thanks. It would appear that the time limit is with respect to providing a refund.

I would expect a bank to act on a fraud report whatever the timescale.

Report will be taken but no action taken, other than stopping & replacing card.
 
Not sure what actions people think banks do?

The bank could easily provide the OP with instructions on how to stop payments to scam sites, and in some cases, instructions on how to recover previous payments.

Of course customer would be advised on what can be done to stop future payments. 
As to recovering previous payments. Something that we are advised not to do. As it can leave the bank open to a complaint on bad advice. Have actually known people do this, once they found out that they could not get the money back. As often there is no way to get them back.

Not nice when you try to help someone & it then leads to a complaint for just doing that.

Neither of the above have anything to do with reporting fraud though 👍

eskbanker

eskbanker said:

brianposter said:

born_again said:

There is a time limit of 13 months on reporting fraud/disputes.

Who says there is a time limit ?

The FCA, in the link I posted above....

brianposter said:

Thanks. It would appear that the time limit is with respect to providing a refund.

I would expect a bank to act on a fraud report whatever the timescale.

The terminology often confuses, as there isn't necessarily any fraudulent aspect at all - the customer reports an allegedly unauthorised transaction, which can be caused by a variety of issues (e.g. merchant/bank mistake) that aren't actually fraud as such, or may not even be unauthorised but just unrecognised or forgotten.  In each case, the low-level detailed technical authorisation data (e.g. IP addresses, PIN verification status, CVV usage, etc) held by the bank allows them to ascertain exactly what authorisation happened, if any.

As I understand it, the significance of the 13 months is that banks aren't obliged to retain that level of detailed data beyond that timeframe, so if a customer reports an allegedly unauthorised transaction outside that window, the bank isn't in a position to determine whether or not anything untoward actually happened, so realistically there isn't anything they can do at that stage about the transactions concerned, other than offer generic guidance....

brianposter

What surprises me is that banks do not seem to be overly worried about making payments to accounts which they know to be fraudulent. Do banks not have internal lists of scam accounts ?

eskbanker

brianposter said:

What surprises me is that banks do not seem to be overly worried about making payments to accounts which they know to be fraudulent. Do banks not have internal lists of scam accounts ?

But the point being made is that there's a huge difference between a customer's relative not recognising transactions made on the actual customer's account and genuinely fraudulent transactions being made, so your hypothesis is unlikely apply to the scenario being discussed here IMHO.

If there really were numerous actual fraudulent transactions being made to specific accounts/companies then a bank may be able and willing to act, depending on the weight of evidence and the viability of preventing them, but as seen on other threads about the likes of Deliveroo, the recipient of the funds may not be the fraudster (unlike in APP scams), so it really isn't anything like as simple as maintaining some sort of blacklist in the way you apparently envisage.

Having said that, the banks continue to refine preventive measures (SCA, 3D Secure, etc) and claim to have prevented the equivalent of £6.52 out of every £10 of card fraud attempted in H1 2021.

Anyway, I believe that the issue here is more likely to be CPAs that in themselves are/were valid but where the customer hadn't read enough of the small print to understand what was going to happen.  It could indeed be argued that this constitutes the company 'scamming' the unwary customer but the bank is neither complicit nor liable if the CPAs are compliant with standards, etc.