General Discussion and Whimsical Banter

mebu60

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

masonic

It feels like the losses in excess of £85k should be subject to the same temporary high balance protection criteria as the FSCS employ. Thinking particularly of diverted payments to solicitors for a house purchase.

InvesterJones

masonic said:

It feels like the losses in excess of £85k should be subject to the same temporary high balance protection criteria as the FSCS employ.

When would a fraud loss be temporary?

Edit: you mean the level of the temporary high balance, of course, sorry. Fair point.

ircE

Cambridge BS Your Saver. I noted last month the rate on this account dropped from 4.65% to 4.40%. I've just noticed the rate shows as 4.65% again in the app and online after logging in. Is this the same for anyone else? I assume it's an error as the rate still shows as 4.40% on their web site for new account openers.

Barkin

Yup, app showing 4.65% for me too.

Was showing 4.4% some time last week. 

Beddie

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

pecunianonolet

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

masonic

I'd have thought fraudsters would generally try to keep a low profile and focus on defrauding hapless consumers. It would be very brazen to attempt to defraud the bank itself using an account provided by that bank.

If we're talking people of ordinarily good character allowing themselves to be defrauded for a cut of the proceeds, then they'd be taking on a lot of risk by working with a fraudster. What do they think will happen after they move the money... Perhaps this will be a new type of scam. "Send us some money, you can claim it back from your bank, then we'll split what we get with you 50:50, honest!"

If we're talking two people of ordinarily good character who can trust each other, coming up with a cunning plan, then it is unlikely they will know enough to stay out of prison.

I wonder if, in any of these cases, the money transferred would be considered proceeds of crime and forfeit along with the refund if paid. It would be rather painful to get an 18 month sentence and lose the £50k you were hoping to double.

pecunianonolet

masonic said:

I'd have thought fraudsters would generally try to keep a low profile and focus on defrauding hapless consumers. It would be very brazen to attempt to defraud the bank itself using an account provided by that bank.

If we're talking people of ordinarily good character allowing themselves to be defrauded for a cut of the proceeds, then they'd be taking on a lot of risk by working with a fraudster. What do they think will happen after they move the money... Perhaps this will be a new type of scam. "Send us some money, you can claim it back from your bank, then we'll split what we get with you 50:50, honest!"

If we're talking two people of ordinarily good character who can trust each other, coming up with a cunning plan, then it is unlikely they will know enough to stay out of prison.

I wonder if, in any of these cases, the money transferred would be considered proceeds of crime and forfeit along with the refund if paid. It would be rather painful to get an 18 month sentence and lose the £50k you were hoping to double.

Fully agree! Fraudsters found the most obscure ways in the past to lure people into their traps to line their pockets. Generally a good thing to protect people but in todays time everything is about security and taking away any responsibility from the "victims" and moving it to the institutions. A lot of scams could be prevented if people would use common sense and think about what they are attempting to do or being asked to do. Of course, everyone can fall for a scam as many are very sophisticated.

It's almost like I crash my car into someone else because I was on my phone and not paid attention and than accuse the car manufacturer why they not put some security feature into my car preventing me from using the phone. First, I am not supposed to use the phone and everyone knows that and secondly, that's what generally speaking I have a car insurance for. 

If somebody calls me out of the blue telling me my bank account has been hacked and I need to send them the funds to take care of them and I'll do that. Sorry, but in that case I don't deserve better and should not be refunded because of my own stupidity (exceptions of course always exist).

[Deleted User]

pecunianonolet said:

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

How did they come up with 85k anyway? Such a (seemingly) random figure.