Mandatory refund of up to £85k for APP fraud

eskbanker

Personally I don't see the changes as being particularly significant for the majority of customers - the new regime applying from next week is largely what the main banks have been doing voluntarily for the last five years!  The fact that the APP reimbursement model is being incorporated into legislation and applied to all banks, together with the splitting of the refunding between sender and recipient banks, is likely to have significant ramifications for those smaller challenger outfits who've up to now been out of scope, and whose account application processes may have been less rigorous than others, but for customers making faster payments from the major players, i.e. the sizable majority, I don't see anything radically different?

The potential future change (still under consultation) allowing banks more time to hold suspected payments could be a different matter though....

MeteredOut

It will be interesting to see how the allowance for banks to charge an £100 "excess" will be pan out. Which banks will and which won't  (some have already decided) and how will customers receive this.

eskbanker

MeteredOut said:

It will be interesting to see how the allowance for banks to charge an £100 "excess" will be pan out. Which banks will and which won't  (some have already decided) and how will customers receive this.

Surely the concept of an excess is that customers won't receive it?  Or do you perhaps mean 'receive' in the other sense of 'how will they take the news'?

Just searched for info about the differing approaches and came across this:

TSB, Nationwide, Virgin Money, Clydesdale Bank, Yorkshire Bank and AIB have all told the Financial Times they will not be passing on any charges to customers who fall victim to scams.

NatWest said it may apply a fixed excess of £100 to the total amount reimbursed to customers. The bank said: “This [will be] assessed on a case-by-case basis and with regard to the specific circumstances of each customer.”

Metro Bank and payment service providers Modulr and Zempler all confirmed they would be charging the £100 excess in full. Under the new rules these charges cannot be passed on to vulnerable customers, who, due to their personal circumstances, are especially susceptible to harm.

https://www.ft.com/content/4553e1d7-2d68-46f6-9971-6d278ecede49

The article also makes the point that "Industry data from UK Finance shows that 32 per cent of push payment fraud cases are for amounts of £100 or less", which undoubtedly contributed to the decision to implement an excess.

MeteredOut

eskbanker said:

MeteredOut said:

It will be interesting to see how the allowance for banks to charge an £100 "excess" will be pan out. Which banks will and which won't  (some have already decided) and how will customers receive this.

Surely the concept of an excess is that customers won't receive it?  Or do you perhaps mean 'receive' in the other sense of 'how will they take the news'?

The latter

gt94sss2

eskbanker said:

The potential future change (still under consultation) allowing banks more time to hold suspected payments could be a different matter though....

The ability to delay payments for 4 days is coming in at the end of the month.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-banks-to-combat-fraudsters

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7yel28rx6o

eskbanker

gt94sss2 said:

eskbanker said:

The potential future change (still under consultation) allowing banks more time to hold suspected payments could be a different matter though....

The ability to delay payments for 4 days is coming in at the end of the month.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-banks-to-combat-fraudsters

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7yel28rx6o

Yes, I think the original intention was for this to be introduced on the 7th alongside the other changes but when it was separated out, I was under the impression that it would be delayed until the end of the year - the FCA are still consulting about how to implement it (while stating [three weeks ago] that they "expect the Treasury to lay this instrument before Parliament in due course"):

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/guidance-consultation/gc24-5.pdf

MSE_Molly_G

Hi everyone. We've published a Q&A on this as the new fraud rules come into force today: Banks MUST now refund some scam victims – what the new rules mean for you. Thanks!

Sea_Shell

I wonder how much fraud and scams are enabled due to the customer being drunk (or high)!?   Or even just a bit tipsy?

We hear about drunk texting or buying, why not scamming.

Is being drunk "lacking mental capacity"?

eskbanker

MSE_Molly_G said:

Hi everyone. We've published a Q&A on this as the new fraud rules come into force today: Banks MUST now refund some scam victims – what the new rules mean for you. Thanks!

Re "We've asked all the major banks what excess they'll charge (if any) and we'll update this story when we know more", as above the FT had secured responses from plenty of institutions over a week ago, haven't MSE been able to obtain timely information from enough to be able to share at least some in the article (beyond Barclays and Lloyds)?

MSE_Petar

eskbanker said:

MSE_Molly_G said:

Hi everyone. We've published a Q&A on this as the new fraud rules come into force today: Banks MUST now refund some scam victims – what the new rules mean for you. Thanks!

Re "We've asked all the major banks what excess they'll charge (if any) and we'll update this story when we know more", as above the FT had secured responses from plenty of institutions over a week ago, haven't MSE been able to obtain timely information from enough to be able to share at least some in the article (beyond Barclays and Lloyds)?

Hi @eskbanker - we've now updated the story with info from the banks.