4 ms·

In the UK at least, the regulations cover the third category i.e. where you can't demonstrate fraud, but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to suspec

by NLips 7y ago

In the UK at least, the regulations cover the third category i.e. where you can't demonstrate fraud, but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to suspect you acted fraudulently. From https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-accou..., explaining when a bank is allowed not to refund you (although they are allowed to refund you and then ask questions and report you to the police). """ Why a refund can be refused Your bank can generally 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 or 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 - 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. """ [edit - remove block formatting]

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
Gee, what is your point? Whatever the exact rules are: There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stuck with the loss, there just is no way around that, other than preventing the loss in the first place.
- throwaway744678 7y ago
  OP explicitly listed the text explaining that in the case you describe the bank cannot refuse to reimburse you. Essentially, the burden of the proof is on them, not on the customer.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    Jesus, is this really that hard? Suppose you had one legitimate transaction, and one fraudulent transaction. Now, suppose the bank had certain evidence to show that the legitimate transaction is legitimate that is sufficient from a legal perspective to refuse your refund request. Then, suppose the bank had no such evidence to show for the fraudulent transaction. And now pay attention: THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ONE OF THOSE THAT THEY DO HAVE FOR THE OTHER MEANS THAT THE BANK CAN DISTINGUISH THEM. Got it? I was talking about cases where the bank is NOT ABLE TO DISTINGUISH an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making.
    - NLips 7y ago
      Please keep calm - there's no need to shout. If for no other reason, it's harder to read all caps. We are not making the point you think we are. We're all clear that if the bank can distinguish, they must refund legitimate cases, but that's not what we're trying to explain either. Responding to your last paragraph alone: "I was talking about cases where the bank is not able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making." My response is not "if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you". It is "if they are _not_ able to distinguish them, they have to refund you".
- NLips 7y ago
  "There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stuck with the loss" No, that's contrary to the FCA regulations. In cases where you can't tell if there's been a third party committing fraud, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the consumer. If the bank cannot demonstrate that the consumer is committing fraud, they cannot refuse the consumer their money. It's obviously complete nonsense to say "_whatever the rules are_, in scenario X the bank will be able to do thing Y"; in this case the rule is "in scenario X, the bank is not permitted to do thing Y".
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > In cases where you can't tell if there's been a third party committing fraud, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the consumer. Which is why I obviously was not talking about that. > If the bank cannot demonstrate that the consumer is committing fraud, they cannot refuse the consumer their money. OK. Now, the bank demonstrates that you committed fraud (that you didn't). Now what?
    - NLips 7y ago
      If the bank satisfies a court with evidence to show the customer committing fraud, then the customer won’t get their money back. Just like if the CPS satisfies a court that someone committed murder, prison will follow even if the person didn’t kill anyone. This thread is rapidly losing value to readers now, since you seem to be dishonestly representing what you’ve previously said, at best guess because you don’t like to be wrong. Quoting you: “the somehow fraudulent order where the bank doesn't see any signs of fraud and you can't demonstrate it either.” “That is the category or fraudulent transactions that are indistinguishable from legitimate transactions by anyone but you” “There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one.” Only now have you changed this to apparently mean the bank can falsely prove the customer committed fraud. There’s nothing wrong with not being up to speed on recent banking regulation changes in the UK. There is something wrong with pretending you were saying something you weren’t, just for the sake of internet points.

by NLips 7y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

Gee, what is your point? Whatever the exact rules are: There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stuck with the loss, there just is no way around that, other than preventing the loss in the first place.

throwaway744678 7y ago
OP explicitly listed the text explaining that in the case you describe the bank cannot refuse to reimburse you. Essentially, the burden of the proof is on them, not on the customer.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  Jesus, is this really that hard? Suppose you had one legitimate transaction, and one fraudulent transaction. Now, suppose the bank had certain evidence to show that the legitimate transaction is legitimate that is sufficient from a legal perspective to refuse your refund request. Then, suppose the bank had no such evidence to show for the fraudulent transaction. And now pay attention: THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ONE OF THOSE THAT THEY DO HAVE FOR THE OTHER MEANS THAT THE BANK CAN DISTINGUISH THEM. Got it? I was talking about cases where the bank is NOT ABLE TO DISTINGUISH an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making.
  - NLips 7y ago
    Please keep calm - there's no need to shout. If for no other reason, it's harder to read all caps. We are not making the point you think we are. We're all clear that if the bank can distinguish, they must refund legitimate cases, but that's not what we're trying to explain either. Responding to your last paragraph alone: "I was talking about cases where the bank is not able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making." My response is not "if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you". It is "if they are _not_ able to distinguish them, they have to refund you".
NLips 7y ago
"There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stuck with the loss" No, that's contrary to the FCA regulations. In cases where you can't tell if there's been a third party committing fraud, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the consumer. If the bank cannot demonstrate that the consumer is committing fraud, they cannot refuse the consumer their money. It's obviously complete nonsense to say "_whatever the rules are_, in scenario X the bank will be able to do thing Y"; in this case the rule is "in scenario X, the bank is not permitted to do thing Y".
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > In cases where you can't tell if there's been a third party committing fraud, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the consumer. Which is why I obviously was not talking about that. > If the bank cannot demonstrate that the consumer is committing fraud, they cannot refuse the consumer their money. OK. Now, the bank demonstrates that you committed fraud (that you didn't). Now what?
  - NLips 7y ago
    If the bank satisfies a court with evidence to show the customer committing fraud, then the customer won’t get their money back. Just like if the CPS satisfies a court that someone committed murder, prison will follow even if the person didn’t kill anyone. This thread is rapidly losing value to readers now, since you seem to be dishonestly representing what you’ve previously said, at best guess because you don’t like to be wrong. Quoting you: “the somehow fraudulent order where the bank doesn't see any signs of fraud and you can't demonstrate it either.” “That is the category or fraudulent transactions that are indistinguishable from legitimate transactions by anyone but you” “There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one.” Only now have you changed this to apparently mean the bank can falsely prove the customer committed fraud. There’s nothing wrong with not being up to speed on recent banking regulation changes in the UK. There is something wrong with pretending you were saying something you weren’t, just for the sake of internet points.