Bank profit from scam

Qqq111qqq

About a month ago, one of my Banks told me that they're not allowed to profit from a customer being scammed. However recently I've had an email from another one of my other banks saying that they will charge a £100 excess if our funds have to be recovered due to a scam. 
Does anyone know the actual law on this? I've been looking around but I can't actually find anything. Any links will be great. Thanks

eskbanker

A link to the new regulatory regime was provided when someone asked much the same question yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6561144/excess-charges-from-banks-when-claiming-for-an-app-scam

Nothing stopping you from going looking for the actual legislation, but the subject has been covered extensively in user-friendly language recently, such as the MSE piece:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2024/10/bank-transfer-scam-refund-rules/

Qqq111qqq said:

However recently I've had an email from another one of my other banks saying that they will charge a £100 excess if our funds have to be recovered due to a scam.

The excess applies to the money the bank pays you (from its own pocket), and isn't about them recovering funds for you.

Ergates

Qqq111qqq said:

About a month ago, one of my Banks told me that they're not allowed to profit from a customer being scammed. However recently I've had an email from another one of my other banks saying that they will charge a £100 excess if our funds have to be recovered due to a scam. 
Does anyone know the actual law on this? I've been looking around but I can't actually find anything. Any links will be great. Thanks

That's not anything near to a profit.   That's a slight reduction in their loss - from the money they'd have to refund you if you accidentally give it to a scammer.

born_again

Payout up to £85K, charge £100...
That is some profit 🤦‍♀️

M25

There should be a sliding scale of charges dependent on how stupid the scammed person was.

Everyone is paying for people's negligent actions so there needs to be some sort of remedy and learning process or people won't learn.

eskbanker

M25 said:

There should be a sliding scale of charges dependent on how stupid the scammed person was.

How would you define that in any meaningful and quantifiable way?

If the scammed person was grossly negligent then they aren't entitled to reimbursement at all.

Ergates

I realise that the banks themselves are partially to blame for the word being used, but this really shouldn't be referred to as a charge.

If you lose £1000, and I take £900 out of my pocket and give it to you, I've not "charged" you £100 by any stretch of the imagination!

M25

eskbanker said:

M25 said:

There should be a sliding scale of charges dependent on how stupid the scammed person was.

How would you define that in any meaningful and quantifiable way?

If the scammed person was grossly negligent then they aren't entitled to reimbursement at all.

That's for the banks and regulator to decide I'd say. I would say, if someone has taken no care or diligence with their money then they shouldn't receive the money back from us. That's a starting point.

Some more idiots blaming everyone apart from themselves: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wkzv1zk91o

The big bad wolf today is: Revolut. I always wonder to myself, have these scammed people not seen the 100s of badly written articles about scams? Or TV news? Threads on 100s of forums? Stories of scams in TV shows and films? Where have these people been?

That first guy is an 'NHS consultant' as if that means he has a legal right of having common sense. He clicked there might be something wrong but continued down the idiot path. Of course the news article (reads like AI) is not a factual piece in the sense we don't have all the information. It's a headline piece. Next story: SHEEP WITH 6 LEGS FOUND IN FIELD EATING GRASS.

Obviously, the banks need to do much more (I'd get rid of these OTP codes they're dumb and easily worked around as we can see) but there's only so much a bank can do (and that we want them to do). 

We have to be responsible it is our money after all.

eskbanker

As this thread is specifically about the levying of an excess, it's probably not worth going over the same old ground about the fundamental principle of reimbursing such frauds, as that's already covered extensively in plenty of other threads - like them or not, the new rules are now in place, after being refined a bit after the experiences gathered over the last five years and all the consultation between regulators and other stakeholders, so it's unlikely that any significant change would be countenanced now....