Suing a bank for professional negligence?

goldmine2011

[Deleted User] said:

I can't comment on the app as I refuse to conduct business using one so have no experience of using them. You might be eligible for compensation from the financial ombudsman. They have a scale of compensation, but don't expect much even if you win - £1.5k at the top end, likely less.

http://financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience

The ombudsman should also ensure the last sum is paid back into your account.

Rest assured that even after all that, you still don't hate banks as much as I do.

As much as the financial compensation would at least pay for us to get better security in this instance, if we got an amount it would pay for data-cleansing off the internet, more digital security etc.

Even if it was £1,500 that is not even a drop in the ocean for Barclays, more like a drop of a drop i guess.

What i'm aiming for at the moment is their admission that this time around it was not of my doing, which the person i spoke to on the phone agreed with. I said right now, without me knowing the actual reason how it happened, i still dont know if my devices, data, home is safe. I will only know once you tell me its either my devices or you have a security flaw.

Which they will have to provide me eventually, hence why i am looking to go down the negligence/data breach route when they admit it

goldmine2011

Emily_Joy said:

goldmine2011 said:

Emily_Joy said:

OP, is there any reason you have only one bank account? This is definitely not recommended.

No specific reason tbh, its mainly where the money comes in and out. Did actually have a additional current account until about 6 months ago but never really used it and closed it. Now I see why its not a good idea to have just 1 and will be getting another 2 once this is resolved (closing Barclays and then getting 2 with different banks)

Why do you want to wait for this to be sorted? Barclays doesn't have particularly good interest rates either, so it is a bit puzzling why such a considerable sum of money was sitting in an account there.

I guess i kind of have to wait for it to be sorted because they still havent reimbursed me the £9k and if im scared if i just randomly shut the entire account off it causes more issues when they come to give me the money back, or when calling up you have to have account details for them to reference, considering i still have the active fraud case still open with them currently. 

Everything ive learnt about so far with Barclays is you literally have to do their job for them, absolutely useless for such a large organisation.

The 2nd part i'm not sure what you mean, as in why did i have over £9k in that account in the first place? Purely because at the time thats where wages go in? And nothing was yet due to come out.

eskbanker

dinosaur66 said:

i read how savvy these fraudsters are but surely bank staff are trained in every possible way they operate because thats there job to root out scammers and yet reading this some of them are aiding and abbetting the very crooks barclays are paying them to stop.

It's not the job of bank staff to root out scammers, that's up to the police and the courts!  Banks are obviously expected to take reasonable preventative measures to avoid scams from happening, and to assist customers to do the same, and it certainly seems that Barclays have questions to answer on that front, but it's not actually up to banks to pursue criminals as such....

dinosaur66

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

goldmine2011

eskbanker said:

dinosaur66 said:

i read how savvy these fraudsters are but surely bank staff are trained in every possible way they operate because thats there job to root out scammers and yet reading this some of them are aiding and abbetting the very crooks barclays are paying them to stop.

It's not the job of bank staff to root out scammers, that's up to the police and the courts!  Banks are obviously expected to take reasonable preventative measures to avoid scams from happening, and to assist customers to do the same, and it certainly seems that Barclays have questions to answer on that front, but it's not actually up to banks to pursue criminals as such....

I think maybe what he meant by root out is essentially be one step ahead of the scammers, just as a corporation as a whole you have x amount of staff dedicated to safeguarding what is essentially billions of £ of customers/consumers funds that they hold on their behalf.

Although I agree that nothing is ever 99.9% fool proof and that hackers exist purely because there is always a way. But on this occasion my gripe is purely with Barclays and their 'service' essentially, they have essentially admitted without saying it in black and white that had the initial agent done what he said he was going to, the extraction of the money would not have been possible, they still managed to get into the account and attempt it, but if he did was he said he was going to do on the 6th, no money would have left the account on the 10th.

And were it not for us 'proactively' calling them on the 6th to notify them of this activity, nothing would have been done at all. The standout moment is the cancelled standing order that we called the bank about that is fraudulent and we requested to be cancelled, was then cancelled, and the agent who then was speaking to the hacker asked him if he would like it, re-instated.

That transaction which was cancelled due to fraudulent activity was essentially re-offered up to the hacker literally on a silver plate, no question from the agent as to why it was previously cancelled? no flag on the system to say that particular cancellation was due to fraudulent activity etc

Hackers are going to hack regardless, it is Barclays job to stop things like this which could have easily been prevented on this occasion and now I'm having to actually do the majority of the legwork for them, the agent who called yesterday needed me again to run down my exact suspicions of how it happened and then agreed that seems to be the case...who's getting paid to do what job here?  

Nasqueron

dinosaur66 said:

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

The first UK credit card was 1966 (Barclays), Access (NatWest) first debit 1987 (Barclays), Switch launched 1988 (Midland/NatWest/RBS). People sure may not have used the tech much but you're tarring 20m people all as not tech savvy, that's rude to say the least.

OP got scammed but the weakest link is always the problem - 1 customer being scammed of 9k indicates something different to thousands being scammed which would indicate a bank issue.

goldmine2011

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

The first UK credit card was 1966 (Barclays), Access (NatWest) first debit 1987 (Barclays), Switch launched 1988 (Midland/NatWest/RBS). People sure may not have used the tech much but you're tarring 20m people all as not tech savvy, that's rude to say the least.

OP got scammed but the weakest link is always the problem - 1 customer being scammed of 9k indicates something different to thousands being scammed which would indicate a bank issue.

At the moment though if we find out that the weakest link is Barclays itself then it essentially leaves any customer susceptible to this type of scam regardless of age, location, profile etc. One of my parents are also with Barclays and I 100% know that they would be more vulnerable to this than I am purely because the reason this was brought to light was because we were proactive in noticing/checking our account, I am sure some who are not even registered for online banking or do not check it regularly wouldn't even know if this was happening to them until maybe weeks/months down the line.

and we are unable to confirm if it is just me that this has happened to, I am sure if they have perfected this method it wouldn't just be used on one customer (me) for £9k, we have to take into account that some people either haven't yet noticed, are not vocal about it or that it is not such a widespread/common problem that it is publicised. Not many people would actually publicise the fact that they have been scammed/hacked either.

I know I have emphasised this point a lot but the person who called me from fraud & security yesterday essentially came to an agreement with me that given the evidence it doesn't look like an issue from my end, which then only leaves 1 conclusion, which clearly they are not going to admit..........until they have to, or until a 3rd party steps in.

Zanderman

dinosaur66 said:

......

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

...

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

I'm in my mid sixties. We didn't have computers in school but I have been using computers daily - and have had my own on my own desk at both work and home - for 40 years.  And no, I don't work in tech. Just everyday work - which has relied on computers for decades.  And on phones and tablets. It's complete nonsense to suggest that anyone who didn't learn about computers in school can't use them!

As for the 20 million older population you mention, I would guess I'm one of those, but I, and most others I know of my age and older, am fairly tech-savvy. 

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Re banking complaints. If you haven't had a satisfactory answer, you should be escalating to the Financial Ombudsman. You don't need to wait for the complaint to be resolved if it has been more than 15 days (I have a text from another bank telling me that but actual timescales may vary).

You could also raise this with the ICO as the bank have a data breach. Given that it has happened again, use your original complaint as the timescale to avoid getting stuck with "give the bank time to respond" delays.

dinosaur66

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

The first UK credit card was 1966 (Barclays), Access (NatWest) first debit 1987 (Barclays), Switch launched 1988 (Midland/NatWest/RBS). People sure may not have used the tech much but you're tarring 20m people all as not tech savvy, that's rude to say the least.

OP got scammed but the weakest link is always the problem - 1 customer being scammed of 9k indicates something different to thousands being scammed which would indicate a bank issue.

 i started work in 1982

i opened my first bank account with barclays in stratford in 1982

i was given a cheque book

everything was in cash bar this.

i even had to put 50p into the back of my rented tv for it to work

i turned on a computer for the very first time in my life in 2001

can i use a computer yes

can i do things a 12 year old can do if asked / no

i looked it up

13% of my generation and older consider themselves tech savvy

i would guess most of them would be people like my brother who worked as a money broker in the city of london when he was a boy and was sent on courses to learn by his company .in the early 80s as would have the older people in his firm had to learn same computer skills.

maybe people on career changes in there 30s might have been trained but computers were not the all powerfull  thing they have become now.