Scam cleaned out my bank account

zxspeccy

This is such a shame, having worked for a bank for 25 years they will do their best to recover as much money as possible, although professional scammer would move the money on quickly to avoid any clawback from the bank. However it is unlikely the bank will just refund over £10,000 for something that they would consdider is not their fault.

I am a little cofused about is how the scammers manage to withdraw that much money without any problems. If I so much try and transfer £5 to a new payee through my online banking I have to verify with my card and card reader. Also when making larger payments (even to my own accounts at other banks) the money is kept on hold, and I either have to verify through my mobile or call my bank to confirm the payment is genuine (after going through a lot of security questions).

So maybe there is some grounds for claiming the bank are at fault, not for allowing the scammers to access the account (as this is not their fault), but more for allowing the scammers to transfer such a large sum of money out so quickly and without questioning it.

It is just a case of sitting tight and see what the bank's internal investigation comes out with.

pd1000

I think the money was taken out in £800 tranches. Even more bizarre. My son didn't authorise that. 

Eyeful

Olinda99 said:

Banks should really introduce a rule that you have to wait 24 hours before being able to make a payment of over (say) £500 to a newly set up payee.

What makes you think that this would cut down much on the scams. 
Scammers would think up ways to get around your idea.
 
As an alternative idea. The bank receiving the stolen money, is made to pay any stolen money back to the rightful owners. If there is not enough money in the scammers account, then the money comes from the reduced salary & bonuses of the CEO and directors of that bank. The money must not come by reducing interest rates of the savers. Nor from reduced share holders dividend.
 
The scammers will not have a way to get around that idea.   

[Deleted User]

That is really annoying. The scammers are more relentless now. Hopefully the bank will help out and perhaps reducing the amount to say max £500 per day for example. 

theGrinch

It would be interesting to know which bank the funds where transferred to as scammers tend to favour certain non mainstream organisations. Some of these should be black listed with a history of dubious transactions.

It might be worth pursuing it on that basis which puts the onus on the host bank NOT to transfer fund. I have heard of one such case being overturned but they had to fight it albeit it was done within 30-days.

waveydavey48

I seem to remember decades ago the banks said that increasing computerisation would lead to better service and much lower charges. The reality is that the banks themselves benefitted from reduced costs but didn't pass that on to customers. I think that as they are the ones that derived the benefit they should pick up any adverse consequences and in awful circumstances such as this the banks should be the ones to lose out, not the unfortunate, and in this case vulnerable customer.    

peter021072

lisyloo said:

Olinda99 said:

Banks should really introduce a rule that you have to wait 24 hours before being able to make a payment of over (say) £500 to a newly set up payee.

Please don't make things even more difficult for normal people, because of a minority who can't handle their responsibilities (which perhaps they shouldn't have in the first place).

I need to use my card and PIN and a card reader to set up a new payee on my bank.
I then get a text immediately.

Whatever systems you put in place, people still have to take personal responsibility for not giving out the details.
If they aren't capable because of a condition then perhaps they should have been given more help or less responsibility.

There's no reason why they can't introduce such a system as a default. If people then wish to have faster payments they need to  declare themselves as being free of any mental disability such as.......(Asperger's) which could make themselves susceptible to scams. This would at least absolve the institution of any responsibility. 

dekaspace1

My bank has had that for years, at least online in that you can only send £500 to one person in a single transaction in one day, but you can send more in branch but any transactions over £1000 cash or transfer must have a passport/driving license.

Also I have aspergers I don't like the word "mental disability" its more a "difficulty" as people with it can he highly intelligent even far more so than a regular person but get confused easily.

I remember a few years ago when I was pestered into spending about £300 by someone in a shopping centre who blocked me off and was told it was my fault and if I was that bad I shouldn't be allowed to handle money!

Adyinvestment

It seems that a lot of the posts are trying to blame the bank, when they don't seem to actually have done anything wrong (assuming that the correct procedures were followed)

I have sympathy with the OP but can't see why a business should have to refund a customer who has quite clearly made the mistake.

Perhaps if the customer had made the bank aware at the time of opening the account that they would like extra security to be put in place, and the bank did not apply this the bank would be at fault.

ZeroSum

Another who keeps a silly amount in a current account missing out on interest & putting themselves at greater risk from scammers, gets scammed.

Also If you only keep limited funds in current accounts, scammers tens not to be interested as less to scam