Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 30th Jul 18, 11:54 AM
    • 2,201Posts
    • 850Thanks
    peterbaker
    Don't be fooled by cunning con artists
    • #1
    • 30th Jul 18, 11:54 AM
    Don't be fooled by cunning con artists 30th Jul 18 at 11:54 AM
    I guess this is apt for the times - a July standard notification message in online banking from one of the majors - maybe sent to all customers or maybe to over 60s?:

    Personal: Don't be fooled by cunning con artists

    Fraudsters can "spoof" text messages and set up emails to make them look like they're from us. Never give out your personal or financial information via email or text message. If you receive a phone call and you're not totally sure that it's from us, call us back instead. You can dial the number on the back of your Barclays debit card or use our number checker to make sure any other number is genuine. Just search "Barclays number checker" in your web browser. Get top tips on staying digitally safe and find out about our Digital Eagle events - visit www.barclays.co.uk/digitaleagles or follow us on Twitter @Digitaleagles
    {my red bolded}

    It might have been pertinent to warn customers what happens if you do get fooled and lose money from your account, not just by persons masquerading as your bank, but e.g. from Microsoft Tech Support.

    Will you ever get your money back? Now there's a question with hopefully non-evasive answers from your bank, and well worth knowing in advance. Perhaps worth calling your bank to find out now? For example,
    • Are you still allowed by your bank to routinely answer the phone by giving out Personal Data e.g. your name and number?
    • Are you still allowed to answer the phone whilst operating your computer or must you switch it off and stay away from it for the duration of the call?
    Crazy questions to put to your bank? Maybe not anymore.
    Last edited by peterbaker; 30-07-2018 at 12:03 PM.
Page 6
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 5th Aug 18, 11:44 PM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    I don't think one HSBC employee dictates whether a thread continues or dies on MSE.

    By all means duck out if you can't think of anything to contribute on the unanswered questions about why banks like HSBC have cornered customers into a digital arena and are then dumping the obvious risks that come with it upon tricked customers.

    We the customers do get what what banks have become. I don't think millions "liked" banks when they learned HSBC was fined for moneylaundering drug money, and then reportedly was found to have been handling terrorist money too, do you?

    Perhaps all HSBC employees should be forced in the company's time to watch the Netflix documentary on the subject and to individually write an accurate synopsis thereafter and sign it before being permitted to get up and go to lunch, in order to remain temporarily compliant in their current roles. Their synopses should be marked for accuracy, and any who fail to geddit should have their compliant status nullified.

    As I said, there are some self-serving scum still working in banks and they should all be rooted out, whilst the rest clearly need serious re-programming.

    Meanwhile back on the main thread topic, ...

    An authorised payment institution ... must maintain organisational arrangements sufficient to minimise the risk of the loss or diminution of relevant funds or relevant assets through fraud, misuse, negligence or poor administration.

    It seems that banks are being reckless and negligent with fraud risks and are failing in the above bolded duty in respect of executing multiple unusual anonymising transactions which can drain life savings in customers accounts in a matter of minutes without any explanation, don't we think? Perhaps it suits some banks and some of their more dubious customers that their systems are geared to handle large numbers of multiple unusual anonymising transactions without explanation?
    Last edited by peterbaker; 05-08-2018 at 11:57 PM.
    • schiff
    • By schiff 6th Aug 18, 12:16 AM
    • 18,287 Posts
    • 9,731 Thanks
    schiff
    Let's cut to the quick. Are you prepared to say which banks you have accounts with at the moment. If you have any at all, it removes much of your case that banks are rogues and should be locked up. In your own small way you are keeping them going.

    It's bounden duty btw Sorry (Grammar Nazi!)
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 12:43 AM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    We the customers do get what what banks have become. I don't think millions "liked" banks when they learned HSBC was fined for moneylaundering drug money, and then reportedly was found to have been handling terrorist money too, do you?

    Perhaps all HSBC employees should be forced in the company's time to watch the Netflix documentary on the subject and to individually write an accurate synopsis thereafter and sign it before being permitted to get up and go to lunch, in order to remain temporarily compliant in their current roles. Their synopses should be marked for accuracy, and any who fail to geddit should have their compliant status nullified.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Should have guessed it would only be a matter of time before HSBC's American misdemeanours were shoehorned into the thread! I'm still puzzled though - you put great store by the 2010 letter about the need for UK banks to improve and yet keep harping on about matters that predated it, such as PPI and now the HSBC controls issue which, as per your linked report, related to activities in 2007/8; I don't believe anyone is trying to deny that the industry of ten years ago was in need of overhaul but it's pretty lame to cite stories of what was going on pre-crunch as evidence of "what banks have become"!

    An authorised payment institution ... must maintain organisational arrangements sufficient to minimise the risk of the loss or diminution of relevant funds or relevant assets through fraud, misuse, negligence or poor administration.

    It seems that banks are being reckless and negligent with fraud risks and are failing in the above bolded duty in respect of executing multiple unusual anonymising transactions which can drain life savings in customers accounts in a matter of minutes without any explanation, don't we think? Perhaps it suits some banks and some of their more dubious customers that their systems are geared to handle large numbers of multiple unusual anonymising transactions without explanation?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Interesting that you quote HSBC in your post, in that, since their high-profile US/Mexico problems of a decade ago, their controls are now generally (as unscientifically measured by posts on here) seen as being some of the tightest. Do posters say "it's reassuring to know that HSBC takes security seriously and that my money is safe with them"? Do they ****! There are loads of threads moaning about HSBC's relatively stringent account-opening criteria, their (perceived to be) over-zealous approach to ID verification, their controls over cash transactions in branches, etc, etc. All of these controls are in place to minimise risk but this is inevitably at the expense of customer convenience, so it's not as simple as blaming banks for customers' accounts being emptied if the customers themselves resist or resent the security checks put in place to help protect them!

    I have yet to see a poster praising a bank for suppressing one or more transactions for further analysis or validation, even though many in hindsight expect banks to have done this along the lines you express, i.e. 'they must have known that I wouldn't normally send x to Y'. Instead it's the usual complaints that 'in this day and age transfers should be instantaneous', 'it's MY money!', etc, etc....
    • schiff
    • By schiff 6th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    • 18,287 Posts
    • 9,731 Thanks
    schiff

    I have yet to see a poster praising a bank for suppressing one or more transactions for further analysis or validation, even though many in hindsight expect banks to have done this along the lines you express, i.e. 'they must have known that I wouldn't normally send x to Y'. Instead it's the usual complaints that 'in this day and age transfers should be instantaneous', 'it's MY money!', etc, etc....
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    This is an interesting point. As I mentioned earlier I had an online transaction using my Yorkshire Bank credit card that didn't go smoothly, due to 'interference' from the bank. I found myself irritated and frustrated and yet, underneath it all, the bank were 'protecting' me from what they perceived as a possible fraudulent transaction. I only thought of that on reflection afterwards.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 6th Aug 18, 9:51 AM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    Let's cut to the quick. Are you prepared to say which banks you have accounts with at the moment. If you have any at all, it removes much of your case that banks are rogues and should be locked up. In your own small way you are keeping them going.
    Originally posted by schiff
    I'm afraid your logic is a total hash. Some of the arguments from people claiming to understand UK banking really are so limited and binary - no wonder when we turn any handle at a bank we can end up with a totally skewed and socially useless result.

    Now then, I'll should perhaps not heap all that your way if you are a mere customer, so suffice to say my dear schiff, I was already well advanced in discovering stoozing techniques before Martin Lewis launched MSE. I really don't think any of my small ways have kept banks going in the p-poor directions they seem culturally unable to resist - quite the opposite - I have rubbed their noses in several of their messes over the years.

    It's bounden duty btw Sorry (Grammar Nazi!)
    No it isn't - it is a simply quoted duty which I have bolded! But as you say, my quoted and bolded PSR 2017 snippet may well elucidate (another exquisite word introduced to this thread, but not by me) a bounden duty upon banks, if you wish to use such God-fearing language, so many thanks for highlighting it!

    Interesting that you quote HSBC in your post, in that, since their high-profile US/Mexico problems of a decade ago, their controls are now generally (as unscientifically measured by posts on here) seen as being some of the tightest. Do posters say "it's reassuring to know that HSBC takes security seriously and that my money is safe with them"? Do they ****! There are loads of threads moaning about HSBC's relatively stringent account-opening criteria, their (perceived to be) over-zealous approach to ID verification, their controls over cash transactions in branches, etc, etc. All of these controls are in place to minimise risk but this is inevitably at the expense of customer convenience, so it's not as simple as blaming banks for customers' accounts being emptied if the customers themselves resist or resent the security checks put in place to help protect them!
    by eskbanker
    Thank you eskbanker - you are beginning to uncover for yourself the messes that banks such as HSBC are culturally destined to create. You decry the selectivity of customers complaining on MSE for their lack of praise for the ID messes HSBC create in the name of more stringent security?

    Yes, funny that, isn't it? Now since you have brought yourself to look at it and are standing there pointing, can I just for a moment ask you to look at it via the other end of the microscope? Has it occurred to you that what customer reports reaching MSE signify is that banks do not "KYC"? Staff are lost. Courtesy of the banks systems and processes, all the staff can see are 1s and 0s - binary digits. They cannot see through them and distinguish their customers from fraudsters. They are on any given day blindly according fraudsters identical privileges to those they give customers, and blindly applying identical suspicions and restrictions to customers as those that should only be reserved for fraudsters. Civilised society only tolerates such sweeping generalisations, flakey profiling and mistakes in times of war, and then only by government mandate. What banks are doing in peace-time to tricked customers is equally as bad as racial profiling and interning and leaving behind civilian casualties under piles of rubble in war time.

    Or do you believe it is perfectly OK for banks to constantly excuse their behaviours by chanting "Don't you know there's a War ON?" Oh wait, banks don't do that do they? No they chant "This is normal and quite proper - it's just that some customers are their own worst enemy"

    This is an interesting point. As I mentioned earlier I had an online transaction using my Yorkshire Bank credit card that didn't go smoothly, due to 'interference' from the bank. I found myself irritated and frustrated and yet, underneath it all, the bank were 'protecting' me from what they perceived as a possible fraudulent transaction. I only thought of that on reflection afterwards.
    by schiff
    Suspected fraud, or suspected money-laundering because of where in the ether you were sending a lot of zero's? Banks are aware that AML legislation bites them hard in certain circumstances but not others. They cover their a$$es not ours, my friend.
    Last edited by peterbaker; 06-08-2018 at 10:06 AM.
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 11:00 AM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    Thank you eskbanker - you are beginning to uncover for yourself the messes that banks such as HSBC are culturally destined to create. You decry the selectivity of customers complaining on MSE for their lack of praise for the ID messes HSBC create in the name of more stringent security?

    Yes, funny that, isn't it? Now since you have brought yourself to look at it and are standing there pointing, can I just for a moment ask you to look at it via the other end of the microscope? Has it occurred to you that what customer reports reaching MSE signify is that banks do not "KYC"? Staff are lost. Courtesy of the banks systems and processes, all the staff can see are 1s and 0s - binary digits.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    You're misinterpreting KYC, which is primarily about validating that customers are who they say they are, not knowing them in the sense of the personal relationships of the Captain Mainwaring days! The genie has long since left that particular bottle and won't be returning - as mentioned further upthread there may be small regional building societies for those who have simple requirements and prefer face-to-face contact (and potentially relationships), but it's inherent in a modern banking world characterised by automation, and consolidation into a small number of large players, that there isn't the personal knowledge that you'd apparently prefer. On the flip side, there are of course all the benefits of such automated services, such as 24/7 online banking, fast payments (usually!), low costs, etc....

    They cannot see through them and distinguish their customers from fraudsters. They are on any given day blindly according fraudsters identical privileges to those they give customers, and blindly applying identical suspicions and restrictions to customers as those that should only be reserved for fraudsters.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    I think you're mixing up different scenarios here - if fraudsters gain direct access to bank accounts (without assistance from customers) then this is clearly the bank's responsibility. However, this thread was about customers conducting transactions at the behest of fraudsters (i.e. when 'fooled by cunning con-artists'), so it's still the customer who's interacting with the bank in these circumstances.

    Civilised society only tolerates such sweeping generalisations, flakey profiling and mistakes in times of war, and then only by government mandate. What banks are doing in peace-time to tricked customers is equally as bad as racial profiling and interning and leaving behind civilian casualties under piles of rubble in war time.

    Or do you believe it is perfectly OK for banks to constantly excuse their behaviours by chanting "Don't you know there's a War ON?" Oh wait, banks don't do that do they? No they chant "This is normal and quite proper - it's just that some customers are their own worst enemy"
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    I think you're getting a bit carried away here, don't you?

    Suspected fraud, or suspected money-laundering because of where in the ether you were sending a lot of zero's? Banks are aware that AML legislation bites them hard in certain circumstances but not others. They cover their a$$es not ours, my friend.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    You're quoting banks having duties to minimise fraud and then you complain when they take actions to do that, you can't have it both ways!
    • soulsaver
    • By soulsaver 6th Aug 18, 11:21 AM
    • 2,148 Posts
    • 1,000 Thanks
    soulsaver
    I thought a concise comment may lighten the mood:

    Get a room!
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 11:41 AM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    I thought a concise comment may lighten the mood:

    Get a room!
    Originally posted by soulsaver
    But didn't you know that the evil hotel industry is fundamentally all about ripping off unsuspecting guests so as to make obscene profits? Extortionate rack rates, unreasonable preauthorisation holds on customer money, mortgage required for drinks in the bar, dishonest staff, etc, etc....
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 6th Aug 18, 12:24 PM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    You're misinterpreting KYC
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    Nope, I think you are eskbanker. I don't hold you personally responsible for the easy mistake - ever since the acronym KYC fell into common usage at financial institutions, it became another part of the digital trap that banks plunged headlong into. The Know part was reduced almost instantly into a fiercely minimalistic tick box compliance exercise. At some banks, as the questions took so long they bored the prospective customers and depressed sales, FSA then FCA got lobbied to relax the documentary requirement from maybe eight pages to a double-sided sheet

    I used the acronym deliberately - you fell into the trap. Know Your Customer is the requirement. I will settle for the common English usage of the word Know rather than the biblical one, although I frequently heard of KYC tick box experts who quickly moved on to lay the ground optimistically for any opportunity in the biblical sense after cherry picking their customers from the queues in the banking hall! These were the same ones who used photocopied KYC forms with most of the boxes pre-ticked. Amazingly, as these were often the ones who had to be ticked off gently for wearing bank name badges with titles like Financial Adviser and Money Advice Expert (which they were able to personally order themselves via the banks stationery supplier!), the performance managers only smiled at the tactics employed because the same sellers seemed to get PPI sold on every loan too! KYC=KPI^2! Watch that seller go

    I think you're mixing up different scenarios here - if fraudsters gain direct access to bank accounts (without assistance from customers) then this is clearly the bank's responsibility. However, this thread was about customers conducting transactions at the behest of fraudsters (i.e. when 'fooled by cunning con-artists'), so it's still the customer who's interacting with the bank in these circumstances.
    I think you are conveniently by-passing all the steps necessary to drain a bank account digitally, and waving your arm most lazily using words like 'assistance from customers' and 'it's the customer who's interacting'.

    I think you're getting a bit carried away here, don't you?
    The war and peacetime analogy? Is there a war on terror? Sadly whilst many of us thought that was USA getting a bit carried away with that phrase originally, we all seem to accept it can colour our lives now, and banking especially is affected.

    Is there a war on cybercrime? I think we the people accept that one quite easily, but banks and bank regulators? I am not sure they want to agree that any war they need to massively rearm for has started there. Again, they'd rather point to unfortunate customers as their own worst enemies.

    You're quoting banks having duties to minimise fraud and then you complain when they take actions to do that, you can't have it both ways!
    There you are again, commenting from a narrow world mixed up in ideas that life is about ticked boxes or boxes left unticked, i.e. it's about ones and zeros ... influenced yes by fierce regulatory AML imperatives due to the important war on terror, but with no or only light touch imperatives due to any important war on claimed cybercrime conducted as Microsoft Support Scams and the like ... oh so binary, isn't it?

    Reminds me of typical privacy settings in mobile Apps (for those clued in enough to go looking round the back to see what is switched on and what is switched off by default)

    Imaginary eBanking App Privacy Settings:
    • AML tick box compliance ON (cannot be switched off)
    • Money Safety Protection - looks to be OFF by default but is greyed out and I can't seem to change it! I think I was expecting it to be automatically included. Anyone know?
    • Microsoft Tech Support Scam Compatibility ON by default ... but in very small print below it there is a little warning that says that when set to ON continued use of the App puts my entire life savings at my own risk and when I switch it off, which it seems to accept, as soon as there is an App update, I find it is set back to ON!
    Last edited by peterbaker; 06-08-2018 at 12:30 PM.
    • Terry Towelling
    • By Terry Towelling 6th Aug 18, 12:52 PM
    • 751 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    Terry Towelling
    I have never bought insurance from a bank or a packaged bank account as i am old and wise enough to see what is worth it and what isn't. I don't really see how anyone can hold a bank responsible for something a customer makes the ultimate decision on.
    Originally posted by meer53
    Just coming in at a tangent here; The above post seems quite revealing. If a bank worker claims to know better than to purchase certain things from a bank, then that might indicate those products to be poor value. Of course, it could just be that @meer53's circumstances meant the products weren't good value for them at that time.

    Once again I am inferring a meaning into what has been written - if I am wrong please say so.
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 12:58 PM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    Nope, I think you are eskbanker. I don't hold you personally responsible for the easy mistake - ever since the acronym KYC fell into common usage at financial institutions, it became another part of the digital trap that banks plunged headlong into. The Know part was reduced almost instantly into a fiercely minimalistic tick box compliance exercise. At some banks, as the questions took so long they bored the prospective customers and depressed sales, FSA then FCA got lobbied to relax the documentary requirement from maybe eight pages to a double-sided sheet

    I used the acronym deliberately - you fell into the trap. Know Your Customer is the requirement. I will settle for the common English usage of the word Know rather than the biblical one
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Although your smug self-congratulation is amusing, it's misplaced - my point was (and is) that KYC doesn't entail knowing customers in the traditional sense of a personal relationship that's maintained face to face, i.e. talking about holidays and kids and so on, as would have been the case back in the Captain Mainwaring days.

    I think you are conveniently by-passing all the steps necessary to drain a bank account digitally, and waving your arm most lazily using words like 'assistance from customers' and 'it's the customer who's interacting'.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    I'm not bypassing or waving anything, just highlighting the difference between customers interacting with a bank and fraudsters interacting with a bank. No doubt both happen but they're different, hence me pointing this out in response to your assertion about banks "according fraudsters identical privileges to those they give customers".
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 6th Aug 18, 1:02 PM
    • 2,536 Posts
    • 2,525 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Nurse! Nurse!
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 6th Aug 18, 2:09 PM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    Although your smug self-congratulation is amusing, it's misplaced - my point was (and is) that KYC doesn't entail knowing customers in the traditional sense of a personal relationship that's maintained face to face, i.e. talking about holidays and kids and so on, as would have been the case back in the Captain Mainwaring days.
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    You don't want to know about my holidays and kids?? You don't want to know how I will pay for them? Or maybe you have looked into my account and you know I can afford a six-month round the world cruise for the whole family so you won't be offering a loan? Is that it? You know perhaps that I have a joint savings account with my elderly mother who actually might be funding the cruise, and you overheard that she got tricked by a burglar last year who turned up in the back garden unannounced saying that they'd kicked a ball over and needed to recover it? And lo and behold behind the scenes whilst a distraction occurred, a second burglar came in at the front and ransacked the bedroom looking for valuables?

    Oh sorry, you don't want to know all that, not even if the bank sold the insurance policy that eventually paid a pittance for lost jewellery that could never be replaced? Yada yada ... not your problem?

    I'm not bypassing or waving anything, just highlighting the difference between customers interacting with a bank and fraudsters interacting with a bank. No doubt both happen but they're different, ...
    Exactly, they are different, so why the hell does the bank lay its systems open to fraudsters after a modicom of trickery so easily being able to treat themselves as if they were the customer on the last day of their life on a spending spree?
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 2:41 PM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    You don't want to know about my holidays and kids?? You don't want to know how I will pay for them? Or maybe you have looked into my account and you know I can afford a six-month round the world cruise for the whole family so you won't be offering a loan? Is that it? You know perhaps that I have a joint savings account with my elderly mother who actually might be funding the cruise, and you overheard that she got tricked by a burglar last year who turned up in the back garden unannounced saying that they'd kicked a ball over and needed to recover it? And lo and behold behind the scenes whilst a distraction occurred, a second burglar came in at the front and ransacked the bedroom looking for valuables?

    Oh sorry, you don't want to know all that, not even if the bank sold the insurance policy that eventually paid a pittance for lost jewellery that could never be replaced? Yada yada ... not your problem?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Oh dear, difficult to know where to start with all that....

    However, just to recap, the introduction of KYC into this thread was in the context of what banks can reasonably be expected to know of their customers' financial circumstances, and how this could potentially be used to reduce fraud. Obviously it could be argued, as you perhaps are, that the more knowledge a bank has about a customer, the more likely it is that fraud can be prevented, but it's not as simple as that in the post-GDPR world where all organisations are ever more tightly controlled as to what data they can hold about people and the levels of conscious consent necessary to do so.

    But it's more fundamental than that - even if a bank can be proved to have known a bunch of additional personal stuff over and above the basic finances, that still doesn't actually oblige them to routinely use it to vet that customer's transactions, and if it's anecdotal unverified tales such as some of what you mention, then clearly it's even less reasonable to expect a bank to act on it.

    Or to put it another way, it's not a case of what a bank wants to know about it customers, it's more to do with what they're entitled to know about them and what they're permitted to do with that data - I can just imagine the indignant (and justifiable!) squeals if a bank wrote to a customer saying "we heard you were burgled, would you like some insurance?"!

    Exactly, they are different, so why the hell does the bank lay its systems open to fraudsters after a modicom of trickery so easily being able to treat themselves as if they were the customer on the last day of their life on a spending spree?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    The key point is that if a bank's systems are open to direct access from fraudsters then that's clearly the bank's responsibility to reimburse any affected customers and tighten security, but if the direct access is by a customer then the customer is generally viewed as responsible for their own actions.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 6th Aug 18, 4:38 PM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    eskbanker, I can tell (if you are indeed a banker) that you don't really even want to know about a customer, let alone act upon information you already have such as a joint account linked to a vulnerable person whose home insurance was claimed upon after it had been arranged by your bank - that's all information you are entitled to know and to process if you store it and process it correctly.

    As you say: "Oh dear, difficult to know where to start with all that."Yes, especially if you have a mindset which does not wish to provide a decent well-rounded financial services customer service standard. If you are a banker, eskbanker, then you aren't bothered whether the customer or his mother ever darken your branch's doors again, eh? Or even whether they start to move their business frequently - that's a model your executive have created and optimised to avoid having to admit any costly social purposes associated with the bank's business.

    Trust, loyalty and integrity are social concepts which one would hope are virtues displayed in any business relationship on both sides in some healthy balance. However, who has lately affirmed that banks value any of those in 2018? Certainly not the banks, especially when they are permitted to enter product arenas they aren't qualified in and permitted to play around with product understanding and ideas of compliance their executive and staff couldn't give two hoots about ever understanding technically- not even for the satisfaction of seeing those contracts perform and do good for customers. I am talking about insurance selling which UK retail banks have gorged themselves upon far too much in recent decades.

    Independent high street insurance brokers really knew the difference required to actually get their customers to recommend them.

    Banks haven't a clue how to ever achieve that again even in services that most people would say have always been core to banking, eh?

    I say again, anyone who has been turned down by their bank for reimbursement after being confidence tricked should return to hammering the table at their bank again and simultaneously bring their case to MSE if the bank still will not listen.

    That especially applies to Microsoft Tech Support Scam scenarios and the like.

    I just successfully assisted in getting the entire 8,000 odd back for one vulnerable customer. And no she was not a building society customer. Once I saw how the scam was executed, I was quite confident I could persuade the bank. It took a few days back and forth, but other than us still needing to complete the reformatting of her PC so she can once more enter the fray if she feels up to it, then the ordeal is over for my friend. Ask yourselves whether you could do the same. Better still, ask your bank if you could do the same and don't let them get away with arm-waving. Ask for it in writing, and I do not mean T&Cs or PSR 2017 snippets, I mean useful example scenarios.

    If our society needs to clarify what we mean by antisemitism with useful examples, I am sure we can tackle the job of clarifying banking fraud outcomes with a few useful examples too.

    How about you experienced bankers and fraud department experts giving some clear examples, please? And no I am not asking you to lay out routes via which bent customers could try to trick banks. I am talking about examples where customers were thankful and where they were tearfully disappointed. Tell us please, what shape of case gets reimbursed and what doesn't in your books.
    Last edited by peterbaker; 06-08-2018 at 4:41 PM.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 6th Aug 18, 4:58 PM
    • 2,536 Posts
    • 2,525 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Round and round and round we go.
    • Terry Towelling
    • By Terry Towelling 6th Aug 18, 5:15 PM
    • 751 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    Terry Towelling
    That especially applies to Microsoft Tech Support Scam scenarios and the like.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    I used to get calls from 'Microsoft' and 'BT' and repeatedly mucked them about before saying I needed to take them through security first and finally that I had no computer. The calls stopped for a while but have recently restarted.

    Anyway, the issue with this sort of scam is that it needs more 'prongs' to the defence. Yes, perhaps the banks can do something but we also need the telecoms companies and Microsoft to start coming out and telling people not to believe the caller.

    Microsoft could surely build something into its windows system that would issue a warning at startup (and on opening a web browser) that they would never call to advise there is a system error or the like. BT (et al) could do likewise with their online offerings and include warnings with their paper bills.

    I guess they aren't interested because they are not actually involved in the scams and don't have to pay out when money is stolen from people as a result - but perhaps they should be made to be more involved with the solution.
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 6th Aug 18, 5:33 PM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 10,042 Thanks
    eskbanker
    How about you experienced bankers and fraud department experts giving some clear examples, please? And no I am not asking you to lay out routes via which bent customers could try to trick banks. I am talking about examples where customers were thankful and where they were tearfully disappointed. Tell us please, what shape of case gets reimbursed and what doesn't in your books.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    As ValiantSon suggests, this really has gone full circle now, right back to the opening post from over a week ago, when you phrased the question as "Will you ever get your money back? Now there's a question with hopefully non-evasive answers from your bank, and well worth knowing in advance"!

    Perhaps those who you're addressing will be able and motivated to answer you, but that doesn't include me - my username no more indicates me working for a bank than yours explains that you get up early in the morning to make loaves of bread....
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 6th Aug 18, 5:58 PM
    • 2,201 Posts
    • 850 Thanks
    peterbaker
    Anyway, the issue with this sort of scam is that it needs more 'prongs' to the defence. Yes, perhaps the banks can do something but we also need the telecoms companies and Microsoft to start coming out and telling people not to believe the caller.

    Microsoft could surely build something into its windows system that would issue a warning at startup (and on opening a web browser) that they would never call to advise there is a system error or the like. BT (et al) could do likewise with their online offerings and include warnings with their paper bills.

    I guess they aren't interested because they are not actually involved in the scams and don't have to pay out when money is stolen from people as a result - but perhaps they should be made to be more involved with the solution.
    Originally posted by Terry Towelling
    I agree, Terry T. That could possibly reduce the frequency of successful scams and allow banks to do the right thing instead of being so dismissive of the problem.
    • Zanderman
    • By Zanderman 6th Aug 18, 6:30 PM
    • 1,876 Posts
    • 4,579 Thanks
    Zanderman
    Have you lot not got that room yet?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

157Posts Today

1,748Users online

Martin's Twitter