Mandatory refund of up to £85k for APP fraud

GeoffTF

eskbanker said:

GeoffTF said:

mikedaveross said:

I decided to ignore warnings & common sense & decided of my own free will to transfer my own money to someone else, but its not my fault & want someone else to take responsibility & give me my money back.

The press agrees with you 100%:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-13935179/Only-four-major-banks-building-societies-promise-cover-100-lost-fraud-new-banking-rules-introduced-week.html

Despite being a Daily Heil piece, it doesn't seem to get on the soapbox about personal responsibility and just concentrates on the £100 excess and £85K limit in a relatively factual manner?

The article, like all the others I have seen, is pushing for more compensation for people who give their money to scammers, in agreement with the sentence that I quoted. I have not seen any "hey this has gone too far" articles. Most of the posters here seem to think that it has.

eskbanker

GeoffTF said:

eskbanker said:

GeoffTF said:

mikedaveross said:

I decided to ignore warnings & common sense & decided of my own free will to transfer my own money to someone else, but its not my fault & want someone else to take responsibility & give me my money back.

The press agrees with you 100%:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-13935179/Only-four-major-banks-building-societies-promise-cover-100-lost-fraud-new-banking-rules-introduced-week.html

Despite being a Daily Heil piece, it doesn't seem to get on the soapbox about personal responsibility and just concentrates on the £100 excess and £85K limit in a relatively factual manner?

The article, like all the others I have seen, is pushing for more compensation for people who give their money to scammers, in agreement with the sentence that I quoted. I have not seen any "hey this has gone too far" articles. Most of the posters here seem to think that it has.

It's having a bit of a moan about the effective removal of the smallest and largest value claims from the prevailing practice up to now but that doesn't really support the quoted sentence about the principle of whether or not scams should be refunded in the first place, i.e. it's commenting on a reduction in scope, not an increase.

Regardless of what many seem to be interpreting, it seems to me that the new rules are likely to result in less overall scam reimbursement rather than more (because of industry pressure during the consultation), so anyone opining about how it's gone too far would seem to be missing the point!

Based on 2023 fraud figures, more than 58,000 cases would have resulted in no refund if all companies had applied the excess.