Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Lorraine Moss
The partner of a friend of mine had £2300 fraudulently withdrawn from their account.  The transactions were made overseas.  Initially, they refunded the money but 30 days later he received a letter from Barclay's stating that they are holding him liable as they are assuming that he was negligent with his card.  They are saying that the transactions were made with his card an pin number.  He was in the UK at the time of the transactions!

This is very worrying as were are all aware that chip and pin fraud is happening all the time and peoples cards are being cloned and pin numbers recorded.  It would seem that the banks now want to blame their customers !

Please see http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2162199/Barclays-blamed-1-150-stolen-account.html, it would seem that this is not the first time an incident like this has happened.
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Ho-Hum
A few years ago I had £4,500 stolen from my Santander account.  After reporting it to the bank my account was immediately shut down, which meant I couldn't pay direct debits and standing orders.  it was horrendous and until I had a huge scream up on the premises couldn't get any of 'MY' money at all.

The bank deemed it my responsibility to go to the police station and get a crime number and all the chasing to get the cash back was done by me.  I had to contact Santander's fraud investigators time and time again to get things moving, eventually it was sorted after a month or so BUT without an apology, of course, from those supposedly looking after my funds.

The money had been taken from my savings account and transferred into Nat West, into the account of a person with an Indian sounding name, which could be seen on my transaction slip.

There was no further details or feedback.

The reason fraudsters take less than 5 K is, the bank is obligated to notify you when transactions of 5 grand have taken place.
Refugees do not have the right to demand but should accept the blessings bestowed upon them gracefully by nations extending the hand of friendship.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Lorraine Moss
In reply to this post by Lorraine Moss
My friends partner has now received the official final decision from Barclay's and they are still holding him responsible for the fraud.  I have had a look on the Financial Ombudsman website and they publish previous decisions and all the similar examples I could find the Bank was ordered to refund the money to the customer.  The only problem is that the Ombudsman can take a very long time to deal with the case.

It would seem that Barclays is one of the worst Banks for dealing with victims of fraud.  Please see below;

Barclays four times more likely to deny fraud victims a refund: 4,000 customers left out of pocket in last five years
Figures show some banks are worse at handling fraud cases than others
Barclays has been named as one of the worst for refunding victims' money
Rules state money must be given back unless customer has been negligent
By RICHARD SPILLETT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:41, 14 October 2015 | UPDATED: 11:18, 14 October 2015
     


Barclays is four times more likely to refuse customers refunds after frauds than other banks, it has emerged.
Banks are supposed to reimburse people who have money stolen from their accounts, unless they were negligent by writing their pin number down or telling someone the code.
But figures released today show up to 4,000 customers of Barclays have had to go to the Financial Ombudsman in the past five years in a bid to get their money back.
Barclays has been named as one of the worst banks for returning customers money after they are defrauded
+2
Barclays has been named as one of the worst banks for returning customers money after they are defrauded
The number of bank frauds has surged in recent years, with 3.2million online cases reported in the past year alone.
Figures obtained under Freedom of Information Act by The Times show that some banks are less likely to return money stolen than others.
Barclays is among the worst offenders, with their customers four times more likely to lodge complaints with the ombudsman than customers of HSBC.
Their customers are also twice as likely to be denied a refund before the ombudsman finds in their favour than the average high street bank.



Warning to Internet banking users after hackers snatch £20m...

Back to the bad old days? Barclays choose 'casino banker' as...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
Fraud victims can spend up to year fighting to get their money returned, the figures reveal.
Richard Lloyd, of consumer group Which?, said: 'Fraud can be extremely distressing for the victim so it's vital banks play by the rules and investigate promptly,'
A spokesman for the ombudsman said: 'The rules governing card fraud make it clear that it's for the card provider to prove that a consumer has been negligent with their PIN.
'We do not think it's fair or acceptable to reject a claim just because the correct PIN has been used.'
Britain has seen a surge in online fraud crimes recently, with 3.2million online cases reported in the past year
+2
Britain has seen a surge in online fraud crimes recently, with 3.2million online cases reported in the past year
A spokesman for Barclays told The Times: 'We are disappointed with our performance and are confident that we will see the position greatly improved in the future - because we must.
'We've already improved significantly this year and will continually review our processes for the speed and accuracy in which we process fraud claims so that our customers are satisfied with the outcome.'
A survey by Which? published last month found 29 per cent of bank fraud victims had to wait between one and four weeks for reimbursement, with seven per cent waiting even longer.
The consumer group said Lloyds Bank and Nationwide were the best rated debit card providers for dealing with the crime, which Barclays bottom.
John Lewis and Waitrose were the best rated credit card providers, while Halifax was the worst rated credit card provider.
Today's figures were published as it emerged thousands of computers across Britain are thought to have been infected by a virus which harvests online banking details so fraudsters can gain access to accounts.
The National Crime Agency (NCA) said Dridex malware had been developed by technically skilled cyber criminals, with UK losses estimated to run into the tens of millions.
British experts are now working alongside the FBI in an attempt to catch those responsible.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272061/Barclays-four-times-likely-deny-fraud-victims-refund-banks.html#ixzz496ZDevRE 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Lorraine Moss
A previous decision from The Financial Ombudsman's website;

summary of complaint
Mr A complains that he is being held liable for transactions on his account that he states he
is not responsible for. The disputed transactions consist of both cash withdrawals and also a
number of retail transactions. So far one transaction has been refunded to Mr A due to the
retailer being unable to produce a merchant’s receipt to Barclays Bank Plc.
background to complaint
The adjudicator recommended that the complaint should not be upheld. She considered that,
taking all the facts and circumstances into account, she could not safely conclude that Mr A
had not made or authorised the disputed transactions.
I have previously issued a provisional decision in which I explained that I was minded to
uphold this complaint.
Upon considering my provisional decision, Barclays have now agreed to accept this view.
my findings
I have considered all the available evidence and arguments from the outset, in order to
decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. All the evidence
has been considered on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider is
more likely than not to have happened in light of the available evidence.
Mr A has used the same Personal Identification Number (PIN) for his debit card for a
considerable number of years. He has also confirmed that he memorised the PIN for his
card and did not have these details written down anywhere. I am satisfied, on the balance of
the evidence presented, that Mr A is unlikely to have needed to write down his PIN.
I have considered the timeframe between the last transaction which Mr A confirms making to
the first disputed cash withdrawal several hours later. This is a relatively short period of time.
I note Barclays have ruled out the possibility of ‘shoulder surfing’. However I am of the
opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, this is likely to have happened. It is entirely
plausible that a third party may simply have needed to wait a few hours before gaining
access to the debit card from Mr A’s wallet.
I am of the opinion that it is reasonable to conclude that a third party may well have removed
Mr A’s wallet, taken the debit card out and then replaced the wallet back in Mr A’s
belongings. This may have been done so as to delay the likelihood of Mr A noticing that his
debit card had been taken in the first place. Once a third party had access to Mr A’s debit
card, it would have only taken an extra few seconds to replace the wallet.
I have also given consideration to the pattern of the disputed transactions. Our adjudicator’s
position was that the timeframe of several hours, where no transactions were carried out
early in the morning, is not usually indicative behaviour of an unauthorised third party using a
debit card. Whilst I note these comments I feel it is important to remember that there is no
set pattern ever adopted when an unauthorised party uses a stolen debit card.
I have to decide what is more likely than not to have happened, on the balance of all the
circumstances of this complaint. Based on the evidence that is available, I am inclined to
decide that I cannot fairly and reasonably say that Mr A either carried out or authorised the

disputed transactions. In light of this I do not believe it is reasonable for Barclays to hold
Mr A liable for the disputed transactions.
my decision
For the reasons set out above, my decision is that I uphold this complaint against Barclays
Bank Plc and propose to award a full refund of all the disputed transactions to Mr A, along
with statutory interest at a rate of 8% per annum on the amounts refunded from 17 April
2011 to the date of payment.
Robyn McNamee
ombudsman


Please see http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=11918
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

John H
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Lorraine Moss
Thanks John.

Barclays are actually in breech of the FCA guidelines and I am sure that they will be ordered by the Financial Ombudsman to issue a refund.  The strange thing is that this will cost Barclay's £500 plus the cost of having to deal with this complaint.  It just does not make sense to respond in the way that they have.  Maybe they think that the majority of people will not got to the bother of contacting the Ombudsman.
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

Lorraine Moss
Source FCA website

//www.fca.org.uk/consumers/financial-services-products/banking/your-rights/unauthorised-payments


Unauthorised payments
Last Modified: 28/06/2013
Your bank must refund you for an unauthorised payment, except in certain circumstances. Find out your rights when money is taken from your account without your permission.
Money can only be taken from your current account, card-based account or (in some cases) an instant access savings account if you have authorised the transaction or your bank can prove you were at fault.

If you notice a payment out of your account that you did not authorise you should contact your bank immediately.

If you are sure you did not authorise a particular payment you can claim a refund.

The bank must refund the payment immediately unless it has evidence that there is a reason to refuse a refund, as explained below. This is so it can look into what happened, but it must do this as quickly as possible.

Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened, but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.

You should be aware that deliberately making a false claim that a payment was unauthorised is fraud and your bank could report it to the police.

Refund of charges and interest
When your bank refunds an unauthorised payment it must also refund any charges and interest you have paid because of the unauthorised transaction.

If the transaction was on a credit card, fixed notice savings account or cash ISA, or was made by a cheque you may not receive the refund immediately. But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay.

Why a refund can be refused
Your bank can only refuse a refund for an unauthorised payment if:

it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password, card and PIN conclusively proves you authorised a payment
it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently or, because you deliberately, or with ‘gross negligence’, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction, or
you told your bank about an unauthorised payment 13 months or more after the date it left your account, so make sure you contact the bank as soon as possible
You may have to pay up to the first £50 of an unauthorised transaction if your card has been lost or stolen, or your bank can show you failed to keep the details of your password or PIN safe.

However, you will not be liable for any unauthorised payments made after you notified the bank or card issuer of the loss, theft or unauthorised use of your card or password – unless it can prove you acted fraudulently.

If your bank refuses to refund an unauthorised payment it should explain why.

Wrong amount or account paid
If a payment is made from your account for more or less than you asked the bank to send, it must correct the error and refund you for any charges or interest you pay as a result of its mistake.

It must also do this if it makes a payment to the wrong account.

Find out more about making and receiving payments.

How to protect yourself

When you receive a debit or credit card, or sign up for online, telephone or mobile banking, you should be told what you have to do to keep your details secure.

It is important that you protect the personal information on how to access your account, such as your password or PIN.

Your bank or card issuer will also tell you how to notify it – which you should do as soon as possible – if your card is lost or stolen, or you think someone else knows your password or PIN.
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Barclays Bank Are Refusing To Help A Customer Who Has Been A Victim Of Fraud

chrispratt
In reply to this post by Lorraine Moss
I agree, The banks do care about fraud, as it impacts upon their profits. And I think that some banks do give a warning about spontaneous phone calls when setting up a new beneficiary in online banking system. But the next step will be for the scammer to assume this warning and give some sounding reason to the victim to ignore it. You can do complaints here https://24-7helpline.co.uk