13 ms·

It feels like the "unique" part that makes this something novel about this is that they claim you authorized fraud when you raised your limit, accidentally lett

It feels like the "unique" part that makes this something novel about this is that they claim you authorized fraud when you raised your limit, accidentally letting a transaction you couldn't see through. So the scenario is roughly (numbers made up): 1. You set a £500 monthly card limit 2. Your card is stolen and somebody charges £1000 3. You get a notification saying you have hit your limit 4. The failed, fraudulent, transaction is not listed 5. You increase your monthly limit to £1500 6. The fraudulent transaction goes through 7. You can now see the transaction 8. You cancel your card and report the fraud 9. You're told by raising the limit you authorized the fraudulent transaction that you couldn't see before you raised the limit That's insane...

yani 7y ago
Why would you raise the card limit? Panic?
- StavrosK 7y ago
  In my case, it was because it's a thing that happens frequently. I set limits low and I routinely get transactions failing, so I raise/remove the limit and they retry. It generally happens when recurring bill payments come through, so I didn't really think much of it, I did what I do when a transaction fails. If I had seen the amount, I definitely wouldn't have done anything like that.
  - Double_a_92 7y ago
    > I set limits low and I routinely get transactions failing, so I raise/remove the limit and they retry. What's the point of a limit, if you automatically remove it whenever something is over the limit?
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      It didn't start out like that, but yep, it just trained me to override it. The rationale was that I could first see the transactions that fail, but the UI doesn't encourage that.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      What's the point of a banking app, if it doesn't show you the failed transaction after sending you a vague notification about a limit being reached (due to that transaction)? It's weird to me that the focus is on Stavros not doing this or that, when the original failure was the bank's. If the notification had said "This transaction here failed because it hit the limit" none of this would have happened. If the app had shown that transaction in the list, none of this would have happened. Yet here we are asking why the user didn't react perfectly to the failures of the bank. It's weird.
- Dayshine 7y ago
  If it happened to be the day your bills go out, you might just assume you messed up in your planning. And there's no weird transaction listed, so assuming it's a standing order wouldn't be unusual. And yeah, "panic", the fees for missing payments on some bills can be fairly high so you probably can't wait till beyond 2pm that day.
StavrosK 7y ago
It's even more insane because I set the limit to 200ish, so bill payments routinely give me that error message, so I didn't really think anything of it. Also, apparently the declined transaction shows up, but it takes a while. It didn't show up on my list even though I got the notification, so I thought it just doesn't show and I went to the limits to raise them.
- krn 7y ago
  > Also, apparently the declined transaction shows up, but it takes a while. I have had multiple times when the most recent transaction showed up only after restarting the Revolut app.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Yeah, same. Sometimes I needed to force-close, sometimes it wouldn't even show my balance, etc. It doesn't do this too often, but often enough.
- italicbold 7y ago
  If you set it to 200, why did you then increase it by 1000- which is a) an insane increase and b) the perfect amount for the transaction to go through?
  - Dayshine 7y ago
    Even if he'd removed the limit entirely, that doesn't show intent to allow that specific transaction through. What if he was removing it to make a completely different payment? It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      > It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit. This would have been a massive improvement, agreed. Maybe they have to make a call within a few seconds and can't ask your permission first, though, so maybe that's not possible. Still, the notification could have shown "Your transaction to MERCHANT for AMOUNT on CARD was declined because of your limit". That would have avoided this whole disaster.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> you authorized the fraudulent transaction I don’t know European banking law. But in the U.S., this isn’t Revolut’s call to make [1]. They can issue the chargeback and then cancel your account, if they think you’re being screwy. But they can’t deny the chargeback unilaterally. OP should reach out to their national financial services regulator. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.... Liability of Consumers for Unauthorized Transfers—12 CFR 1005.6
- Aissen 7y ago
  Unfortunately chargebacks aren't as simple in the EU, in addition to country-specific rules that make them hard to use in some countries.
  - eloisant 7y ago
    In France any transaction involving you PIN code is really hard to contest (so if you get your card copied by a skimmer it's tough). Same with online transactions using 3-D secure (2-factor, usually involving a confirmation code sent by SMS). For other online transactions however, you just have to ask your bank and they're chargeback the merchant.
    - kevin_b_er 7y ago
      This sounds like the same fallacy the UK had with chip transactions. The magical fallacy that they're infallible and totally secure, thus all fraudulent transactions are automatically your fault.
      - briandear 7y ago
        It’s interesting that there was quite the criticism of the US “mag stripe” cards when Europe was chip and pin. I recall many Europeans claiming that their system was far more secure and “better.” However, chip and pin puts liability on the customer for fraudulent transactions, while in the US, the liability is on the merchant.

yani 7y ago

Why would you raise the card limit? Panic?

StavrosK 7y ago
In my case, it was because it's a thing that happens frequently. I set limits low and I routinely get transactions failing, so I raise/remove the limit and they retry. It generally happens when recurring bill payments come through, so I didn't really think much of it, I did what I do when a transaction fails. If I had seen the amount, I definitely wouldn't have done anything like that.
- Double_a_92 7y ago
  > I set limits low and I routinely get transactions failing, so I raise/remove the limit and they retry. What's the point of a limit, if you automatically remove it whenever something is over the limit?
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    It didn't start out like that, but yep, it just trained me to override it. The rationale was that I could first see the transactions that fail, but the UI doesn't encourage that.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    What's the point of a banking app, if it doesn't show you the failed transaction after sending you a vague notification about a limit being reached (due to that transaction)? It's weird to me that the focus is on Stavros not doing this or that, when the original failure was the bank's. If the notification had said "This transaction here failed because it hit the limit" none of this would have happened. If the app had shown that transaction in the list, none of this would have happened. Yet here we are asking why the user didn't react perfectly to the failures of the bank. It's weird.
Dayshine 7y ago
If it happened to be the day your bills go out, you might just assume you messed up in your planning. And there's no weird transaction listed, so assuming it's a standing order wouldn't be unusual. And yeah, "panic", the fees for missing payments on some bills can be fairly high so you probably can't wait till beyond 2pm that day.

StavrosK 7y ago

It's even more insane because I set the limit to 200ish, so bill payments routinely give me that error message, so I didn't really think anything of it. Also, apparently the declined transaction shows up, but it takes a while. It didn't show up on my list even though I got the notification, so I thought it just doesn't show and I went to the limits to raise them.

krn 7y ago
> Also, apparently the declined transaction shows up, but it takes a while. I have had multiple times when the most recent transaction showed up only after restarting the Revolut app.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Yeah, same. Sometimes I needed to force-close, sometimes it wouldn't even show my balance, etc. It doesn't do this too often, but often enough.
italicbold 7y ago
If you set it to 200, why did you then increase it by 1000- which is a) an insane increase and b) the perfect amount for the transaction to go through?
- Dayshine 7y ago
  Even if he'd removed the limit entirely, that doesn't show intent to allow that specific transaction through. What if he was removing it to make a completely different payment? It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    > It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit. This would have been a massive improvement, agreed. Maybe they have to make a call within a few seconds and can't ask your permission first, though, so maybe that's not possible. Still, the notification could have shown "Your transaction to MERCHANT for AMOUNT on CARD was declined because of your limit". That would have avoided this whole disaster.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> you authorized the fraudulent transaction I don’t know European banking law. But in the U.S., this isn’t Revolut’s call to make [1]. They can issue the chargeback and then cancel your account, if they think you’re being screwy. But they can’t deny the chargeback unilaterally. OP should reach out to their national financial services regulator. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.... Liability of Consumers for Unauthorized Transfers—12 CFR 1005.6

Aissen 7y ago
Unfortunately chargebacks aren't as simple in the EU, in addition to country-specific rules that make them hard to use in some countries.
- eloisant 7y ago
  In France any transaction involving you PIN code is really hard to contest (so if you get your card copied by a skimmer it's tough). Same with online transactions using 3-D secure (2-factor, usually involving a confirmation code sent by SMS). For other online transactions however, you just have to ask your bank and they're chargeback the merchant.
  - kevin_b_er 7y ago
    This sounds like the same fallacy the UK had with chip transactions. The magical fallacy that they're infallible and totally secure, thus all fraudulent transactions are automatically your fault.
    - briandear 7y ago
      It’s interesting that there was quite the criticism of the US “mag stripe” cards when Europe was chip and pin. I recall many Europeans claiming that their system was far more secure and “better.” However, chip and pin puts liability on the customer for fraudulent transactions, while in the US, the liability is on the merchant.