Suspect credit card transactions

born_again

eskbanker said:

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....

The logic behind the 13 months is that customers are expected to monitor accounts & FCA consider that after 13 months the customer is happy with all transactions. 
Personal responsibility on monitoring of their accounts. 

born_again

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 ?

One person's fraud account is another person's genuine spend. There is no such thing as a fraudulent scam account.

Would it surprise you that there is more fraud to the like of Apple, John Lewis & other large well known companies than companies such as the OP has highlighted.

One year John Lewis reported they had the best Christmas period ever. Well that was due to fraudsters hitting them hard. They had just started their click & collect. But failed to make sure that when someone came to pick up the goods they produced the card used...

Same when some customer do not recognise transaction. There are certain payment processing sites that handle adult related sites. Many of these allow you to search for the payments. Might surprise you to know that the vast majority are genuine, when you see that it is customers email address used. Get some really interesting usernames as well 👀Get some interesting reactions when customers are given this info...

Banks are also limited to a % of transactions made that they can block & are genuine. Overstep this & FCA can fine them. So it is a constantly evolving world on security systems trying to keep you with the new tricks fraudsters come up with. Tempered the the fine like they have to walk.

[Deleted User]

MalMonroe said:

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.  

Please actually read all the posts before jumping onto posts telling everyone you're offended on behalf of someone you have never met based on a single post. OP has made it clear that their mother is not tech savvy THAT is why the comment was made

brianposter

eskbanker said:

  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.

Isn"t this the attitude that created the PPI scandal ?

A quick internet search seems to indicate that the payees mentioned by the OP are in some way different from Deliveroo, and a bank presumably will have previous complaints to guide its actions.

brianposter

The post above should include the following quotation   "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." 

but I cannot work out how to make that happen.

brianposter

born_again said:

 There is no such thing as a fraudulent scam account.

Would it surprise you that there is more fraud to the like of Apple, John Lewis & other large well known companies than companies such as the OP has highlighted.

Perhaps you need to distinguish between "fraud by companies" and "fraud against companies" An inability to distinguish between the two may not go down too well should the day of judgement happen.  

[Deleted User]

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:

  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.

Isn"t this the attitude that created the PPI scandal ?

A quick internet search seems to indicate that the payees mentioned by the OP are in some way different from Deliveroo, and a bank presumably will have previous complaints to guide its actions.

PPI was miss-sold in part, but at the same time, the lenders at the time followed the rules they were required to. PPI complaints came about as a result of the (ludicrous) decision to allow the modern rules to be applied retrospectively like you driving down a road with a 40 limit, where you were doing 40, then the next week the road was changed to 30 and sending you a ticket for speeding.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:

  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.

Isn"t this the attitude that created the PPI scandal ?

A quick internet search seems to indicate that the payees mentioned by the OP are in some way different from Deliveroo, and a bank presumably will have previous complaints to guide its actions.

It's nothing to do with PPI or 'attitude'!  You're still missing the point - in the situation that OP's relative is in, the customer contacts the card company to determine whether or not the transaction was authorised, which is a simple binary yes/no question, without any sort of moral arbitration or judgement involved.

If the customer has authorised a CPA but forgotten about it or was unaware of it then that's a matter solely between the customer and the company, and the card company can hardly be expected to say 'we've had a few forgotten/inadvertent CPAs from that company so we'd better ban them'!

On the other hand, if there was a pattern of actual unauthorised transactions from the same company then that might trigger action, but I don't believe that's the situation here....

born_again

brianposter said:

born_again said:

 There is no such thing as a fraudulent scam account.

Would it surprise you that there is more fraud to the like of Apple, John Lewis & other large well known companies than companies such as the OP has highlighted.

Perhaps you need to distinguish between "fraud by companies" and "fraud against companies" An inability to distinguish between the two may not go down too well should the day of judgement happen.  

As far as banks go. Card Fraud is when a unknown 3rd party has used a customers card details. In far too many years doing this. never come across a case of fraud by a company.

You are missing the point that we do not know if the OP's relative has signed up to anything. I have seen many cases like this, that stem back to either a phone call & agreeing to CPA with them & their partners, or visiting a website that has a tick box that shares info with 32rd parties & also signs you up to a CPA through these. 

brianposter

Deleted_User said:

PPI was miss-sold in part, but at the same time, the lenders at the time followed the rules they were required to. PPI complaints came about as a result of the (ludicrous) decision to allow the modern rules to be applied retrospectively like you driving down a road with a 40 limit, where you were doing 40, then the next week the road was changed to 30 and sending you a ticket for speeding.

Except, of course, that there were no rules, and the banks and insurers simply assumed that they could get away with malpractice (which had from time to time been pointed out to them).

Nothing very different seems to be happening in the case of scam websites.