Fraud excess

Amber_Wamber2020

I unfortunately was recently scammed by someone over holiday cottage rental.

I made what I thought was suitable checks - verified the property existed etc .. spoke to the woman at length via Facebook messenger checked out the website etc. all seemed plausible. Paid £180 deposit .. discovered a couple of weeks later was a scam.

Bank have reimbursed me £80 of the £180 and kept the £100 back as an “excess”

I paid by bank transfer and understand the excess is allowable.
the paperwork they sent me basically said the excess was like teaching me a lesson to “be more vigilant”. I researched and it appears they can waive the fee or apply less. The excess seems disproportionate at 55% of the overall.

I thought as this had never happened to me before - I reported as soon as I found out .. reported to action fraud and had made initial checks that the excess was unfair.
I raised a complaint and received 3 phone calls. At the end of that the bank have not upheld me complaint. I do have some vulnerabilities which I disclosed.
None of this has altered their position - the follow up letter states the regulations allow them the option of applying the excess - later in the letter it states they have followed the rules and applied the excess.

I have banked with Barclays for many years - but this episode makes me think about moving elsewhere for my banking services.
I am also thinking whether to take it to the ombudsman. There’s no real rationale for the excess application other than it’s within the rules and allowable.
wondered what others think.

eskbanker

I do have some vulnerabilities which I disclosed

Did you disclose these to Barclays before or after the scam?

https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/app-fraud-reimbursement-protections/ does include "There is an optional £100 excess that firms can apply (individual firms may choose to apply the excess, choose an alternative excess value up to the maximum £100 or not to use it at all). This excess cannot be applied to vulnerable consumers" but doesn't make it clear whether or not such vulnerabilities are only relevant if known to the bank in advance…

Barclays will presumably argue that the excess is levied as a fixed one rather than presenting it as a percentage, so if they show (to FOS or anyone else) that it's charged as standard then that reduces the potential to argue it to be unfair simply because yours was a relatively low value transaction.

retiredbanker1

Before you decide to leave Barclays - ask yourself whether another bank would have acted differently.

IMO it is a risk for anyone to pay holiday rental by bank transfer when nearly every business can/should accept debit/credit cards.

If you have raised a formal complaint and their final decision is not to refund you in full then go for it - you have a 50/50 chance of success.

kaMelo

The only thing you can hope for is a good will gesture from your bank. There is an element of 'teaching you a lesson' in imposing the £100 excess but in reality it just like paying an insurance excess.

MSE did some research on the fraud excess and which banks will impose the excess or not. If you're thinking of moving your banking you could have a read on what they said.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2024/10/bank-transfer-scam-refund-rules/

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82070222#Comment_82070222

It might be helpful if MSE were to update that article, as it was published at the time when the reimbursement became mandatory and the majority of institutions were non-committal about excesses, whereas the pattern is presumably clearer now, although I can imagine that institutions may be reluctant to make public policy statements.

It does mention the issue of vulnerability though:

What are the extra protections for vulnerable people?

If you're vulnerable, you WON'T be charged an excess on your claim and you won't be expected to meet the same standards of carefulness as those who aren't vulnerable.

A vulnerable person is defined as "someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm – particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care". Banks will have to assess this on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the facts around any claim.

kaMelo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82070237#Comment_82070237

I agree it could do with updating however as you point out, the majority of banks were non-committal and to be honest I don't see that changing, I would expect the same response that they "May" impose the excess decided on a case by case basis.

The same with the term 'vulnerable' Their are specific scenarios where it would be helpful for a bank to know a customer was vulnerable then it may choose, or indeed be expected, to make extra checks on some transactions a customer makes. However, it's also term used to describe such a wide array of circumstances nowadays at times it can becomes meaningless. We've seen it on here where people think because someone is elderly a bank should automatically mark them as vulnerable which is ridiculous.

The only thing we know for certain are the banks who stated they would not impose an excess which were Nationwide, TSB and Virgin Money.