Ombudsman not upheld my complaint

eskbanker

kaMelo said:

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

Indeed, they do already make considerable efforts to raise awareness but that Take Five initiative exemplifies the issues involved in doing so - they promote the core message of being vigilant and cautious but also include detailed explanations of over twenty common types of scam, so focussing heavily on one scam in particular would inevitably give less prominence to others that are just as valid and significant.

Chief_of_Staffy

kaMelo said:

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

Indeed, but mandatory and institution specific. The information's out there but it's not much use if nobody sees it.

slingo63

eskbanker said:

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?

There were 4 transactions and they reimbursed 3 of them but wouldn't do the first one 

Renfrewman

I have bank accounts with three or four different banks If I got a phone call warning me of a scam on one I would transfer my money to another of MY bank accounts and not blindly to where someone on the phone tells me.

eskbanker

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

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?

There were 4 transactions and they reimbursed 3 of them but wouldn't do the first one 

What makes the first one different?  I was under the impression that all four were paid by debit card, in which case they can't reject the claim simply on the basis that you authorised the transaction, as you'd presumably have done exactly the same for the ones that they did reimburse?

Renfrewman

eskbanker said:

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

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?

There were 4 transactions and they reimbursed 3 of them but wouldn't do the first one 

What makes the first one different?  I was under the impression that all four were paid by debit card, in which case they can't reject the claim simply on the basis that you authorised the transaction, as you'd presumably have done exactly the same for the ones that they did reimburse?

 Each is a separate transaction and should be examined on that basis. Would 4/4 rejection be better?

eskbanker

Renfrewman said:

eskbanker said:

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

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?

There were 4 transactions and they reimbursed 3 of them but wouldn't do the first one 

What makes the first one different?  I was under the impression that all four were paid by debit card, in which case they can't reject the claim simply on the basis that you authorised the transaction, as you'd presumably have done exactly the same for the ones that they did reimburse?

 Each is a separate transaction and should be examined on that basis. Would 4/4 rejection be better?

I'm not sure you understand the point I'm making?

OP said that "they said because I authorised the payments in my banking app (as I was convinced he was from the bank!) I can't get my money back", so I'm saying that this position is illogical - either none of the transactions should be reimbursed or all of them, unless there are relevant differentiators, in which case let's hear what they are.

trient

Came here to also ask what was the difference between transaction #1 and #2-4.

Also if OP doesn't mind we could all learn a bit more from the pattern used here. Since all 4 txns were debit card payments, there should be a business (if paying for goods/services) or individual (if doing a top-up by card like for Revolut) rather than a generic current account on the other end. This should have been displayed at during authorisation stage and later on the Starling transaction list/account statement.

Was the recipient name suggesting a payment to Starling or OP's own name? I'm thinking the OP wouldn't have fallen for paying say Currys or PayPal or Mr Mohammad Smith. And if the recipient wasn't an individual, could Starling not have gone for that business as presumably their details would be available through the card network?

kipperman

Am I being naive in thinking that the best method to avoid this is just never picking up any calls from unknown numbers ( i.e not on my phones directory, not the withheld number status such as you  get from doctors surgeries etc)? As someone mentioned upthread, if it is important then they will leave a message.

slingo63

eskbanker said:

Renfrewman said:

eskbanker said:

slingo63 said:

eskbanker said:

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?

There were 4 transactions and they reimbursed 3 of them but wouldn't do the first one 

What makes the first one different?  I was under the impression that all four were paid by debit card, in which case they can't reject the claim simply on the basis that you authorised the transaction, as you'd presumably have done exactly the same for the ones that they did reimburse?

 Each is a separate transaction and should be examined on that basis. Would 4/4 rejection be better?

I'm not sure you understand the point I'm making?

OP said that "they said because I authorised the payments in my banking app (as I was convinced he was from the bank!) I can't get my money back", so I'm saying that this position is illogical - either none of the transactions should be reimbursed or all of them, unless there are relevant differentiators, in which case let's hear what they are.

This was my argument, but they refunded the subsequent payments as they recognised they should have noticed the unusual activity and stopped it, but not the first one.