They would have to frogmarch you at knifepoint to the ATM, as that's the only way they could be sure you have not given them a false PIN, but that would be rather obvious and would probably all be on CCTV as well.
If you don't think a 1 in 3333 chance is insignificant, then how low do you thank the risk has to be before it does become insignificant?
If you are careless and unlucky enough to get a card stolen once a week by a thief who attempts to guess the number, then this means that on average, the number will be guessed roughly once in every 60 years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But remember the banks' idea of negligence may differ from yours when the crunch comes. This has been discussed ad nauseam recently - try google.
I suggest leaning heavily on the bank for a sig card if you need one. They are /not/ allowed to probe for medical details should such a card be needed on medical grounds.
If all else fails, try Beneficial. They are quite helpful, one way or another, even offering C&S cards in a leaflet.
Mark wrote: ...
Quite right. But you could make them 'simply related' - eg reverse the digits and add one to the last digit, or whatever's easy to remember. Not ideal but better than having all PINs the same.
Not that time - but such incidents would eventually become public knowledge, which would only "encourage" people in future to cooperate. I suspect you'd even eventually get police advice to tell them the number, in the same that way you're advised to give a mugger what they want.
Care to explain why?
Wrong! Ulimately ALL loses get pased on to consumers by way of higher charges even if they are not itemised as such.
Rubbish! The chances of a thief finding the correct number within thee random choices is small.
But these will be replaced by 14th February 2006. Even if the card issuer makes an exception retailers will probably refuse them after that date becuase they will have to reimburse the card company for any fraudulent use where the PIN is not used.
Peter Crosland
They would have to prove you had been negligent.
Peter Crosland
But needless to say the banks will use every trick they know to not compensate you.
why ? If someone stole my card and took money out it was NOT with my permission,
Why? If money was taken out of the account with the PIN number then it was with owners permission.
I would imagine that most banks would assume you are negligent until you somehow satisfy them that is not. It would mean less work for them. It took my friend several months of hassle to get his money refunded when this happened to him.
Mark.
To would probably do well in the customer service department of the worst banks :-(
The answer is because their own code of conduct says so.
Any that do that are breaching the Banking code.
That says that they have to show that you were negligent. They can't just assume it.
"Mark" wrote
Nah - it would mean a whole lot *more* work for them! You refuse to pay the unauthorised charges on the credit card statement. To get anything, the credit card company would need to take you to court. Then they need to prove that you were negligent....
Which is what happened to me when I was tied up by 3 thieves about 10 years ago in my own home and threatened with an iron bar. I revealed the PIN (not sure I wanted to find out what would have happened if I had given a fake, one thief had gone away and found it was wrong). The thieves stole a few hundred pounds, but Halifax refunded the money very promptly.
After 14th Feb 2006, retailers will become liable for fraudulant transactions *WHERE THE PIN WAS BYPASSED*. If the card does not support PIN and immediately asks for signature, then current rules apply with regard to fraud.
In effect, they're just closing the loophole of people saying "I don't know my PIN, can I sign". It doesn't automatically mean that all signature transactions become liable.
D
To whom must they show that you were negligent?
Where did 1 in 10000 come from? It's one in 1000 - there are 4 digits in the PIN, not 5.
Oops, ignore that.
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.