Money not refunded by bank after I was mugged

MikeJXE

overspender22 said:

For those saying to move the banking apps into other folders (I.e not on the Home Screen), there is a search function on phones. It’s easy enough for muggers to search the names of banks on an iPhone and find you have a NatWest app installed, or a Santander one etc. I for one will be limiting my phone to one ‘spending’ app and using my other accounts at home. 

Seen too much of these hostage style situations where the poor person is held with the thieves and violence is used. 

I researched that very subject last night so it makes my plan even more important 

Sea_Shell

It's a hard problem to solve, if it's even solvable at all. ☹️

We're all being nudged towards an "App for everything" and our phones being the centre of our world, especially in the younger generations.

Some banks are app only.   This trend is likely to grow.

Biometric security is great if you lose your phone, or have it stolen away from you.

But if you're held under duress, is there any answer to the determined criminal, other than NOT being in possession of a smartphone with any banking apps, with which you hold a balance.


I wonder what would have happened to the OP, if he hadn't any money.  Was in their overdraft, with no savings....like many people.

 

brucefan_2

A while back someone on a different thread hereabouts suggested a banking app functionality for this exact scenario, where, if a specific pre-registered incorrect pin were to be entered this would alert the bank's systems to criminal/fraudulent activity without alerting the aggressor in any way and only allow dummy transactions or something like that, ensuring the safety of both the victim and the victim's funds.

I have no background in software engineering or tech systems whatsoever, but this appears to me to be an eminently sensible and achievable functionality.

Zanderman

brucefan_2 said:

A while back someone on a different thread hereabouts suggested a banking app functionality for this exact scenario, where, if a specific pre-registered incorrect pin were to be entered this would alert the bank's systems to criminal/fraudulent activity without alerting the aggressor in any way and only allow dummy transactions or something like that, ensuring the safety of both the victim and the victim's funds.

I have no background in software engineering or tech systems whatsoever, but this appears to me to be an eminently sensible and achievable functionality.

I doubt that would work, not for long anyway. Muggers would soon learn about it, particularly if it became widespread in use. And the threat of violence would therefore be based on giving the 'right' PIN etc.

And dummy transactions would only be convincing if the dummy amount was actually credited to the mugger account, which the mugger can check. I doubt banks would want to actually start transferring 'fake' but actually real money, even if they thought they could recover it. So unlikely to be as achievable as you're suggesting.

Banking apps also have differing access methods (some are PIN, some are letters from passwords etc, some are biometric etc etc) so the 'fake' system would have to be re-invented for each app. Don't see that as likely to happen. 

Zanderman

Sea_Shell said:

I wonder what would have happened to the OP, if he hadn't any money.  Was in their overdraft, with no savings....like many people.

I think that's the key really, to only have limited resources at risk on the gadget you carry with you. So not thousands of pounds. Just an app that accesses your everyday banking - i.e. perhaps just your main current account. Which, for most people, won't have the £1000s the OP seems to have had available. 

There's no need, for the vast vast majority of the time, to have 'in your pocket' access to your savings, ISAs, regular savers etc etc. So apps for those really needn't be carried around 24/7.

If following through to logical conclusion, this would also suggest you don't keep savings with the same bank as your 'main' current account, as otherwise those would be at risk.

It needs a bit of a rethink of course, as we tend to load up all apps. But only a few years ago access to all this stuff was by post or at best on a phone call. And the world worked just fine.

So I, for one, will be continuing to review the banking apps on my mobile - and on Mrs Z-man's mobile - and get rid of those that really aren't needed on them at all.  

Gavin83

The bank is probably required to reimburse in such a case but frankly it’s a ridiculous rule. They are in no way responsible for such an occurrence.

A bit late for the OP but a few pieces of advice from someone who works in IT in a role that covers security:

1) Be careful what you put on your phone. Appreciate banking apps are all the rage these days but personally I don’t use them.

2) Use different passwords/pins for everything.

3) Limit what money you have in your primary bank account. That way if it’s compromised you don’t lose as much money. Obviously pay day my account is a little more full but by the time I’m due to get paid next it’s near empty. I also keep a £1k savings account at the same bank. All the rest of my money is elsewhere, in accounts I can’t even instantly withdraw from if I wanted to.

Always think about security and limiting the impact should you get compromised.

brucefan_2

@Zanderman

All fair points, which I hadn't really considered.   

I just don't see why it can't be beyond the combined wit of the banks to develop some kind of system, which would be robust enough to cover this kind of eventuality.  

Re-reading several of the OP's posts, I am surprised that alerts weren't triggered and a block put on accounts. 

£10k+  was transferred over a period of a couple of hours in the early hours of the morning. I'm assuming that this was an entirely different pattern of usage to the OP's normal banking routines and far enough beyond his normal activity to be worthy of some kind of security scrutiny and possible intervention.

I get that the banks are often on the receiving end of criticism of being heavy-handed in their attempts to protect customers and in some repects can't win.

Mine is a layman's view on this and I don't know what I don't know; I just think there is potential for some innovation here.

Olinda99

I was one of the first to install the Coventry app when it first came out was really pleased to be able to see details of all my savings accounts on my phone 

I have just uninstalled it for obvious reasons!

Rawrzy

overspender22 said:

For those saying to move the banking apps into other folders (I.e not on the Home Screen), there is a search function on phones. It’s easy enough for muggers to search the names of banks on an iPhone and find you have a NatWest app installed, or a Santander one etc.

I don't think you understand how the secure folder works on Samsung at least. I did explain it above. Due to how it functions, normal search does not show any of the apps installed in the secure folder as it's a completely independent install of android to the main android install of the phone.

Unless you weren't talking about the secure folder function anyway.

Of course it doesn't stop the situation of being threatened to reveal the password or whatever of said folder, but it is a step above just trying to hide the apps.

GeoffTF

This thread is certainly food for thought. My risk profile was already low, but I can reduce it further. I do not have any banking apps on my phone, but I do have a Skipton app. That can go. I do not have savings accounts with my current account provider (Santander), and my credit card is with a separate bank. I access my financial accounts from my desktop computer, but not my email. Perhaps I should have a dumb phone locked away at home for 2FA.

I can keep my mobile phone locked away at home when I do not need to take it out. My Santander debit card would be best locked away too. I am considering opening a Metro Bank Cash Account and keeping a small amount of cash in it, to provide a lower risk back up card if my credit card fails. Metro Bank does not seem to be able to turn off contactless (or reduce the contactless limit from the bonkers £100) though.