This w/e I am "debanked" (now resolved: 90 hours wait, no info. Complaint rejected. Now ombudsman.)

Rob5342

I'd take it the the FOS personally. It should be possible to resolve something like this in the app in a few minutes, not take five days of phone calls.

My experience with Nationwide's complaints department was equally bad. Every time I phoned they said that their complaints manager would contact me but he never did, I also emailed him twice and he just ignored me.

brianposter

Looking at the OPs experience it appears that delay and non-cooperation are the essence of the bank"s anti-fraud measures. Once a week has passed without further notifications the bank can probably assume that the account holders mobile remains in the account holders hands and can then relax the anti-fraud measures.

The alternative would be to insist that the OP goes into a branch with ID but for some reason this does not seem to be popular with banks.

brianposter

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097579#Comment_82097579

You cannot resolve things in the app because the bank does not know who is using the phone.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097665#Comment_82097665

The bank talked to the OP regarding what had happened and what was happening (in terms of the fraud team's involvement).

If the bank had any suspicion the phone was not in the OP's possession and they were talking to a fraudster, then they shouldn't have said anything to the 'OP' - not even confirming that there had been a suspicious transaction. Their first step should have been to confirm that they were talking to their customer and nobody else.

Banks and building societies seem to work on the basis their app is 100% secure - therefore as Rob5342 suggests, it should be possible for the customer to verify possession of the phone and security of cards/passwords etc via the app, and - unless the fraud investigation is about the retailer not the OP - also confirm that the unusual 'transaction' was a keying error. Equally though, most banks have sufficient 'security' set up on customer profiles for them to be comfortable they are speaking to the customer and not somebody else. So in terms of the OP verifying with the bank that they still have their phone and the unusual transaction wasn't something being done by a third party then one phone call should have been enough to sort this out, and not needed multiple calls over several days to be able to make payments again.

Given some banks still happily use "mother's maiden name" as their phone security, it would be something of a stretch for Virgin to justify keeping the OP's accounts blocked for as long as they did solely because they couldn't confirm the 'OP' was the OP.

brianposter

There are millions of people in the UK who have access to other peoples phones and who know the answers to the obvious security questions.

Once there is doubt the bank needs to see ID.

Andrea15

@brianposter , @Section62

I mentioned this in other messages, but it is worth repeating.

During my phone calls I was asked no fewer than 7 times whether I "needed any extra help or support ... " (It was always the same lengthy speech) which I thought was infuriating because they knew full well the help and support I needed. I never understood what all that verbiage meant, despite the fact that these days every time you phone any customer service department they recite to you like it was a Our Father or a Hail Mary.

In the email I was first sent by the "customer relation" department in relation to my complaint, after the recitation of the prayer (that would be instance No. 8) there was a handy link that explained what that meant, so I discovered that it was things like blindness, deafness, memory loss, etc. You get the idea.

The irony of all this is that I was always asked that question AFTER the Spanish inquisition style identification procedure which comprised:

• name and address
• Email address
• Account number with sort code and debit card number
• ACCESS TO THE APP so that I would be able to quote some transactions.

(There may have been others that now I forget.)

I wonder what would have happened had I been deaf or blind or affected by memory loss or has arthritis or whatever else.

The fact that the prayer comes AFTER the id procedure explains why I couldn't understand what it actually meant and shows that, in case someone was in any doubt, it is just performative guff.

Anyway, this long post to say that they must have been satisfied that I was who I said I was (and not some mysterious 'OP').

Further irony (and proof that they don't mean any of it) is that no one asked whether I had access to funds or needed help to access it.

brianposter

I reckon I could get through all that on somebody else"s phone and I very much doubt that I am unique.

I suspect that the instructions given to the relevant bank staff are that they should never assume that they are speaking to the genuine account holder.

Andrea15

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097721#Comment_82097721

In that case there is no way out, is there.

brianposter

All the evidence is that you have simply been on the end of the standard bank procedure in the circumstances. There may be better ways of doing things but, without considerable knowledge of the bank"s point of view, we are hardly in a position to judge.

Andrea15

That's all fine; I can live with it. What I can't live with is the fact that they leave you stranded with no warning and no means of recourse.

Note (as I discovered later on), my bank account wasn't frozen as DDs (thankfully) were honoured and I could move money out of it using the app. It was just the card that had been frozen, so automatic payments carried out with my card (like mobile phones) were not honoured.

What would have happened had I found myself with a tank full of petrol and no way to pay for it? Or what would have happened had I run out of petrol with no means of filling the car? (Other examples can be provided upon request :D )