Banks to refund some scam victims.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

'Eight banks have signed up to a code which will refund those people who are tricked into transferring their saving into fraudsters accounts.'

 

I'm slightly conflicted by this as while banks should obviously refund anyone who has suffered a loss due to failings in their own security systems, should they refund someone who willingly hands over their dough to a scammer? Isn't this just going to encourage further scamming by reducing the onus on customers to be vigilant with their own security. 

 

I accept that there are cases where the elderly or the vulnerable are frightened into doing something unwise and these cases should be viewed sympathetically by the banks, but why should those who willingly hand over money despite endless advice about not doing this, be rewarded for their carelessness?

 

"Scam victims to be refunded by banks" 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426

[RollingJ 2,034]

An excellent post, @Top Cats Hat - unwilling or unsuspecting victims should be viewed sympathetically - individually - but those who intentionally try and 'grab' without using basic common sense should be left to face the consequences.

[Waldo 96]

sometimes banks are informed about scam activity and accounts; after which they still process transfers in to these scammers accounts. 

[RollingJ 2,034]

Interesting, and worrying, @Waldo - any verified data on that claim, please?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

sometimes banks are informed about scam activity and accounts; after which they still process transfers in to these scammers accounts. 

Which they have to if the customer is legitimately authorising the transfer.

 

What they should do is halt any payment into an account which has a different name to the account holder until this can be checked. This would stop a lot of 'This is your bank calling to tell you to transfer your money into this new, safer account" scams.

[RollingJ 2,034]

Thanks, TCH - I hadn't thought of that scenario.

[Waldo 96]

28 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Interesting, and worrying, @Waldo - any verified data on that claim, please?

Not off the top of my head, sorry. It was something I heard on radio 4, maybe 6 months ago.

[Cyclone 10]

13 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Which they have to if the customer is legitimately authorising the transfer.

 

What they should do is halt any payment into an account which has a different name to the account holder until this can be checked. This would stop a lot of 'This is your bank calling to tell you to transfer your money into this new, safer account" scams.

That is actually being introduced, but it's certainly taken a long time hasn't it.

 

 

12 hours ago, Waldo said:

Not off the top of my head, sorry. It was something I heard on radio 4, maybe 6 months ago.

You see such stories quite often in the media if you read the financial sections or the financial help bits.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/

 

You see it here sometimes.

[Cyclone 10]

I think this might be an example

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45265609

Quote

 

One customer called Brian contacted the Ombudsman service after his bank refused to refund him £7,000 in a text message scam.

Brian received a message he thought was from his bank and unwittingly gave out his security details and passcodes.

As a result, the bank said he had been grossly negligent and refused to refund the money.

After reviewing the details, the Ombudsman decided it was a sophisticated fraud, and that the fraudsters had gained Brian's trust and therefore his actions were reasonable.

They forced the bank to reimburse Brian's £7,000.

Another fraud victim called Jas contacted the Ombudsman over several large withdrawals on her monthly statement which she didn't recognise.

The bank said she must have made them herself or given someone her pin number.

The Ombudsman found her account of what happened and the details about where she kept her card "consistent and plausible".

The bank was forced to refund the disputed transactions because the Ombudsman said the bank had also failed to show Jas had been grossly negligent.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Cyclone

[alchresearch 214]

Some banks just don't care.  I was speaking to someone who works at my local CAB and he went into a number of banks in Southport asking what help they could provide about scams and phishing (we do some work supporting the elderly).

 

A couple were pretty helpful and gave out leaflets and advice. 

 

One, I won't name it, but it rhymes with Smarclays, refused to speak to them unless they were a customer at the bank and made an appointment.

Edited May 29, 2019 by alchresearch

[geared 311]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

Some banks just don't care. 

 

This, the main problem is until they are all forced to behave in the same way and enforce proper security then scams are just going to keep coming alone.

 

Even something simple like matching to payee name to the account holder which is still being implemented, it beggars belief that something so trivial is not part of basic security.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You see such stories quite often in the media if you read the financial sections or the financial help bits.

Not just in the financial sections but in tabloids and tabloid TV as well. It has been an ‘on trend’ story for at least the past decade. I struggle to believe that there are many people still not aware of these things.

 

The banks can only tell people so many times that you should NEVER give your bank details to ANYONE and a bank/call centre/police officer will NEVER ask for your password. At some point people do have to take responsibility for their own security.

 

One sneaky thing that is done is for the scammer to advise you to ring your bank to check that everything is kosher. They don’t put the phone down at their end and when you ring your bank you are still connected to the scammer when you think you are talking to your bank. If this ever happens, ring your bank on another phone altogether.

 

Another thing the banks can do is to set up a dedicated freephone line that you can ring with fraud concerns rather than the usual 20 minute wait on some dumb automated system.