We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
General Discussion and Whimsical Banter
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] said: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.
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.
2 -
masonic said: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.3
-
masonic said:[Deleted User] said: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.
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.0 -
[Deleted User] said:masonic said:[Deleted User] said: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.
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.4 -
Yes, it was in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that this was considerably strengthened across the EU. You might remember it being adjusted downward and then back up due to exchange rate fluctuations. When we left the EU, it was just left where it was. Fortunately the UK has enjoyed equal protection for savings and investments, whereas elsewhere in the EU protection was much lower for investments.
2 -
slinger2 said:[Deleted User] said:masonic said:[Deleted User] said: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.
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.0 -
Barkin said:Barkin said:Yup, app showing 4.65% for me too.
Was showing 4.4% some time last week.
I no longer check the forums as regularly as I used to. If you wish to catch my attention please remember to tag me (@ircE) so I get a notification.0 -
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.
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.
https://www.psr.org.uk/media/as3a0xan/sr1-consumer-standard-of-caution-guidance-dec-2023.pdf
Although Confirmation of Payee isn't explicitly mentioned there, my expectation would be that if a customer chooses to ignore a CoP name mismatch warning, then the bank isn't obliged to reimburse, as this would be considered a sufficiently specific warning, rather than a generic boilerplate one.
The fact that the receiving bank will be expected to fund half of the money is also a safeguard against collusion, as is the police reporting provision, i.e. 'if you're hoping for a refund, this needs to be reported to the police for investigation'.3 -
Received a letter from Bath BS today who are introducing Confirmation of Payee on the 31st October. Almost feel sorry for them given how much paperwork they send me for the £1 I've got with them.
I no longer check the forums as regularly as I used to. If you wish to catch my attention please remember to tag me (@ircE) so I get a notification.3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards