Sainsburys Bank ATM Faulty or Cash Trapping Scam

MrFrugalFever

born_again said:

MrFrugalFever said:

Nationwide have very little to do with this scenario, I am struggling to think of a specific situation whereby they would be from the information the OP has provided. 
Perhaps, had the ATM failed to connect to the OP's bank account or a technical glitch had occurred whereby the OP had been charged for the withdrawal without physically receiving the money then Nationwide would have an involvement.

The issue is with the ATM itself (tampered with) and the Sainsbury's store in which it is situated and therefore the OP's efforts (with regards to the complaint) should be directed at Sainsbury's. It is the responsibility of Sainsbury's staff to refill the ATM's with cash and check for any obvious issues along with trying to fix any issues with a 'self-help' guide. Anything beyond this and an ATM engineer is required. Downtime for an ATM results in loss of income to the store.

Store staff have nothing to do with the ATM. Anything related to ATM is handled by 3rd party security company who fill & audit.

ATM's are part of Sainsburys bank, not Sainsburys stores. So no income is lost at the store. ATM being down might actually increase store income if people go in for cashback, as requires a purchase 👍

Sorry to correct you but having inside knowledge in the past of their processes, I am well versed in how their ATM operations take place. If you are referring to Loomis who handle the delivery of money to stores then they are not allowed in to the actual cash office - they can go through the first security door and then will pass the money through to the colleague via a hatch next to the second security door from their maglock security alarmed and sealed briefcase of cash.

MrFrugalFever

I will make one final comment on here as it seems to be going round in circles.

The OP has done the correct thing by raising the query/complaint to both the Sainsbury's store management and Nationwide. 

The Sainsbury's store management will have a clear process to follow if a customer is to come in to the store and complain that they have withdrawn funds which have not been dispensed. The process would involve the store cash office colleague(s) checking and balancing the ATM, which can be easily done on the computer system that sits on the back of the ATM (they use this to input values of cash filled in to the £5/£10/£20 cash bins). If the CCTV proved no cash was dispensed and ATM was to be found in balance error by the claimed £70 then it would be down to the store managements discretion to provide goodwill to the customer for that amount. It would also be down to the store management and cash office colleague to investigate WHY that machine had not dispensed the cash.

Cash is physically delivered to a store, stored in a safe and then placed in to denominated cassettes by a cash office colleague who then tells the ATM how much cash has gone in to the machine. The ATM is 'taken offline' for this duration and will often say 'Temporarily unavailable' or 'out of service' on the external customer facing screen. 

When Sainsbury's Bank was operated by Lloyds Bank, there were rebates to the stores themselves for 'uptime' of the ATM and any significant 'downtime' would result in a deduction of rebates, this, as far as i'm aware, is still the case of Sainsburys Bank (wholly owned by Sainsbury's). If a fault cannot be rectified by the cash office colleague following the ATM fault finding guides provided then an engineer is called and the ATM remains 'out of service' until such time as the engineer attends. 

There is CCTV everywhere in the office, double locked security doors and a passing hatch for the money delivery personnel (who carry the money in locked briefcases and wear time sensitive security alarms) to pass it through to the cash office staff.

In the OP's instance, it would be at the discretion of the store management to provide Goodwill (note not a refund) of the £70. Should the OP get £70 back from Nationwide as a result of the complaint then....so be it. But the OP should not be out of pocket for an alleged mistake by the ATM system due to either a technical error or a fraudulent device, which Sainsbury's have a duty of care to spot, remove and report.

djh

Many thanks for the comprehensive post Mr FF .

I will not repost myself until I get a resolution or a significant development occurs. 

eskbanker

brianposter said:

Institutional stupidity is obviously a hot topic at the moment and this appears to be an example. There is no reason why the complaint should be about Nationwide as they have manifestly not failed in any way.

And if the banks have set up a particular method of resolving a complaint it is they, not the customer, that should follow the process. The FOS should certainly not be fobbing people off with nonsense such as "you don't meet the definition of an eligible complainant".

Regardless of your opinion about how stupid you think it is, the fact remains that the definition of an eligible complainant is set by the FCA, who have determined that individuals can only legitimately complain to institutions of which they're a customer, and FOS are legally obliged (by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) to follow that definition:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/7.html
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/part/XVI

sheramber

MrFrugalFever said:

I will make one final comment on here as it seems to be going round in circles.

The OP has done the correct thing by raising the query/complaint to both the Sainsbury's store management and Nationwide. 

The Sainsbury's store management will have a clear process to follow if a customer is to come in to the store and complain that they have withdrawn funds which have not been dispensed. The process would involve the store cash office colleague(s) checking and balancing the ATM, which can be easily done on the computer system that sits on the back of the ATM (they use this to input values of cash filled in to the £5/£10/£20 cash bins). If the CCTV proved no cash was dispensed and ATM was to be found in balance error by the claimed £70 then it would be down to the store managements discretion to provide goodwill to the customer for that amount. It would also be down to the store management and cash office colleague to investigate WHY that machine had not dispensed the cash.

Cash is physically delivered to a store, stored in a safe and then placed in to denominated cassettes by a cash office colleague who then tells the ATM how much cash has gone in to the machine. The ATM is 'taken offline' for this duration and will often say 'Temporarily unavailable' or 'out of service' on the external customer facing screen. 

When Sainsbury's Bank was operated by Lloyds Bank, there were rebates to the stores themselves for 'uptime' of the ATM and any significant 'downtime' would result in a deduction of rebates, this, as far as i'm aware, is still the case of Sainsburys Bank (wholly owned by Sainsbury's). If a fault cannot be rectified by the cash office colleague following the ATM fault finding guides provided then an engineer is called and the ATM remains 'out of service' until such time as the engineer attends. 

There is CCTV everywhere in the office, double locked security doors and a passing hatch for the money delivery personnel (who carry the money in locked briefcases and wear time sensitive security alarms) to pass it through to the cash office staff.

In the OP's instance, it would be at the discretion of the store management to provide Goodwill (note not a refund) of the £70. Should the OP get £70 back from Nationwide as a result of the complaint then....so be it. But the OP should not be out of pocket for an alleged mistake by the ATM system due to either a technical error or a fraudulent device, which Sainsbury's have a duty of care to spot, remove and report.

But the OP said in the forst post

I have made complaints to Nationwide and Sainsburys Bank who on checking the ATM did not find a problem or the £70 .They did a check and found the ATM to be only "£10 Over".

brianposter

eskbanker said:

the fact remains that the definition of an eligible complainant is set by the FCA, who have determined that individuals can only legitimately complain to institutions of which they're a customer, and FOS are legally obliged (by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) to follow that definition:

All the more reason for the OP to use the FOS complaint system so that the FOS point out to the FCA that the relevant regulation is making the FOS look particularly stupid.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:

the fact remains that the definition of an eligible complainant is set by the FCA, who have determined that individuals can only legitimately complain to institutions of which they're a customer, and FOS are legally obliged (by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) to follow that definition:

All the more reason for the OP to use the FOS complaint system so that the FOS point out to the FCA that the relevant regulation is making the FOS look particularly stupid.

FOS already told OP that the escalated complaint about Sainsburys was out of scope, but doubt that they'd feel the need to relay the fact that they'd done so to the FCA, although maybe there are summary stats generated as a matter of course.  There's also no option to "use the FOS complaint system" in a more general sense, it's just a mechanism to arbitrate after a specific eligible complaint to an institution is escalated.

I'd have thought that this situation isn't particularly uncommon, in that ATM disputes must always be logged with the customer's own bank rather than the ATM operator, and it's only if they're one and the same bank that the scenario would differ from OP's, so FOS (and likely the FCA too) will be very familiar with this pattern 24 years on from FSMA 2000, and implicitly won't consider it a significant enough issue to change the rules.

brianposter

eskbanker said:

I'd have thought that this situation isn't particularly uncommon, in that ATM disputes must always be logged with the customer's own bank rather than the ATM operator, and it's only if they're one and the same bank that the scenario would differ from OP's, so FOS (and likely the FCA too) will be very familiar with this pattern 24 years on from FSMA 2000, and implicitly won't consider it a significant enough issue to change the rules.

I am suggesting that the OP complain about the FOS (as well as following any additional instructions that can be obtained from the FOS) as attitudes may have changed as a result of the PO scandal.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/customer-service/service-complaints

It is quite obvious in this case that the "standard procedure" is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I have already asked what happens if the card used is a foreign card.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

eskbanker said:

I'd have thought that this situation isn't particularly uncommon, in that ATM disputes must always be logged with the customer's own bank rather than the ATM operator, and it's only if they're one and the same bank that the scenario would differ from OP's, so FOS (and likely the FCA too) will be very familiar with this pattern 24 years on from FSMA 2000, and implicitly won't consider it a significant enough issue to change the rules.

I am suggesting that the OP complain about the FOS (as well as following any additional instructions that can be obtained from the FOS) as attitudes may have changed as a result of the PO scandal.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/customer-service/service-complaints

OP could try that but I believe it would simply be dismissed - it's not a mechanism for complaining about FOS policies (based on their remit as defined by legislation) but about how they've handled a specific eligible complaint.

brianposter said:
It is quite obvious in this case that the "standard procedure" is making a mountain out of a molehill

Again, that's an opinion rather than a fact.

brianposter said:
I have already asked what happens if the card used is a foreign card.

Same process - the cardholder contacts their bank who issued the card (and deducted the funds from their balance), and if that doesn't resolve the issue the cardholder would need to escalate in whichever country that is, not via FOS.

financehelp23

I had a similar problem today with the Sainsbury Cash Machine. 250 was deducted from the bank, but no cash came out! The bank said have to wait for some day's money back and then raise the dispute! This is crazy！