First Direct fraud block abroad, is this really a reasonable process?

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82099740#Comment_82099740

I agree it's not something they would do unless forced too.

masonic

My FD card has a phone number printed on the back for calling from overseas. Calling in the event of problems is the best option, as you have found.

The £50 is worth taking, as is the advice to have a backup card whether at home or abroad.

mta999

There should be absolutely zero need to block any transaction - abroad or not - if the person has the bank's app on their mobile phone and is thus able to authorise it.

Amh2026

I'm new to the forum, so I'm not quite sure of the etiquette for replying collectively or individually, but I just wanted to say that I've found all the comments incredibly helpful. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

The biggest issue for me remains First Direct effectively saying, "there's a queue and we were going to get around to calling you", when more than 24 hours had passed and they still hadn't done so. They have limited resources compared to other institutions I think. They had blocked my card following an ATM transaction the previous evening. Had they sent an SMS, email or app notification simply telling me the card had been blocked, I would have known there was a problem and wouldn't have confidently gone out the following day, had a meal and then discovered I couldn't pay for it or access cash.

The advice about carrying another card is absolutely fair and something I've taken on board. I'm not normally silly about these things, but I got caught out in the moment. I took my card wallet with one card and did have cash, but ended up shopping and spending more of it than planned. Lesson firmly learnt, and I won't put myself in that position again.

That said, I do think I should be able to expect my bank to tell me when it has blocked access to my money. And when I contacted them explaining that I was stranded abroad with two young children, being told they couldn't call me and that I had to find a way to call them was particularly difficult to accept.

I also found the £50 goodwill offer pretty disappointing given what happened. I'm not suggesting another £50 suddenly makes everything fine. It's more about recognising the seriousness of the experience and showing that the bank genuinely appreciates the position its customer was placed in.

Interestingly, the complaint handler repeatedly told me that this is a regular area of complaint and one of the biggest sources of complaints they deal with. He also said they are actively working on the issue and will be bringing in improvements to the process.

That's probably the part I find hardest to reconcile with their formal response. On the one hand, I'm being told there was no error and the system "worked as intended". On the other, I'm being told this is a significant and recurring source of customer complaints and that First Direct recognises the need for improvements which it is already working on.

I apreciate that a process can technically operate as designed and still be improved, but when that process can leave someone abroad without access to their money and waiting more than 24 hours for the required human intervention, "the system worked as intended" doesn't feel like a particularly satisfactory answer.

Anyway, I've definitely learnt some lessons myself from this experience, particularly about having backup cards when travelling. But the whole experience, and perhaps even more so First Direct's response afterwards, has really put me off banking with them. I've lost confidence in being able to rely on them when something goes wrong, so I'll be looking to move my account elsewhere as soon as possible.

Thanks again to everyone who commented. It's genuinely been really useful hearing the different views, including those that don't necessarily agree with me!

GeoffTF

In my experience card transactions occasionally fail. That has never been a problem for me, because I always carry a backup card from another bank. I have never had both cards fail at the same time. If a card failed on a second occasion for no apparent reason, I would ring the bank. I would not expect them to ring me. On the occasions when I have rang the bank they have said that there is nothing wrong with the card.

tom192

Also one to think about, you should absolutely not trust any call claiming to be from a bank calling you. If you are ever called directly you should hang up and call the bank directly using the number on the back of your card. Legitmate banks operators will be more than happy with you telling them that you will do this, do not be pressured into taking immediate action etc etc. you have to be sure it's your actual bank you are talking to.

I personally think you should take the £50 and chalk it down to experience, always had brilliant customer service from FD multiple rejects you should have been doing some investigation from your side as to what was going on. As mentioned multiple cards are always worth having, even one that isn't really suited for abroad use can get you out of a hole in a pinch, and spread the cards out don't have them all in the same place/ on the same person (obviously you need to trust the other person) on alot of cards these days you can select options in the app for what it will let you do with it, your spare one for example you might just choose to allow ATM access with no contactless on, you can get cash if you need to but if it gets nicked it's neither use nor ornament to anybody without the pin as all other transactions are blocked. I did this on a recent trip and kept the card in my suitcase, was there if I needed but of limited risk if it got nicked.

Amh2026

Just one final clarification, as I think a couple of the comments are still addressing a slightly different point from the one I'm making.

I don't expect a bank to contact me every time a card payment or ATM withdrawal declines. Particularly abroad, ATMs and POS terminals can fail or behave differently for all sorts of reasons.

That had actually happened on this trip. One ATM had allowed me to withdraw money while another had not. So, as the customer, I had no way of knowing whether a subsequent decline was an issue with that particular ATM or whether my bank had actually blocked my card. First Direct, however, did know.

They had deliberately blocked my card the previous evening. Their system had also determined that the usual SMS verification couldn't be used and that "human intervention" was required. Yet they didn't tell me.

No SMS, email, app notification or telephone call. I was put into a queue for the Fraud Detection Team to call me and, more than 24 hours later, they still hadn't done so. I was told this was because they have limited resources and work through a queue.

That raises another question for me. If First Direct genuinely believed there might be fraud taking place on my account, is it really satisfactory that more than 24 hours can pass without the customer being contacted?

And should there not be some consideration of urgency? There is surely a material difference between somebody sitting at home in the UK whose card has been restricted and somebody abroad who may suddenly have lost their principal means of accessing money. Customers can be in remote locations, have limited connectivity or, as happened to me, be unable to make the telephone call First Direct insists upon.

I appreciate there will be security considerations around fraud alerts. But we live in an age where First Direct provides an app, online banking and Live Chat. As others have mentioned, banks routinely use apps or messages to ask customers to approve transactions. As do they normally. Had I simply received an app notification or SMS allowing me to confirm the transaction, where appropriate, the problem could potentially have been resolved immediately.

Even if this particular alert genuinely required human intervention, there was surely nothing preventing a notification saying, "We've restricted your card, please contact us." I would then have known the previous evening and would not have gone out the following day confidently relying upon the card. Instead, First Direct has confirmed that where its normal SMS verification isn't available, the card declining is regarded as the prompt for the customer to contact them. That leaves the customer playing a guessing game while the bank already knows the answer.

My card had worked perfectly normally for several days and was then suddenly blocked without notification. I discovered that after eating at a restaurant with my two young children. I couldn't pay and then couldn't obtain cash from three ATMs. Even when I got onto Live Chat, explained that I was stranded abroad with two young children and said I couldn't make the required telephone call, they couldn't remove the block or arrange for someone to call me. I had to find my own way of obtaining a telephone/local SIM and call them myself.

That's what doesn't sit comfortably with me. The bank imposes the restriction, doesn't tell the customer, can't resolve it through its app or Live Chat, can't arrange an urgent callback when the customer explains their circumstances, and ultimately places the responsibility on the customer to find a way of resolving it.

I fully accept the sensible comments about carrying backup cards, and I've already addressed that above. Lesson learnt. But having a backup card doesn't answer whether the underlying banking process is reasonable. It simply protects the customer from the consequences if it isn't.

There is also one final piece of context which I think is important. The complaint handler repeatedly told me that this is a regular area of complaint, including problems involving customers abroad, and described it as one of their biggest sources of complaints. I was also told that First Direct is actively working on improvements and that the issue is being considered internally. So this doesn't appear simply to be me saying, "I don't like your system". First Direct itself appears to recognise that there is an issue worth examining and improving. I appreciate that a system can technically operate as designed and still need improvement. But when First Direct's formal answer is that there was no error because the system "worked as intended", while also acknowledging recurring complaints and actively working on changes, I think there is a legitimate issue here deserving consideration.

I've now referred it to FOS. They may ultimately conclude that First Direct's process is fair and reasonable, and I'll accept their independent view.

But my point remains a simple one: when a bank deliberately blocks a customer's access to their money, knows the customer doesn't necessarily know this, and knows human intervention is required, I don't think the entire burden of discovering the restriction and obtaining that intervention should fall on the customer.

Thanks again for all the comments, including those who disagree. The different perspectives have genuinely been useful. Backup card and cash will always be on hand! :)

eskbanker

And should there not be some consideration of urgency? There is surely a material difference between somebody sitting at home in the UK whose card has been restricted and somebody abroad who may suddenly have lost their principal means of accessing money. Customers can be in remote locations, have limited connectivity or, as happened to me, be unable to make the telephone call First Direct insists upon.

It'll be interesting to learn of FOS's stance on this but I imagine that their queue will be simple FIFO and don't believe that being abroad would be seen as a reason to 'jump the queue'.

Amh2026

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82100875#Comment_82100875

Will be sure to update and thanks again to all.

mta999

Don't hold your breath for First Direct's internal consideration and follow on changes - it could take years

I don't have a great opinion of First Direct and would recommend moving to a proper bank like HSBC

I appreciate this view will be unpopular amongst many