Unauthorised ATM withdrawal- Ombudsman ruled in favour of bank

sausage_time

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

The bank would likely know if the disputed transaction was chip and pin (likely the genuine card) or mag stripe (possibly cloned, but not necessarily so).

Phortoes

friolento said:

Why does your sister still have the card? My first action would have been to request a new card

Phortoes said:

 

- the transaction was declined and she got notification of having made an ATM withdrawal which she hadn't. She was still at the train station. She had her card in her possession. And still has it.  

The bank cancelled and issued a new card immediately but she still has the old one which has been cut but still in her possession.

Phortoes

sausage_time said:

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

The bank would likely know if the disputed transaction was chip and pin (likely the genuine card) or mat stripe (possibly cloned, but not necessarily so).

Correct. However, I was responding to the comment that UK ATM's don't accept mag stripe cards. They do.

wmb194

Phortoes said:

sausage_time said:

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

The bank would likely know if the disputed transaction was chip and pin (likely the genuine card) or mat stripe (possibly cloned, but not necessarily so).

Correct. However, I was responding to the comment that UK ATM's don't accept mag stripe cards. They do.

Can you provide the reference number to the Ombudsman's decision? It would useful to read their summary of the facts and the response from the bank/machine owners.

DullGreyGuy

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

They can use either but will use the EMV chip if one is present/functional, if there isn't a chip then they'll fall back to the magnetic strip. The ATM will record the details of how it read the card hence they can state it was chip rather than strip... Born_Again said the same thing but you seem to have misinterpreted their comment. 

Phortoes said:

- thanks for the YouTube video. Not seen it yet but will see.

By all means watch them if you wish but they won't be helpful for you... the first one talks about skimming which is just reading someone's card contactlessly which will give them the card number and expiry date but realistically all that can be used for is certain online transactions where the vendor has low security and doesn't ask for CVC number, use AVS or Verified by Visa. 

The second one talks about how card readers can be tampered to pull more info from the EMV chip however all that can be used for is creating a fake magnetic strip. It also states there is no way to make a duplicate EMV chip. 

Without wanting to sound like accusing you or your family of anything it is very difficult to understand how the theft could have happened. It requires them to have a legitimate version of your card and know your PIN number. That in itself would be difficult to pull off but for it to coincidently happen simultaneously to a fraudulant transaction in close proximity is either one of the biggest coincidences of all time which is just an unnecessary risk to run, in principle she could have looked up and maybe seen the person whilst they were still in the vicinity. 

Does your sister live with anyone or have someone regularly in their home? Was anyone else travelling with them to the station? 

Did she use the card again after the incident? Her card having been switched is the equally unlikely mechanism but that requires someone to get the details of her card, make up a fake/dummy, switch the card (meaning they know where she's going to be), get to know the pin etc. All just seems a lot of bother when there are much easier ways to commit card fraud. 

Phortoes

wmb194 said:

Phortoes said:

sausage_time said:

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

The bank would likely know if the disputed transaction was chip and pin (likely the genuine card) or mat stripe (possibly cloned, but not necessarily so).

Correct. However, I was responding to the comment that UK ATM's don't accept mag stripe cards. They do.

Can you provide the reference number to the Ombudsman's decision? It would useful to read their summary of the facts and the response from the bank/machine owners.

Didn't know this is publicly available. Just looked and it's not on yet perhaps because she can still appeal the initial decision.

I note other people have had similar complaints where withdrawals were made using chip and pin, yet they had their cards in their possession.

Wonder why the banks/ombudsman won't investigate properly as every one I've read has been in the bank's favour. They don't want to find out chip and pin isn't as ROBUST as they think?

Rob5342

Complaints are looked at by an investigator first, and if you disagree with their view you can ask for it to be passed to an Ombudsman which is legally binding. Only Ombudsman decisions are published. You don't need additional information to have it passed to an ombudsman but it can help if you have it. 

Phortoes

DullGreyGuy said:

Phortoes said:

born_again said:

Banks have no more rights than the OP here to CCTV. Police is best action. But odds of CCTV still being there are next to none (norm 30 days), given mention of ombudsman, which will have been a couple of months at least.
Bank does not need CCTV for their side. They can see type of card used (chip read), as UK ATM do not take mag stripe read cards, when a chip is expected). If person claiming fraud has their card, then it's a no brainer it will be rejected as fraud.

According to the ombudsman, UK ATMs can read both magnetic stripe and chip. So they accept magnetic stripe cards too. 

They can use either but will use the EMV chip if one is present/functional, if there isn't a chip then they'll fall back to the magnetic strip. The ATM will record the details of how it read the card hence they can state it was chip rather than strip... Born_Again said the same thing but you seem to have misinterpreted their comment. 

Phortoes said:

- thanks for the YouTube video. Not seen it yet but will see.

By all means watch them if you wish but they won't be helpful for you... the first one talks about skimming which is just reading someone's card contactlessly which will give them the card number and expiry date but realistically all that can be used for is certain online transactions where the vendor has low security and doesn't ask for CVC number, use AVS or Verified by Visa. 

The second one talks about how card readers can be tampered to pull more info from the EMV chip however all that can be used for is creating a fake magnetic strip. It also states there is no way to make a duplicate EMV chip. 

Without wanting to sound like accusing you or your family of anything it is very difficult to understand how the theft could have happened. It requires them to have a legitimate version of your card and know your PIN number. That in itself would be difficult to pull off but for it to coincidently happen simultaneously to a fraudulant transaction in close proximity is either one of the biggest coincidences of all time which is just an unnecessary risk to run, in principle she could have looked up and maybe seen the person whilst they were still in the vicinity. 

Does your sister live with anyone or have someone regularly in their home? Was anyone else travelling with them to the station? 

Did she use the card again after the incident? Her card having been switched is the equally unlikely mechanism but that requires someone to get the details of her card, make up a fake/dummy, switch the card (meaning they know where she's going to be), get to know the pin etc. All just seems a lot of bother when there are much easier ways to commit card fraud. 

Thanks. It's very baffling and I know it sounds incredulous. However, I have absolute confidence in my sister's integrity.

In my mind the scammer(s) attached something to the ticket machine which sends info to them. Chip and PIN seems fallible to me. Afterall, it was devised by people. But most people including the bank and regulator trust it more than doing any proper investigation especially as my sister's case is not entirely unique given other complaints on the Ombudsman's database. I guess, until it happens to lots more people it won't be taken seriously.

She was out with her young children. The only time she entered her PIN that day was to use that ticket machine. It is a fairly big train station, standing by the machines, you can barely see outside the station itself talk less of the ATM 500m away. The road curves and is lined with shops and a roundabout from the station to the ATM. You can't even see the ATM standing outside the station.

No she didn't use the card again because she called the bank and police immediately. 

Phortoes

Rob5342 said:

Complaints are looked at by an investigator first, and if you disagree with their view you can ask for it to be passed to an Ombudsman which is legally binding. Only Ombudsman decisions are published. You don't need additional information to have it passed to an ombudsman but it can help if you have it. 

The note at the bottom said if there's further evidence ... but good to know it's not necessary. Thanks.

Olinda99

if the bank said the chip was read at the ATM in order to dispense money than the real card was used there - not a clone not something attached to the Oyster machine or anything like that

the bank could have made an error of course when they say the chip was read