Ombudsman not upheld my complaint

friolento

Nasqueron said:

friolento said:

Nasqueron said:

Section62 said:

Nasqueron said:

Section62 said:

Nasqueron said:

singhini said:

@eskbanker
i totally agree and understand what your saying.

But every time i raise the question "When would a bank require you to move money?"   no body gives me an answer (nor have i ever seem the banks come out and say this i.e, "we would never ask you to move your money" (so im guessing perhaps they would ask you to move your money, but as i say ive never been given an answer and thus can't work out the mechanics of the scam).

Someone please enlighten me so i too don't fall victim to it

Santander especially is very VERY vigilant on these, you have to go through about 10 pages to move money to a new account even after they verify the account name etc. I routinely move money to the Edge saver and when needed for a bill, move it out, something I do the same time every month to the same account in my name, same amounts almost every time (CC bill is the only one that changes) and they still ask you to confirm it all. It's incredibly hard to get through all that without realising it's not legit to move 

Not so sure about that.  With Santander there are simply so many pages to go through it becomes easy to just click for the next one without really reading what the page says... I can more than believe many people do simply click past the messages without taking on board what each one says.  Sometimes less is more.

It probably covers Santander well though if the victim subsequently claims they weren't sufficiently warned about scams.

No you should be sure about that, I didn't go into every step but there are at least 2 if not 3 you have to choose from drop downs, you cannot just click through

Nope, still not sure.  Although you might have a different definition of 'click for the next one' than I was thinking of, and perhaps you are using the app rather than online banking as I get radio buttons instead of drop down lists, with the exception of the first page on which "payment purpose" is a drop down list.

The last sequence I got for a new payment to one of my own accounts was a total of 12 'Fraud warning' pages - of those one had a drop down list ('Payment Purpose'), three had radio buttons, and one had a simple yes/no button selection.  The other 7 pages were just slabs of text with a "Continue" button at the bottom.

If someone is being manipulated and under pressure they aren't necessarily going to spend time reading all the text, especially if the scammer is prompting them what to click.

Hence me saying "I can more than believe many people do simply click past the messages without taking on board what each one says."

Nope, still sure, you cannot "just click through without reading", this is factually incorrect.

As you state yourself, you have to choose radio buttons - an active choice is required, same as choose from the drop down on the app, you must make the choice to pick an option which requires reading.

QED they cannot just click through without reading and therefore the statement is proven false.

I can assure you that I have clicked through without reading dozens, if not hundreds, of times, as it's the same each and every time the multiple warnings pop up in Santander. If there is something to tick before being able to continue, I tick it without reading much.

Again though, you must actively select an option on the drop down or radio button, QED the statement "you can just click through without reading" is incorrect as that process is impossible. When you are required to make a choice, you have to stop and think, hence why banks do it to try and prevent losses and to cover themselves if someone still gives away money to scammers despite warnings

 No matter how often you tell me that I have read something that I know I have not read, I have not read it. Suggest we leave it at that 😉

Section62

Nasqueron said:

Section62 said:

Nope, still sure, you cannot "just click through without reading", this is factually incorrect.

As you state yourself, you have to choose radio buttons - an active choice is required, same as choose from the drop down on the app, you must make the choice to pick an option which requires reading.

QED they cannot just click through without reading and therefore the statement is proven false.

I agree "just click through without reading" is factually incorrect - but they were your words, not mine.

This is what I said -

Section62 said:

...With Santander there are simply so many pages to go through it becomes easy to just click for the next one without really reading what the page says... I can more than believe many people do simply click past the messages without taking on board what each one says.  Sometimes less is more.

friolento seems to understand the point, and has experienced the same.  I'm sure there are others.

I'd prefer it if you didn't misquote me, but in this case it may have provided a valuable demonstration... seeing words on a screen doesn't equate to reading and understanding them.  Just because someone clicks "Yes" on an "are you sure" screen doesn't automatically mean they have given the question any serious consideration.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

Nasqueron said:

I have never had a drop down or radio buttons. I just click to move on. That might have changed in the last couple of weeks though. It may also be that different people and / or different transactions are treated differently.

It seems to be a new Santander online banking thing which was started a couple of weeks ago - there was a message about a new process to protect customers against fraud followed by about a dozen extra pages, before going back to the original payment confirmation page.

So far I've had it while setting up a couple of new payees, and once when making a large payment to an existing payee.  The rest of the time it was just the old/normal process.

slingo63

Yes, that case is pretty much the same as mine. My argument is that the transaction should have been flagged as unusual for my Startling account and the bank should have contacted me as I know this would have happened with First Direct who I also have an account with. I was just asking for advice of where I go next, but I don't want to risk going to court and losing even more money, if there's little chance of the decision being overturned. So I've been robbed of £2000 and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. I naively thought the bank could recover it from wherever it went, even though I approved it. I approved it because the guy sent me an SMS message which was identical to the ones I get from the bank.

Thanks to everyone who has responded, I appreciate it even though it's not the answer I was hoping for.

slingo63

eskbanker said:

Which bank was it?

The big players subscribed to a voluntary APP (Authorised Push Payment) scam code from 2019 to October 2024, and after that date it was mandatory for all banks.

You're not obliged to share all the details here but a summary of why the ombudsman rejected your claim would obviously be helpful....

Starling bank. They rejected it because I authorised the card payment. I did question the caller and I received a text message from the same short SMS code the bank use, and it looked exactly like the ones they send me. I tried to argue that the size of the payment was uncharacteristic for my account, and that it should have been flagged as it would have been with my other bank First Direct. 

slingo63

Isthisforreal99 said:

Is this the same complaint you asked about in April? - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6600217/financial-ombudsman-sided-with-the-bank#latest

You won't get different answers by asking again

I appealed against it and have just received a response from an actual ombudsman not a case worker, so I was merely asking where do I go from here, that was all.

MyRealNameToo

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

Which bank was it?

The big players subscribed to a voluntary APP (Authorised Push Payment) scam code from 2019 to October 2024, and after that date it was mandatory for all banks.

You're not obliged to share all the details here but a summary of why the ombudsman rejected your claim would obviously be helpful....

Starling bank. They rejected it because I authorised the card payment. I did question the caller and I received a text message from the same short SMS code the bank use, and it looked exactly like the ones they send me. I tried to argue that the size of the payment was uncharacteristic for my account, and that it should have been flagged as it would have been with my other bank First Direct. 

The banks are in a no win situation, there have been many complaints on here from people saying they have lost out or suffered inconvenience because the bank has stopped the payment or not allowed them to make the payment. Several of them with accusations of ageism, that they think they were stopped because of their age and the bank assuming their idiots as a consequence. Similarly people travelling overseas with the added cost of contacting their bank to clear it up.

Then you have the other set who have fallen for a scam and think the banks arent doing enough. 

Personally, I find it rather random. Barclay's stopped by payments to NW CC for almost year flagging them as unusual activity despite being perfectly happy with them for the two years before and each time telling me that the fact they'd cleared it means it won't be stopped the following month but it was. 

FD may have stopped it, they may not have. No one can say for certain unless they've worked on writting the most recent set of rules and have access to your Starling account. If you think their systems are better then use them. Personally I found them terrible and a major pain to deal with and would never give FD any of my money willingly. 

GeoffTF

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

Which bank was it?

The big players subscribed to a voluntary APP (Authorised Push Payment) scam code from 2019 to October 2024, and after that date it was mandatory for all banks.

You're not obliged to share all the details here but a summary of why the ombudsman rejected your claim would obviously be helpful....

Starling bank. They rejected it because I authorised the card payment. I did question the caller and I received a text message from the same short SMS code the bank use, and it looked exactly like the ones they send me. I tried to argue that the size of the payment was uncharacteristic for my account, and that it should have been flagged as it would have been with my other bank First Direct. 

Card payments were not covered by the APP scam code and are still not covered by the mandatory rules, as I understand.

eskbanker

slingo63 said:

Yes, that case is pretty much the same as mine.

But is it your actual one?  If not, what is the exact reasoning that FOS used to reject your complaint?  In the quoted one, they've explained that they didn't consider there to be a clear case that the bank should have intervened, reflecting the fact that banks can't possibly be expected to block all transactions that could be described as unusual, and therefore can't automatically be held accountable when account-holders succeed in paying fraudsters, but if the linked FOS case isn't your one then the rationale may be different....

If you've had a final decision from an actual ombudsman, you could share the DRN (decision reference number), as the information about your case will be in the public domain.

born_again

GeoffTF said:

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

Which bank was it?

The big players subscribed to a voluntary APP (Authorised Push Payment) scam code from 2019 to October 2024, and after that date it was mandatory for all banks.

You're not obliged to share all the details here but a summary of why the ombudsman rejected your claim would obviously be helpful....

Starling bank. They rejected it because I authorised the card payment. I did question the caller and I received a text message from the same short SMS code the bank use, and it looked exactly like the ones they send me. I tried to argue that the size of the payment was uncharacteristic for my account, and that it should have been flagged as it would have been with my other bank First Direct. 

Card payments were not covered by the APP scam code and are still not covered by the mandatory rules, as I understand.

Add in the SMS code will have been from Santander. Which does not help OP as he entered the code or shared with t he fraudster.