Victim of Fraud but Credit card company are saying its my fault and I am liable for the charges.

born_again

joycey_2018 said:

yep as grumpy_codger has said this is what i believed has happend to me.
The invoice i was provided was for the bike, I authorised the payment thinking I was buying the bike but this was actually used to purchase the voucher. 
The bike was clearly not available and this was the scam to get my details, and get me to make the payment

But now im left in the position that NW are saying they followed the correct process and as I authorised the payment and a gift voucher was provided to this other person then essentially i am liable for it. 

I will take the next steps with financial ombudsman and keep it simple as Olinda99 says 

thanks all

You can't go straight to FOS, you need to go through Nationwide complaint process 1st.

Kim_13

Making a payment over the phone using a card seems to be the only way we are not asked for an app authorisation or code - presumably as a legitimate company have a card terminal to use at that end. 

Being asked to authorise it suggests the person on the phone is simply entering the details onto a website (in this case buying gift cards.)

The FOS may look at what was displayed on the authorisation screen - if it said highstreetvouchers.com or similar then they may conclude it should have been obvious that a bike wasn't being paid for.

Aren't the new rules covering money taken from online banking rather than people being duped into authorising a card transaction? 

TheBanker

Kim_13 said:

Making a payment over the phone using a card seems to be the only way we are not asked for an app authorisation or code - presumably as a legitimate company have a card terminal to use at that end. 

Being asked to authorise it suggests the person on the phone is simply entering the details onto a website (in this case buying gift cards.)

The FOS may look at what was displayed on the authorisation screen - if it said highstreetvouchers.com or similar then they may conclude it should have been obvious that a bike wasn't being paid for.

Aren't the new rules covering money taken from online banking rather than people being duped into authorising a card transaction? 

Yes, the new rules are to cover people who are tricked into sending Faster Payments from their bank account.

From a strict legal position, Nationwide are probably correct - you authorised a payment of £x to the gift card seller (even though you thought they were a bike seller). The gift card seller presumably supplied gift cards which have been used so no possibility of a chargeback. However the FOS don't have to follow the strict legal position, and may decide to order Nationwide to refund you, e.g. if they think Nationwide should have done more to prevent the fraud. 

If you complain to Nationwide, and are unahppy with their response, you can escalate to FOS. There is a possibility you will get your money back, but I don't think this is guaranteed. 

martinbainbridge1975

Tucosalamanca said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

as for the bike there should be some way to trace the bike - which site was that off?

It was a scam - the bike never existed

must be a double scam then bike and vouchers

Grumpy_chap

martinbainbridge1975 said:

must be a double scam then bike and vouchers

Only one scam:

• The scammer advertised a bike for sale.
• The OP "ordered" the bike over the phone and paid by card.
• The scammer did not have a bike or a card machine.
• The OP provided the scammer with their name, long card number, expiry date, CVV code.  All required to process an over-the-phone card purchase.
• The scammer was not, in fact, processing an over-the-phone card transaction for the bike.
• The scammer was, in fact, on another website entering the OP's card details to purchase gift vouchers.
• The gift voucher website asked the scammer for the OTP.
• The scammer asked the OP for the OTP.
• The OP obtained the OTP from the bank, which is accompanied by a message along the lines of "do not share this code - if any one asks you for this code, hang up"
• The OP gave the scammer the OTP.
• The scammer entered the OTP into the website to complete the purchase of the gift vouchers (which are sent to the scammer, not the OP).
• The OP lost their money and never received the bike or the gift vouchers.

If that is what happened, I am not sure what the bank can do more.  I understand and sympathise with the OP for losing their money, but if the bank is liable here, then would that create a free-for-all that anyone can buy anything from anywhere and bank ends up footing the bill.  Retail banks can't simply print money - they have to get the money from somewhere.

Possibly, there could be legislation passed that means online orders can only be sent to the card holders address.  In this case, at least the OP would have received the gift vouchers, unless the scammer had some means to intercept the physical vouchers or override the address data.  That may reduce scams, but would also reduce flexibility for the majority - it is not unusual to make an order for something to be delivered to other than the card holder's address.  For example, flowers following bereavement, Birthday gifts to a relative, etc.

Barkin

Grumpy_chap said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

must be a double scam then bike and vouchers

• The gift voucher website asked the scammer for the OTP.
• The scammer asked the OP for the OTP.
• The OP obtained the OTP from the bank, which is accompanied by a message along the lines of "do not share this code - if any one asks you for this code, hang up"
• The OP gave the scammer the OTP.
• The scammer entered the OTP into the website to complete the purchase of the gift vouchers (which are sent to the scammer, not the OP).
• The OP lost their money and never received the bike or the gift vouchers.

If that is what happened

I don't think it is, quite. 

The OP - as I read it - says that they OK'd the transaction in their app. in which case no OTP's.

But otherwise... yeah. 

Grumpy_chap

Barkin said:

I don't think it is, quite. 

The OP - as I read it - says that they OK'd the transaction in their app. in which case no OTP's.

But otherwise... yeah. 

I don't have APP banking but, AIUI, the "OK'd the transaction in the APP" is the same security step as OTP.
You get a message that reads along the lines of "this security step authorises a transaction to ABC for the sum of £xxx" please confirm you wish to make the payment." plus some warning about the risk of being scammed.

Again, the security step via the APP authorisation would not occur if the retailer was using a card machine and making an over the phone transaction.  It is only the fact they are making a transaction via an online gift card website that the APP check was initiated (instead of OTP).

A key thing for the bank assessing fraud might well be what the "ABC" part of that in-APP notification said.  If it was "Anytown Bike Centre" then the OP can plausibly believe this is payment for a bike.  If it was "Giftcards-R-Us" then the OP might reasonably have been expected by the bank to notice.

mjm3346

FB Marketplace is like buying something from "a man down the pub" and you should buy/not buy accordingly.

eskbanker

Minor pedantic point but 'APP' (upper case) usually signifies Authorised Push Payment, whereas the software deployed to phones, etc, is just 'app' (lower case) - it's an abbreviation rather than an initialism (such as OTP, OP, AIUI, etc) so capitalising it is the equivalent of talking about going to the PUB, for example!

penners324

Offline payments wouldn't ask for a payment to be authorised in the app or by otp. Another red flag.

Definitely a scam from start to finish.