Ombudsman not upheld my complaint

born_again

Chief_of_Staffy said:

QrizB said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

jimjames said:

It's not a lie as the analogy is nonsense. The actual equivalent is the customer going to their bank, asking for their money back and then handing it over to a third party. The bank has not been burgled or had any of their systems compromised. There might be no big vaults of cash but equally there has been no break in either.

I literally addressed this in the post above your own.

If the customer knows that they cannot lose money from someone accessing their bank account, they are not going to withdraw money and 'hand it over' to a third party.

Let me try and simplify it as much as I can without resorting to pictures.

IF
the customer realises the money is safe in the bank
THEN
they cannot be convinced to withdraw the money to safeguard it
SO
they cannot be scammed in this way

That does fall apart rather once you involve regular human beings.

In this case, the customer knew (because banks and the government will have told them, repeatedly, over many years) that their money was safe in the bank.

I've never had anyone tell me my money is safe in the bank, and neither has anybody else (with the exception of FSCS guarantees, which are not the same thing).

In any event, that's not what I'm proposing. The government saying "This is safe" is a complete waste of time. At best, it will convince people of the opposite.

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Now I know that several people on this forum are vehemently opposed this notion, and we can speculate about why, but in terms of a genuine improvement in individual's financial security it's beyond sensible debate that this would be beneficial.

Banks & other groups. Tell you We will never ask you to transfer your funds to another bank in cases of fraud.

Read that as your money is safe in your bank.👍 

Ergates

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Chief_of_Staffy

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Which evidence specifically?

Ergates

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Which evidence specifically?

That explaining things to the public like an adult doesn't magically result in them acting in a sensible and reasonable manner?  I'd say that all of human history stands as evidence.

If you want a few random recent examples:   Smoking;  flat-earthers; horoscopes; anti-vaxers; climate change deniers; Trump

But more relevantly - the evidence already presented in this thread.  Banks repeatedly tell their customers that they will *never* ask them to transfer money to another account and all payment journeys have multiple warnings about scams, including detailed descriptions about the types of things scammers will likely to say to trick them.  Yet people still fall for the exact things they're being warned about.  

So, given that, why on earth would you believe that your proposal would make *any* difference.  Why would the people who either ignored or forgot all the other warnings and advice they were given suddenly pay attention to (and remember) this?  Why is *this* the thing that finally makes them go "Ohhhh, now I get it!"?

Chief_of_Staffy

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Which evidence specifically?

That explaining things to the public like an adult doesn't magically result in them acting in a sensible and reasonable manner?  I'd say that all of human history stands as evidence.

Every shred of evidence points to the opposite. The idea that giving people information in order for them to make decisions makes no difference to the decisions they make is farcical. That's maybe why, in your example, almost everybody in the world believes in a spherical Earth, not a flat one. Because of information they've been told.

I said that by giving relevant information to people and making sure that they understand and acknowledge it, that will prevent scams. Not all scams, but a number.

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Which evidence specifically?

But more relevantly - the evidence already presented in this thread.  Banks repeatedly tell their customers that they will *never* ask them to transfer money to another account and all payment journeys have multiple warnings about scams, including detailed descriptions about the types of things scammers will likely to say to trick them.  Yet people still fall for the exact things they're being warned about.  

So, given that, why on earth would you believe that your proposal would make *any* difference.  Why would the people who either ignored or forgot all the other warnings and advice they were given suddenly pay attention to (and remember) this?  Why is *this* the thing that finally makes them go "Ohhhh, now I get it!"?

I've explained that in detail on three occasions. Please read what I write before you comment.

Section62

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

If - and bear with me on this radical proposal - the public aren't treated like morons, and it's explained in a straightforward way HOW the system works and WHY their money is safe, and this message is communicated directly to every person who uses banks as opposed to being 'available' on some random website, then that will obviously prevent scams.

Available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

Which evidence specifically?

That explaining things to the public like an adult doesn't magically result in them acting in a sensible and reasonable manner?  I'd say that all of human history stands as evidence.

Every shred of evidence points to the opposite. The idea that giving people information in order for them to make decisions makes no difference to the decisions they make is farcical. That's maybe why, in your example, almost everybody in the world believes in a spherical Earth, not a flat one. Because of information they've been told.
...

You pick on that one, but what about smoking, and horoscopes?

Also, if people really paid attention to the information they've been told then they would know the Earth is an oblate spheroid, not spherical.  And that's the real issue... you can present as much information to people as you like, but you can't stop them ignoring it, or coming up with their own interpretation of it.  

Then insisting their interpretation is the correct one.  Or that they'd never been told.

Ergates

Chief_of_Staffy said:

I've explained that in detail on three occasions. Please read what I write before you comment.

No, you've just asserted it, without providing any evidence or explanation as to *why* people would pay attention to *this* particular advice when they routinely ignore every other piece of advice on the same subject. 

You've also not given any indication about how you propose to go about "giving relevant information to people and making sure that they understand and acknowledge it,".   Are you going to force people to read/watch something?  If so, how?  If not, what else?  How do you "give" people information in a way that they cannot simply ignore?

Fundamentally:  The reason people fall for scams is not a lack of available information, it's that they've not paid attention to the information they've already been provided with.  This means that providing them with *more* information is not the solution.

Chief_of_Staffy

Ergates said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

I've explained that in detail on three occasions. Please read what I write before you comment.

No, you've just asserted it, without providing any evidence or explanation as to *why* people would pay attention to *this* particular advice when they routinely ignore every other piece of advice on the same subject. 

You've also not given any indication about how you propose to go about "giving relevant information to people and making sure that they understand and acknowledge it,".   Are you going to force people to read/watch something?  If so, how?  If not, what else?  How do you "give" people information in a way that they cannot simply ignore?

Why are you repeatedly refusing to read what I write? Here, from this very thread:

>

Chief_of_Staffy said:

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.

>

Chief_of_Staffy said:

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.

masonic

Surely anyone who didn't think their money was safe in a bank account... wouldn't put their money in a bank account.

If banks launched a big campaign assuring us all our money is safe with them, it would carry more than a whiff of "the lady doth protest too much".

Chief_of_Staffy

masonic said:

Surely anyone who didn't think their money was safe in a bank account... wouldn't put their money in a bank account.

I get you. In the same way as nobody who doesn't believe cars are 100% safe ever rides in a car.

Erm.

"Despite convenience being key, consumer trust in online banking continues to be an issue when it comes to financial services. NetApps' survey reveals many UK consumers still feel held back from the convenience of online banking with almost half (48 per cent) saying that if they knew more about the safety of online banking, they would start to use it or use it more often." - Fintech Times

Why is it that any mention of sensible measures to educate people against scams on these forums is met with ridicule and arguments so absurd they cause buttock pain. Note there's no question mark at the end of that sentence.

Let's recap on a few: We shouldn't educate anybody against scams because:

a) if you put out information about scams the scammers will use it to scam even more people.

b) there's no known mechanism to do so.

c) informing the public never causes them to make better decisions (utilising the let-me-cite-multiple-examples-where-the-direct-opposite-is-true approach) so we shouldn't do it.

d) people tend to think of the Earth as spherical as opposed to (oop, let me do a quick Google) an 'oblate sphere'. So, you know, don't tell anybody anything.

e) horoscopes. No, me neither.

f) everybody who puts money into a bank believes it is perfectly safe else they wouldn't do it, so what's the point.