Suspect credit card transactions

brianposter

eskbanker said:

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.

This is where we disagree. If the bank has received 50 complaints concerning the way a particular account operates then it ceases to be a binary question and the bank has a problem.

It appears that the bankers on here think that it is appropriate to ignore the problem - but if I were running a bank it would certainly worry me.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:

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.

This is where we disagree. If the bank has received 50 complaints concerning the way a particular account operates then it ceases to be a binary question and the bank has a problem.

But you're basing your disagreement on a misconception about what's actually happening - the process here is nothing to do with 'banks receiving complaints concerning the way a particular account operates'.

As explained already, customers not recognising transactions aren't making complaints as such, they're just advising the bank that they believe the transactions were unauthorised.

If the transactions genuinely were unauthorised, then that may indeed be justification for a complaint, depending on whether the fault is attributable to the bank (e.g. security breach) or the company (e.g. abusing credit card details), but that's highly unlikely to be the scenario here.  In such circumstances the bank is on the hook to refund the customer if no authorisation was given (unless the customer was complicit or negligent), and too many occurrences would indeed legitimately be a problem for the bank.

However, the situation being discussed here is where a company was authorised to transact, so as far as the bank is concerned there's no complaint that it has any remit or authority to be involved in.  The customer can obviously complain to the company to whom they gave the authorisation, or to Trading Standards, or to any relevant trade association, etc, but the bank has no liability to refund or to take any further action.  By all means you or affected customers can find the tactics of semi-concealed CPAs distasteful or objectionable and to label such companies as 'scammers', but that still doesn't mean that card companies have any requirement or basis on which to take action, so your indignation is targeted in the wrong direction....

brianposter

eskbanker said:
As explained already, customers not recognising transactions aren't making complaints as such, they're just advising the bank that they believe the transactions were unauthorised.

I think I have to laugh.

Do you think that it was errors in the drug cartels paperwork that led to HSBC being fined over £1 billion?

I believe that it was simply that the bank were expected to recognise reality.

[Deleted User]

brianposter said:

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.

So there were no rules but they were getting away with malpractice... Can't be both, either they were following existing rules on selling (which they were, as there were rules) or there were no rules therefore not malpractice.

PPI miss-selling was largely from things like car dealers, store cards etc - dodgy sales people with incentives to push it etc. Bank staff were not on commission and PPI like MPPI was perfectly good, I wonder how many people complaining about it would have liked to have still had it come Covid or 2008 crash!

[Deleted User]

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:
As explained already, customers not recognising transactions aren't making complaints as such, they're just advising the bank that they believe the transactions were unauthorised.

I think I have to laugh.

Do you think that it was errors in the drug cartels paperwork that led to HSBC being fined over £1 billion?

I believe that it was simply that the bank were expected to recognise reality.

It's a laugh to compare corporate malpractice with isolated consumer problems

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

brianposter said:

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.

PPI miss-selling was largely from things like car dealers, store cards etc - dodgy sales people with incentives to push it etc. Bank staff were not on commission and PPI like MPPI was perfectly good, I wonder how many people complaining about it would have liked to have still had it come Covid or 2008 crash!

With commission rates as high as 30% it was a lucrative business opportunity. There's enough sharks in this world who have no hesitation in exploiting them. I know of a number of people who in a short period of time did exceedingly well from retailing the product. 

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

brianposter said:

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.

PPI miss-selling was largely from things like car dealers, store cards etc - dodgy sales people with incentives to push it etc. Bank staff were not on commission and PPI like MPPI was perfectly good, I wonder how many people complaining about it would have liked to have still had it come Covid or 2008 crash!

With commission rates as high as 30% it was a lucrative business opportunity. There's enough sharks in this world who have no hesitation in exploiting them. I know of a number of people who in a short period of time did exceedingly well from retailing the product. 

Commissions could be as high as 50% or more (the argument of the Plevin case) - as I said, dodgy sales people

It's an ongoing myth that bank staff had bonuses/sales targets/commissions for PPI, they were, even in the 80s, far more regulated

brianposter

eskbanker said:However, the situation being discussed here is where a company was authorised to transact, so as far as the bank is concerned there's no complaint that it has any remit or authority to be involved in.  The customer can obviously complain to the company to whom they gave the authorisation, or to Trading Standards, or to any relevant trade association, etc, but the bank has no liability to refund or to take any further action.  By all means you or affected customers can find the tactics of semi-concealed CPAs distasteful or objectionable and to label such companies as 'scammers', but that still doesn't mean that card companies have any requirement or basis on which to take action,

Would it be unreasonable to expect a bank to report the more obvious of such situations to the NCSC (National Cyber Security Centre) ?