Ombudsman not upheld my complaint

slingo63

eskbanker said:

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.

No, its not my actual one but its almost identical. Mine isn't showing on the FOS website.

eskbanker

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

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.

No, its not my actual one but its almost identical. Mine isn't showing on the FOS website.

So is the FOS explanation for the decision in your case based on the same logic as that quoted earlier in the thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81640512/#Comment_81640512

Chief_of_Staffy

Whilst it's difficult to believe people still fall for these scams, with the exception of the elderly, I cannot see why the banks don't make it perfectly clear how they will contact you, what they might ask of you, and what they will never ask you to do. Not in the Ts & Cs, or on some page hidden on a website, but periodically presented to you as information points that you must read and individually acknowledge before you can proceed to your account.

And they need to examine their own procedures, too. I had a phone call last week from one of my savings banks. They said they needed to discuss something regarding my account and then said, "We just need to go through some security questions first." When I asked how I could verify they were my bank and not a scammer, there was silence on the other end, followed by, "Well, you can check the phone number against the website." Seriously? After I'd explained I was ending the call and phoning the bank directly on another phone the lady was polite, but it was clear she thought I was a little mad. In the event it was the bank, wanting to ask if I'd received an email as their system had been acting up, but even so.

slingo63

Basically yes. I can't believe I fell for it in hindsight but I won't make that mistake again. £2000 might not seem a lot to some but it was to me. 

eskbanker

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Whilst it's difficult to believe people still fall for these scams, with the exception of the elderly, I cannot see why the banks don't make it perfectly clear how they will contact you, what they might ask of you, and what they will never ask you to do. Not in the Ts & Cs, or on some page hidden on a website, but periodically presented to you as information points that you must read and individually acknowledge before you can proceed to your account.

Many don't bank online, and OP paid by debit card anyway, which would have circumvented any such warnings....

born_again

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Whilst it's difficult to believe people still fall for these scams, with the exception of the elderly, I cannot see why the banks don't make it perfectly clear how they will contact you, what they might ask of you, and what they will never ask you to do. Not in the Ts & Cs, or on some page hidden on a website, but periodically presented to you as information points that you must read and individually acknowledge before you can proceed to your account.

And they need to examine their own procedures, too. I had a phone call last week from one of my savings banks. They said they needed to discuss something regarding my account and then said, "We just need to go through some security questions first." When I asked how I could verify they were my bank and not a scammer, there was silence on the other end, followed by, "Well, you can check the phone number against the website." Seriously? After I'd explained I was ending the call and phoning the bank directly on another phone the lady was polite, but it was clear she thought I was a little mad. In the event it was the bank, wanting to ask if I'd received an email as their system had been acting up, but even so.

Simple. It would give the fraudsters exactly what they want. Total knowledge of what to ask customers.🤦‍♀️

As ever & I have made out bound call at bank. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people that never question you.

Simple answer is not to answer calls, or hang up. If it's important. A message is left.

slingo63

I know some of you probably think I'm an idiot but I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and I did attempt to verify he was from the bank and I just never realised they could spoof the short code SMS number the bank uses. I never expected Starling to be out of pocket, I thought banks had reciprocal processes in place to recover funds from the banks the stolen money had gone to. If I buy goods that turn out to not be what they are supposed to be I have protection, but it appears we don't have full protection for our bank accounts where we have innocently been duped. 
This is the end of the matter for me anyway - I just hoped there may be some loophole to help me recover my money but it seems not. Thank you all for your input, God bless you.

eskbanker

slingo63 said:

I never expected Starling to be out of pocket, I thought banks had reciprocal processes in place to recover funds from the banks the stolen money had gone to. If I buy goods that turn out to not be what they are supposed to be I have protection, but it appears we don't have full protection for our bank accounts where we have innocently been duped.

There are reciprocal processes to recover funds directly transferred between accounts, but this won't be possible once the payee account has been emptied.

Likewise, there's the APP scam code, under which the two banks are collectively responsible for reimbursing qualifying fraudulent transfers, unless the sender ignored warnings.

However, debit card transactions are outside the scope of these arrangements, although there is chargeback (like with goods purchases), which can be used to reverse such payments - to what extent did Starling invoke that for you?

Chief_of_Staffy

eskbanker said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Whilst it's difficult to believe people still fall for these scams, with the exception of the elderly, I cannot see why the banks don't make it perfectly clear how they will contact you, what they might ask of you, and what they will never ask you to do. Not in the Ts & Cs, or on some page hidden on a website, but periodically presented to you as information points that you must read and individually acknowledge before you can proceed to your account.

Many don't bank online, and OP paid by debit card anyway, which would have circumvented any such warnings....

I wasn't talking about information at the point of transaction, I'm talking about periodic communication in bullet point form so everyone knows how their bank may, and will not, communicate with them. Heck, do it as a quiz.

* If you receive a message telling you to transfer money from your account, how likely is it to be a scam?

a) Unlikely
b) Fairly unlikely
c) Likely
d) Absolutely certain

If you know it, it's five minutes of your time once a year. If you don't, it might save you ten grand.

kaMelo

Something like this maybe?
https://www.takefive-stopfraud.org.uk