Would depend on bank - probably three wrong PIN's in a row (not necessarily at same ATM) the card is 'blocked' and if a ATM, the card is 'swallowed'. And if a card is 'swallowed' the bank may insist on a re-issue and payment of lost card fee (I had a bit of brain fade one day and had both ATM and credit cards swallowed - and that is what happened).
No, it happens where the bank *deems* that those things happened, without having any proof. The customer is then left with a fight to get back *his* money, which the *bank* gave away to a third party because the *bank's* security systems were not adequate.
The customer has virtually no say in the matter - ither than changing banks, which will do him no good because all the banks do the same.
I suspect that such a system would lead to far more people writing their PINs down and carrying them in their wallet. Memorising 6 digits and then being asked to select 3 of those digits is beyond the mental capability of many people.
Chris
But later on he claims the PIN is not an obvious number such as a date of birth or something as simple as 1234. How could he make such a statement if he doesn't know what the PIN is? This apparent inconsistency made me a bit suspicious about his story.
Chris
Yes, they are. If you open a bank account, they issue you with a debit card. You can't stop them. You can, of course, destroy the card, but that won't stop them blaming phantom withdrawals on you, because they did issue you with the card.
If you reply "Well of course you don't have to open a bank account", I shall reply "Yes you do."
I wouldn't try to stop them neither would I use them.
I've two HBS cards in the drawer right now never been used never been activated. they've been there about 3 years. It's not that I fear fraud it's just that I don't want any more of the bloody things in my wallet. The initial PIN numbers are there too with their wax scratch masks intact.
I wanted to open a couple of ISAs requested that the cards should not be sent since I would have no use for them The lady explained that we would need them to identify ourselves. OK there's no answer to that but if ever you fears materialise it will be difficult to suggest that they have been used.
As I say again, a bank can only lose by defrauding its customers and they have all sorts of ways of legitimately making money from you.
Alas my memory is not that good but it does sound familiar. I can remember interesting aspects of life but names and places do not stay with me long.
pete
No. In practice, you do need bits of plastic. But they don't have to be chip&pin, the pin being where most of the issue is. Lean on a bank enough, and you can get a chip & /signature/ card. Much more secure for the customer. And no number to remember :-} But banks tend to deny, wrongly, that they exist.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 04:59:30 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote as underneath :
You are overlaying other people with your own ways and assuming they must behave like you - probably this user as he had no use for the pin didnt even bother to change it from the bank issued number. Therefor he would know the pin if he looked it up from the issuing time and would also know that the Bank would not issue a guessable sequence in the first place even if he couldnt find the original issue pin.
And if you have to use a signature instead of the PIN the card is blocked immediately after (for C&P purchases).
Why use numbers - something a vast proportion of people find problematic ? I still think the idea I saw 20 years ago, or thereabouts (on "Tomorrows World" ?) where your "PIN" is actually a sequence of presses related to faces.
Nowadays, it would be possible to supply your bank with (say) 10 pictures of people you know - say family, friends. And associate each picture with a series of facts. When you need to access your account, you are challenged with a selection of faces, and a fact. Because the chances of a thief picking great aunt edna's picture out, as a reply to "Who met Churchill in 1944" are as high as to be practically impossible.
However, in the same way we have the unemployed we are prepared to pay for, we have the security we are prepared to pay for.
6 digits lend themselves to notable dates : DDMMYYYY
That's 8 digits ;-) Dates are particularly bad pieces of information to use as passwords/PINs since they have low entropy.
The current system is poor but I have a feeling that your scheme could make it trivial for someone who knows the victim well to access their account.
The same goes for all the 'memorable information' that banks think improves security.
Not at all. The bank simply asserts that they sent you a card, so you could have used it, so you must have used it for these disputed withdrawals. What can you say in response other than "No I didn't", which as we have seen doesn't cut any ice with them?
Not true. I tried to get a chip and sig card when my CC company issued me with a PIN, but they wouldn't. They said (I kid you not) it was illegal to issue them to anyone without a doctor's certificate of disability.
It's very well to talk about "leaning hard enough". It didn't matter how many times I asked them, they simply said no, and there was *nothing* I could do about it.
They've as much proof as the person who claims to have lost money, when the money has been extracted from the account using the appropriate card and PIN number. Why should the bank pay for the customer's negligence?
The customer is then left with a fight to get
But what if it's the customer's inadequate security that's to blame?
What are the odds of guessing the correct PIN - even with three goes at it - from 9,999 available combinations? After all, if someone other than the card holder has both the card and the PIN, why should the bank be liable? Have a read of the terms and conditions regarding the PIN.
The only person's card that I could take a good guess at the number of would be my brother's, and that's because I know what his army serial number was. Eight digits you never, ever forget. I don't think he knows what mine is...
If they only have as much proof as the customer has, then the bank should pay, because it created and imposed the system that made such frauds possible.
Perhaps it shouldn't if the customer really has been negligent. But that is often *not* the case, except by the banks' own special definition of the word "negligent". It is known that there are ways of obtaining a PIN fraudulently that are certainly not the customer's fault. Some of these are no doubt technically sophisticated but others are as simple as shoulder surfing combined with pickpocketing.
They are imposed by the bank and thus are not relevant to the question of fairness or equity. If you reply "But the customer did not have to accept these T&Cs, he could have chosen a different bank", I will reply, "yes he did, because all banks impose the same terms".
In message , Peter Turtill writes
I met him once, we had some lengthy discussions, his name is engraved in my memories!! Although I only heard about his credit card problems some years after they occurred.
They may assert what they choose the claim they apparently use is that the issued card was used by a third party with knowledge of the PIN provided by me. By precautions I have taken I can show that the card provided by me has not been used by anyone including me. I can further show that the PIN still under the security patch they affixed could not possibly be known by anyone including me.
Under these circumstances I doubt whether they would push the issue. If they did I would appeal to the Financial Ombudsman and if needs must the County Court.
It's as I said. No bank is going to damage customer relations for the sake of recovering a few hundred pounds. I have had an instance of impersonation a few years ago now but with the the then BoS. The impersonation had taken place in Bognor where I have never been and the cards concerned were in my wallet and the wife's purse. They were never out of our possession. I reported the matter and the cards were stopped. The next day I was rung by BoS security. They went through our payments with me and I identified the ones that were legitimate and the ones that weren't The missing money was returned to our account immediately. No problem!
Why should a bank that has been defrauded compound the loss by trying, possibly unsuccessfully, not everyone will lie down, by trying to recover the loss from an innocent customer possibly losing him into the bargain.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.