We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Mandatory refund of up to £85k for APP fraud


But in a 'game changer' they will be able to reclaim half back from the receiving organisation
Comments
-
That's the upside. The downside for all of us that both the sending and receiving banks are going to get even more fanatical about blocking payments. We'll end up not being allowed to transfer anything anywhere "for our own safety".
12 -
It was originally going to be £415,000, a ridiculous amount of money. Sounds like a fraudster's dream to me, and we'll all end up paying for it.I came into this world with nothing and I've got most of it left.2
-
In my opinion the limit should be 25k or the maximum amount someone can transfer cash out via a banking app. Any payment larger than that requires a bank to approve it in most cases, and they already check with the customer that the payment is legit. If the customer is being foolish, I am very sorry but we should not all pay for that.Obviously if the bank fails to perform checks with the customer it is a different story.I note on the itv news report, the guy from the banks stayed 99% of such frauds are under 85k.2
-
Refunds will be split 50-50 between sending and receiving firms
Sending bank hold on to money in case of fraud, jump though hoops to get it released hits receiving bank, holds on to money in case of fraud, jump though hoops to get it released. Repeat.
Let's Be Careful Out There6 -
Could this be a scam? Are you sure? Did someone ask you to transfer? Are you certain you want to transfer? Stop think it could be a scam? Why do you want to transfer?
0 -
No personal responsibility at all, then? A crazy route to go down.How will stupid people learn?3
-
M25 said:No personal responsibility at all, then? A crazy route to go down.How will stupid people learn?3
-
poshrule_uk said:M25 said:No personal responsibility at all, then? A crazy route to go down.How will stupid people learn?
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
4 -
Nasqueron said:poshrule_uk said:M25 said:No personal responsibility at all, then? A crazy route to go down.How will stupid people learn?2
-
Barkin said:Nasqueron said:poshrule_uk said:M25 said:No personal responsibility at all, then? A crazy route to go down.How will stupid people learn?
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 242.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards