Ombudsman not upheld my complaint

Ergates

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?

The reason given in the "near identical" case linked was that whilst the subsequent transactions were indicative of a suspicious pattern, the first transaction *at the point it occurred* was not suspicious - therefore it was not reasonable to have expected the bank to block it.   I expect this is the reason in the OP's case too, given how similar they are.

Ergates

slingo63 said:

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.

But why should they have blocked the first transaction?  At the point it occurred it wasn't part of a pattern, it was just a single transaction.  They even asked you about it, and you approved it.  What more should/could they have done at that point?  Predict the future?

eskbanker

Ergates 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?

The reason given in the "near identical" case linked was that whilst the subsequent transactions were indicative of a suspicious pattern, the first transaction *at the point it occurred* was not suspicious - therefore it was not reasonable to have expected the bank to block it.   I expect this is the reason in the OP's case too, given how similar they are.

Yes, so OP authorised all of the transactions but only one of them was rejected because there was no particular reason to suspect it. Therefore the reason for the rejection isn't OP's authorisation as such but the fact that the first transaction wasn't deemed suspicious by Starling, and FOS don't view that stance as unreasonable, with full sight of all relevant facts.

Still unclear why chargeback apparently wasn't invoked though....

trient

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

eskbanker

trient said:

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

That's effectively why I'm asking about chargeback, i.e. the process used to do that. A chargeback would fail if raised more than 120 days later (so is academic) but it's unclear how it would have been defended in this case (assuming there is no business as such but simply someone with the ability to take card payments) but it's also unclear if Starling even attempted to initiate a claim on OP's behalf in the first place?

masonic

eskbanker said:

trient said:

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

That's effectively why I'm asking about chargeback, i.e. the process used to do that. A chargeback would fail if raised more than 120 days later (so is academic) but it's unclear how it would have been defended in this case (assuming there is no business as such but simply someone with the ability to take card payments) but it's also unclear if Starling even attempted to initiate a claim on OP's behalf in the first place?

I don't know if the OP disclosed who the payment was made to, but for this scam to be useful goods or services would usually be provided to the scammer. Cryptocurrency being a popular choice. It seems unlikely the payment services provider would have been in on it.

eskbanker

masonic said:

eskbanker said:

trient said:

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

That's effectively why I'm asking about chargeback, i.e. the process used to do that. A chargeback would fail if raised more than 120 days later (so is academic) but it's unclear how it would have been defended in this case (assuming there is no business as such but simply someone with the ability to take card payments) but it's also unclear if Starling even attempted to initiate a claim on OP's behalf in the first place?

I don't know if the OP disclosed who the payment was made to, but for this scam to be useful goods or services would usually be provided to the scammer. Cryptocurrency being a popular choice. It seems unlikely the payment services provider would have been in on it.

Provided by rather than to presumably?

I wasn't suggesting that Starling would be in on it, but, in the context of OP asking what could be done to recover the funds, I'd have expected them to at least have suggested/tried a chargeback, even if ultimately unsuccessful.  It's all academic now though, given the elapsed time - once OP's FOS decision is published we'll be able to see what Starling did and the extent to which FOS considered it appropriate....

masonic

eskbanker said:

masonic said:

eskbanker said:

trient said:

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

That's effectively why I'm asking about chargeback, i.e. the process used to do that. A chargeback would fail if raised more than 120 days later (so is academic) but it's unclear how it would have been defended in this case (assuming there is no business as such but simply someone with the ability to take card payments) but it's also unclear if Starling even attempted to initiate a claim on OP's behalf in the first place?

I don't know if the OP disclosed who the payment was made to, but for this scam to be useful goods or services would usually be provided to the scammer. Cryptocurrency being a popular choice. It seems unlikely the payment services provider would have been in on it.

Provided by rather than to presumably?

I wasn't suggesting that Starling would be in on it, but, in the context of OP asking what could be done to recover the funds, I'd have expected them to at least have suggested/tried a chargeback, even if ultimately unsuccessful.  It's all academic now though, given the elapsed time - once OP's FOS decision is published we'll be able to see what Starling did and the extent to which FOS considered it appropriate....

No, provided "to". You seem to be assuming the merchant is the scammer, but it is far more likely the scammer is merely the recipient of services from the merchant paid for by the OP (having persuaded the OP to authorise payment using deception).

If there is no disputing that the services would have been provided in accordance with the contract, then a chargeback wouldn't be appropriate. The MCC used for the transaction may have given Starling some insight as to whether a chargeback could have been feasible.

Edit: in fact it was in the OP's earlier thread that I was disabused of the notion a chargeback should be expected as a form of recourse in this scenario: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81393616/#Comment_81393616

From that thread we know it was flagged as a high risk transaction during the authorisation step, so likely a payment into an e-money account, crypto exchange, money transfer service, or similar, where the contract was simply to credit the specified digital wallet.

eskbanker

* slaps forehead *

Not sure why it took so long for the lightbulb to illuminate but yes, I was indeed assuming the merchant is the scammer and agree that it's far more likely that the scammer was using OP's card details to make a 'legitimate' purchase from an unwitting but innocent merchant who'd be able to show that something was provided!

born_again

eskbanker said:

trient said:

Back to my previous point though, if there was a business on the receiving end (charging the card) can the OP not file a claim directly with that business? Assuming indeed no goods/services were provided. I just can't fathom that a business is out there fraudulently charging customers and nothing can be done about it.

That's effectively why I'm asking about chargeback, i.e. the process used to do that. A chargeback would fail if raised more than 120 days later (so is academic) but it's unclear how it would have been defended in this case (assuming there is no business as such but simply someone with the ability to take card payments) but it's also unclear if Starling even attempted to initiate a claim on OP's behalf in the first place?

Given we do not who the retailer was or what the payment was for. It is possible that the service or goods was provided to the fraudster. So a non receipt chargeback would fail.
No fraud chargeback as this was a secure payment. So OP's bank would lose out & can use the argument that code was provided that was sent to OP/Customer.