Money not refunded by bank after I was mugged

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

Personally I don't see the current arrangement where banks are held liable to be sustainable in the long-term....

It wouldn't surprise me if we end up with a two (or more) tier system where if you want greater flexibility to make larger transactions and have full-service mobile baking then (a) you will get charged a fee and (b) you will have to accept (partial) liability for losses....

The new mandatory compensation rules are more stringent (on customer liability) than the voluntary code. The new rules already have an "excess" for losses, which has attracted much criticism. I have to make large transactions, but I would not be willing to pay x% to avoid a security quiz. I would not be willing to pay anything at all for full service mobile banking.

Shakin_Steve

Setting up a new payee in the Barclays app requires you to enter the expiry date and three digit CVV from the card associated with that account. If you didn't take your debit card out with you, and used Apple Pay or the like, then it wouldn't be possible to set up a new payee.

MattMattMattUK

Section62 said:

Personally I don't see the current arrangement where banks are held liable to be sustainable in the long-term.  I've refrained from commenting in the thread until now as the whole victim-blaming issue makes it difficult to comment without risking offence.  But in general terms (not the OP's case specifically) the banks and their customers have to accept some level of shared responsibility for security (and the consequences where that security is breached) because otherwise banks will either start declining to offer accounts to people they feel might be a risk, or else impose increasing restrictions on the transactions we make in terms of quantum and speed.

I totally agree it is not sustainable. In this case the OP did nothing wrong, but in most cases the loss is caused by the stupidity of the "victim" and the rest of us end up with the cost (via reduced savings rates, increased borrowing rates, reduced dividends etc.). The same with card fraud rules and Section 75, it now operates far beyond the scope of what was originally intended and whilst there are some genuine victims a lot of people see itnas a getout of jail free card to stupidly stick their card details into a website with zero due diligence. We cannot have a situation long term where we insulate the stupid from the costs of their actions.

GeoffTF

Here is a cautionary tale:

https://biz.crast.net/i-was-in-despair-how-lending-a-phone-led-to-lifes-savings-being-stolen/

They do not seem to be able to make their mind up about the gender of the victim, but hopefully the rest of the report is accurate.

MattMattMattUK

GeoffTF said:

Here is a cautionary tale:

https://biz.crast.net/i-was-in-despair-how-lending-a-phone-led-to-lifes-savings-being-stolen/

They do not seem to be able to make their mind up about the gender of the victim, but hopefully the rest of the report is accurate.

Yes, do not hand your mobile phone to some random on the street. Anyone who needs that as a piece of advice should not be in charge of their own finances.

GeoffTF

Shakin_Steve said:

Setting up a new payee in the Barclays app requires you to enter the expiry date and three digit CVV from the card associated with that account. If you didn't take your debit card out with you, and used Apple Pay or the like, then it wouldn't be possible to set up a new payee.

But then people can see that you have a mobile phone and you are at risk of having that stolen. You would be safer leaving your phone at home and paying by card. The banks seem to be good at compensating for card fraud, but mobile phones open a whole new can of worms.

born_again

booneruk said:

born_again said:

That is not a failure of the banking system. Unless you want the bank to question every transfer you make out of your app.

I'd dispute that somewhat. If the transfer is completely outside the norm of the customer's trends (an account being completely emptied at some late hour), then the bank's systems should put an automatic block on. Or at least a delay giving the poor victim time to phone and block.

What is the norm on any account?

Example. My acc is pretty much all dd's. So I then book a holiday & pay via bank transfer. Blocking it could mean losing booking. 

Several times each year people make payments out of their normal spending. Do you expect these to be stopped?

booneruk

born_again said:

booneruk said:

born_again said:

That is not a failure of the banking system. Unless you want the bank to question every transfer you make out of your app.

I'd dispute that somewhat. If the transfer is completely outside the norm of the customer's trends (an account being completely emptied at some late hour), then the bank's systems should put an automatic block on. Or at least a delay giving the poor victim time to phone and block.

What is the norm on any account?

Example. My acc is pretty much all dd's. So I then book a holiday & pay via bank transfer. Blocking it could mean losing booking. 

Several times each year people make payments out of their normal spending. Do you expect these to be stopped?

I wouldn't mind, I'd also try another account/card if it was something important to me. 

If we hold the banks responsible for loss of money through APP etc then it's reasonable for them to make payment blocking part of their bag of tricks.

Banking systems have algorithms within them, which (should) be training themselves on normal behaviour of the individual. I would argue that setting up new payees and emptying accounts to them within a matter of minutes late in the evening is a lot more suspicious than an annual holiday purchase. I'd expect even a moderately clever algorithm to block the former.

masonic

born_again said:

booneruk said:

born_again said:

That is not a failure of the banking system. Unless you want the bank to question every transfer you make out of your app.

I'd dispute that somewhat. If the transfer is completely outside the norm of the customer's trends (an account being completely emptied at some late hour), then the bank's systems should put an automatic block on. Or at least a delay giving the poor victim time to phone and block.

What is the norm on any account?
Example. My acc is pretty much all dd's. So I then book a holiday & pay via bank transfer. Blocking it could mean losing booking.
Several times each year people make payments out of their normal spending. Do you expect these to be stopped?

That sounds very similar to what currently happens in practice. Blocked payments generally result in a call back a few hours later or in the extreme the following day, and are then released if the customer cooperates with security. I've not come across a scenario where a bank transfer was so time sensitive that a booking would be lost due to a delay of this timescale. You know better than me the timescale that should be allowed for such payments to be received.

GeoffTF

My acc is pretty much all dd's. So I then book a holiday & pay via bank transfer. Blocking it could mean losing booking.

I would have expected a credit card payment. Nonetheless, either way, with my bank (Santander) the payment is likely to be blocked. No problem. I ring them up, go through security and answer their questions. The block is removed and the payment goes through within the hour. What do you expect when the bank has to compensate you whenever you give your money to a scammer?

I think that is good service, particularly since I am not charged for it. Of course there are people who are trouble magnets, and their experience may vary.