We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Chip & PIN Liability on Credit/Debit Cards
Options
Comments
-
The answer is quite simple:
1. Always use your credit card.(Then any fraud is with the bank's money, not yours. Plus of course Sect 75 of CCA applies)
2. If there are any transactions that you did not make - tell the card issuer and do NOT pay it.
3. If they say that you are liable - report them to the Financial Ombudsman.
"Sandra Quinn, director of corporate communications at APACS, said that Chip-and-PIN remains the safest method of payment for goods and services: "In the unlikely event a cardholder is an innocent victim of this or any type of fraud, they enjoy excellent protection under The Banking Code, which means that they will not suffer any financial loss."
The Banking Code says if you are not satisfied go to the Ombudsman.0 -
0
-
Yes - so what ?
The first two ladies had their current accounts "raided" - I said "always use your credit card".
Why, when the Banking Code, The APACS spokesperson AND the Financial Ombudsman all sate that the onus of proof is on the bank do you insist on believing a shoddy piece of BBC reporting !
The BBC reporter said the onus of proof is on the customer - this is just NOT TRUE !0 -
moonrakerz wrote: »Yes - so what ?
The BBC reporter said the onus of proof is on the customer - this is just NOT TRUE !
Maybe you'd like to read the article from WHICH? (formerly the Consumers Association) published in the Financial Times - June 2009
"bank turned down his fraud claim because his pin number was used to withdraw the cash. It said he must have been negligent and when he appealed to the Financial Ombudsman Service it also turned down his case."
Article click here.
The F.O.S. conclusion was based on assumpton the card user was 'careless' with his PIN - not proof.0 -
moonrakerz wrote: »
Why, when the Banking Code, The APACS spokesperson AND the Financial Ombudsman all sate that the onus of proof is on the bank do you insist on believing a shoddy piece of BBC reporting !
The BBC reporter said the onus of proof is on the customer - this is just NOT TRUE !
Corporate speak is very different from reality. . Most customers do not know what to ask/look for when then bank insists that the chip and pin was used. The Bank does not provide any proof and customers has to take the hit. From the very beginning, chip & pin was a means to shift the liability to the customer and unless there transparency on the whole process the customer will always be at a disadvantage.0 -
I don't think you quite understand what was said. The liability rests with the weakest link. If the merchant accepts a mag stripe transaction on a chip card, then they are liable for the fraud. If the card is mag stripe only, then the card issuer is liable.
Which is exactly what I said. :rolleyes:0 -
So it is. In which case, I'm not sure what you were objecting to in my post when I said "There are still mag stripe cards being issued (leaving the issuer liable) and some merchants still accepting the risk for any liability." Perhaps it wasn't clear that those two statements weren't referring to the same reason for liability.0
-
It's all bertter for the banks to issue Chip+PIN cards, It's also not in the banks favour to issue a chip and signature card, this is still the same prinicpal in that the card was chip which shows the primary card issued by the bank is being used and is not a counterfeit, however it wouldn't stand up if a Chip+Sig card was used fraudulently in a shop as anyone can blag a signature on the card, the bank wouldn't have any comeback over a fraudulent claim.
What I trying to think about is that if the PIN was used and the card was the primary card issued by the bank, providing that the bank or card issuer can confirm this is the case and in no way it's a counterfeit card, on my part I haven't got any come back against the bank as they have provided this info to me?0 -
It's all bertter for the banks to issue Chip+PIN cards, It's also not in the banks favour to issue a chip and signature card, this is still the same prinicpal in that the card was chip which shows the primary card issued by the bank is being used and is not a counterfeit, however it wouldn't stand up if a Chip+Sig card was used fraudulently in a shop as anyone can blag a signature on the card, the bank wouldn't have any comeback over a fraudulent claim.
However; they can show that it was the genuine card that was used. This may or may not be important, depending on other factors.What I trying to think about is that if the PIN was used and the card was the primary card issued by the bank, providing that the bank or card issuer can confirm this is the case and in no way it's a counterfeit card, on my part I haven't got any come back against the bank as they have provided this info to me?
Technically, they have to prove that you were negligent with your PIN. The reason Mr Job lost the case is down to the fact that he claims the card remained in his possession at all times (except at the point he left it in his garden overnight) and all the transactions were made near his home.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.6K Life & Family
- 248.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards