Jump to content
Classifieds Temporarily Unavailable Read more... ×

Natwest vs arthur

Recommended Posts

I dont know if its just me but I still think there is more to this case than meets the eye. I wouldnt normally defend banks but a lot doesnt stack up. 1) How would anyone have £20 thousand lying around in their current account 2) If they did how come they didnt employ a better lawyer. After seeing him on Watchdog I cant imagine him being a highflying lawyer.  3) Banks would try to avoid bad publicity and even though they refunded him still think they did nothing wrong.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46445299

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, woodmally said:

I dont know if its just me but I still think there is more to this case than meets the eye. I wouldnt normally defend banks but a lot doesnt stack up. 1) How would anyone have £20 thousand lying around in their current account

Money recieved from an inheritance. It has to go somewhere.

 

9 minutes ago, woodmally said:

2) If they did how come they didnt employ a better lawyer. After seeing him on Watchdog I cant imagine him being a highflying lawyer. 

?

 

9 minutes ago, woodmally said:

3) Banks would try to avoid bad publicity and even though they refunded him still think they did nothing wrong.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46445299

Problem for the bank is, they can't prove Arthur did either:

" NatWest provided no evidence to show Arthur was grossly negligent, as is required under Payment Services Regulations when fraud claims are turned down."

 

They tried it on, they lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was only 19 when it happened and the money was a legacy, didn't say how long he had had the money so might have been there while he was deciding what to do with it. Two weeks ago a woman was on who had over £4000 taken from RBS they said it was her fault even though they hadn't followed their own security and there were the recordings which proved it wasn't her. Banks treat customers with contempt, as it said on the programme last night it is up to the bank to prove it was the customers fault. Why do they have to wait till a programme like Watchdog gets involved before admitting they could have done better?

Edited by iansheff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the OP casting aspersions at the victim, when the bank is plainly in the wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering that too.  I too have a significant amount in a current account, and I'm sure many others do because of account switching apathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

I'm wondering that too.  I too have a significant amount in a current account, and I'm sure many others do because of account switching apathy.

Also you can get better interest in some current accounts apparently, I moved my ISA because they only paid 0.1% and on the Martin Lewis show he was showing you can get better returns in a current account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "The case raised by Arthur was a complex one and there existed a number of inconsistencies between the version of events presented to us by him and following our own internal investigation.

 

As an aside

Nat West tried on several occasions to get me to move a large amount of cash from my current account and put it in to their savings account. I assumed the reason was because it made it harder for me to access, and took a bit longer.

 

I asked  a different bank if keeping a large amount of cash in one of their current accounts was in any way unsafe and they said that it was not.

 

Regarding the OP Nat West case, I am wondering how people can spend on a debit card without having access to the 4 digit pin number? Maybe it was from a time when a signature was acceptable.

Edited by Janus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Janus said:

Quote: "The case raised by Arthur was a complex one and there existed a number of inconsistencies between the version of events presented to us by him and following our own internal investigation.

 

As an aside

Nat West tried on several occasions to get me to move a large amount of cash from my current account and put it in to their savings account. I assumed the reason was because it made it harder for me to access, and took a bit longer.

 

I asked  a different bank if keeping a large amount of cash in one of their current accounts was in any way unsafe and they said that it was not.

 

Regarding the OP Nat West case, I am wondering how people can spend on a debit card without having access to the 4 digit pin number? Maybe it was from a time when a signature was acceptable.

Easy enough to buy online without the pin number and easy to buy up to £30 with "contactless" these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, woodmally said:

I dont know if its just me but I still think there is more to this case than meets the eye. I wouldnt normally defend banks but a lot doesnt stack up. 1) How would anyone have £20 thousand lying around in their current account 2) If they did how come they didnt employ a better lawyer. After seeing him on Watchdog I cant imagine him being a highflying lawyer.  3) Banks would try to avoid bad publicity and even though they refunded him still think they did nothing wrong.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46445299

I have that much in my current account. Santander pays a decent rate of interest up to £20k and it's better than many savings accounts so there it stays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, truman said:

Easy enough to buy online without the pin number and easy to buy up to £30 with "contactless" these days

It would take a lot of £30 transaction to get through 20k. 

 

I am guessing an address would have been required for online purchases. They could have used a pick up point, but for 20k worth of stuff?

 

Either way I am surprised the unusual spending activity went unnoticed by the Nat West fraud team.

 

Edited by Janus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 4:02 PM, Janus said:

It would take a lot of £30 transaction to get through 20k. 

 

I am guessing an address would have been required for online purchases. They could have used a pick up point, but for 20k worth of stuff?

 

Either way I am surprised the unusual spending activity went unnoticed by the Nat West fraud team.

 

Re the NatWest fraud team, on a few occasions a large withdrawal by my Debit card has been declined, until I spoke in person to them. They simply asked a couple or three security questions, then the card was authorised for the purchase of the item.  Ok it is a few minutes of inconvenience but better safe than sorry when the transaction runs into the thousands. I think what triggers the fraud team is that my card is used for small to medium amounts, then all of a sudden a transaction for a car say, £15k draws their attention. Good on them I say.

 

Angel1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 12:19 PM, Halibut said:

Why is the OP casting aspersions at the victim, when the bank is plainly in the wrong?

 

On 12/7/2018 at 4:02 PM, Janus said:

It would take a lot of £30 transaction to get through 20k. 

 

I am guessing an address would have been required for online purchases. They could have used a pick up point, but for 20k worth of stuff?

 

Either way I am surprised the unusual spending activity went unnoticed by the Nat West fraud team.

 

It's in the link the OP posted:

 

"Arthur says he has few memories of the attack, but guesses the perpetrators may have spied on him to obtain his Pin number prior to the robbery and opened his phone using his fingerprint while he was knocked out."

 

"His bank statements show multiple purchases on the stolen debit card at stores across the capital that day, including £8,300 in a single transaction at a designer clothing store."

 

The bank would have been suspicious he didn't contrive the sequence of events with accomplices. Surely the Police should have been involved deeper??  It needs to be proved that Arthur is either an innocent victim of a mugging, or was fraudulent. The other is that he had his PIN written on his card, which would also mean he would get no return of the funds.

Remember, ultimately the compensation comes from other customers. It needs to be treated fairly and correctly to get the just outcome.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.