Cash machine didn't dispense cash but money taken from bank

shauns_3

It appears that in all the above posts the non-payments were eventually returned to the account. In June a Link ATM at Sainsburys failed to dispense my requested £250. With a restless queue forming I repeatedly and unsuccessfully rang the ATM number. I was unwilling to move away from the machine without my cash. However after sometime the cash draw opened and closed quickly and the ATM displayed out of order and the queue disipated.
I contacted my bank Santander and explained in detail what had happened and that the area was covered by CCTV. They initially refunded the £250 but shortly thereafter removed it again from my account. 
It appears that Santander's sole effort to investigate this matter was to contact the ATM's owner who stated that "there were no errors during my cash withdrawal". Without checking the CCTV or taking note of the information I had already given them they accepted this as fact which can only mean that they believe I was acting fraudulently in stating the cash was not dispensed. This is a horrible position to be in when you know that the cash was not dispensed and yet you are being accused of taking it.
I wrote to Santander, Royal Mail signed for, restating the facts and asking several questions. They did not reply. After four weeks I telephoned them and they listed my call as a complaint as my letter had not been answered. Yesterday I was telephoned to be told that the £250 taken from my account would be returned. The questions that I raised in my letter to Santander were not answered.
Can anyone tell me if banks have a legal duty to properly investigate ATM disputes? Is it acceptable that the owner of an ATM can simply state that there were no errors made during a withdrawal and have no duty to mention that the machine went out of service shortly after?

Eyeful

I do not use ATM's any more, because of the problems raised here.
I now withdraw the money I need, either at the local post office or at the supermarket till when shopping. 
As I know when these places are quite, waiting times are short and I deal with humans.

shauns_3

Eyeful said:

I do not use ATM's any more, because of the problems raised here.
I now withdraw the money I need, either at the local post office or at the supermarket till when shopping. 
As I know when these places are quite, waiting times are short and I deal with humans.

I will now have to do the same and hopefully cash machines within banks with counter staff should also be safe to use.
Santander returned my £250 without investigation which I assume they have decided is not a cost effective action for them to take. Therefore no apology, no admission of a mistake being made and no compensation for the loss of time and the inconvenience they have caused.
I am now in the position that if I continued to use external ATMs and the situation arose again it is unlikely that they would return the disputed funds to me a second time.

Nasqueron

shauns_3 said:

Eyeful said:

I do not use ATM's any more, because of the problems raised here.
I now withdraw the money I need, either at the local post office or at the supermarket till when shopping. 
As I know when these places are quite, waiting times are short and I deal with humans.

I will now have to do the same and hopefully cash machines within banks with counter staff should also be safe to use.
Santander returned my £250 without investigation which I assume they have decided is not a cost effective action for them to take. Therefore no apology, no admission of a mistake being made and no compensation for the loss of time and the inconvenience they have caused.
I am now in the position that if I continued to use external ATMs and the situation arose again it is unlikely that they would return the disputed funds to me a second time.

Santander don't run the ATM, you already said Sainsbury's do, so why are you expecting Santander to do an in-depth investigation into something they have no control over as it's run by a third party? Why would they apologise for something that wasn't their fault or admit a mistake for something they didn't do? Do you think the ATM provider would allow a Santander person to go into the machine and count the money?

No compensation? Wow we have truly become America, compensation for a couple of phone calls with no actual losses for something that was nothing to do with them?

Just use the bank card you have to pay for stuff via terminals, you could have been robbed of the cash as you stepped away from the machine and would have no recourse then

shauns_3

Wow! Where do I start?
Read my post. I did not say "Santander run the ATM" as you misquote. I said "a Link ATM at Sainsburys". Although covering the ATM with CCTV at this location Sainsburys display signs stating that the ATM has no connection to them. If you wish to further dispute this contact Sainsburys.

Why am I expecting Santander to properly investigate an ATM dispute". Because it is their stated responsibility to do so. The link ATM displays a number to call if there is a problem with the machine. When you get through to the number you are informed that any problems can only be reported directly to your own bank for them to investigate. If you wish to further dispute this call the number on a Link ATM and listen to what they have to say.

Why would they apologise for something that wasn't their fault or admit a mistake for something they didn't do".
Again you are under a misapprehension. At no point have I asked for an apology due to the ATM being faulty. If you read my post you will see this. "Without checking the CCTV or taking note of the information I had already given them they accepted this as fact which can only mean that they believe I was acting fraudulently in stating that the cash was not dispensed". In addition to the loss of my money I was rightly incensed that Santander should in effect accuse me of fraud when only a cursory investigation was needed to prove the veracity of my statements. My view is that Santander should apologise for not making any attempt to investigate the information I had given them and this failure to investigate is certainly their "fault" and no one elses.

"Do you think the ATM provider would allow a Santander person to go into the machine and count the money?" 
No, But why do you ask? It is Sainsburys retained CCTV footage that clearly shows that the cash was not dispensed and that shortly after the nontransaction the ATM went into the out of service mode.

"No compensation? Wow we have truly become America, compensation for a couple of phone calls with no actual losses for something that was nothing to do with them?"
Compensation appears to be too inflammatory a word. Let's call it a goodwill gesture in acknowledgement of Santander's shameful handling of their duty bound investigation. In fact their were far more than a couple of calls all of which involved the obligatory interminable wait to be answered together with a trip to the post office to send a signed for letter which Santander never bothered replying to. It appears that being in effect accused of fraud would not concern yourself but I can assure you it did me. You state that Santander's own actions and inactions have nothing to do with them. Who do you suggest are responsible for them?

"Just use the bank card you have to pay for stuff via terminals, you could have been robbed of the cash as you stepped away from the machine and would have no recourse then"
It appears from your last sentence recommendation that you are actually agreeing with previous posters and myself that it is safer not to use ATMs if at all possible.
If, as you suggest, I had been robbed at least I would have known where my cash had gone and would not have been effectively accused of fraud by Santander.

Nasqueron

shauns_3 said:

Wow! Where do I start?
Read my post. I did not say "Santander run the ATM" as you misquote. I said "a Link ATM at Sainsburys". Although covering the ATM with CCTV at this location Sainsburys display signs stating that the ATM has no connection to them. If you wish to further dispute this contact Sainsburys.

Why am I expecting Santander to properly investigate an ATM dispute". Because it is their stated responsibility to do so. The link ATM displays a number to call if there is a problem with the machine. When you get through to the number you are informed that any problems can only be reported directly to your own bank for them to investigate. If you wish to further dispute this call the number on a Link ATM and listen to what they have to say.

Why would they apologise for something that wasn't their fault or admit a mistake for something they didn't do".
Again you are under a misapprehension. At no point have I asked for an apology due to the ATM being faulty. If you read my post you will see this. "Without checking the CCTV or taking note of the information I had already given them they accepted this as fact which can only mean that they believe I was acting fraudulently in stating that the cash was not dispensed". In addition to the loss of my money I was rightly incensed that Santander should in effect accuse me of fraud when only a cursory investigation was needed to prove the veracity of my statements. My view is that Santander should apologise for not making any attempt to investigate the information I had given them and this failure to investigate is certainly their "fault" and no one elses.

"Do you think the ATM provider would allow a Santander person to go into the machine and count the money?" 
No, But why do you ask? It is Sainsburys retained CCTV footage that clearly shows that the cash was not dispensed and that shortly after the nontransaction the ATM went into the out of service mode.

"No compensation? Wow we have truly become America, compensation for a couple of phone calls with no actual losses for something that was nothing to do with them?"
Compensation appears to be too inflammatory a word. Let's call it a goodwill gesture in acknowledgement of Santander's shameful handling of their duty bound investigation. In fact their were far more than a couple of calls all of which involved the obligatory interminable wait to be answered together with a trip to the post office to send a signed for letter which Santander never bothered replying to. It appears that being in effect accused of fraud would not concern yourself but I can assure you it did me. You state that Santander's own actions and inactions have nothing to do with them. Who do you suggest are responsible for them?

"Just use the bank card you have to pay for stuff via terminals, you could have been robbed of the cash as you stepped away from the machine and would have no recourse then"
It appears from your last sentence recommendation that you are actually agreeing with previous posters and myself that it is safer not to use ATMs if at all possible.
If, as you suggest, I had been robbed at least I would have known where my cash had gone and would not have been effectively accused of fraud by Santander.

This is your comment:

Therefore no apology, no admission of a mistake being made and no compensation for the loss of time and the inconvenience they have caused.

Santander should not apologise as it was not their ATM

Santander should not admit a mistake was made as it was not their ATM

Santander should not pay compensation for a problem caused by a third party ATM