Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls

Signatures have better deniability. It is hard to forge a signature well, especially without having the original in front of you. (I don't deny it is possible.) The other point is that you cannot be held negligent for having the signature on the card, whereas I would expect to have a hard time explaining to the bank that I was not negligent with a PIN. I know that in theory the bank has to prove that I was negligent, but until this issue is satisfactorily settled by the FOS or the courts, I expect the worst from the banks. (My experience of disputing a sales voucher with no signature was pretty bad.)

wrote

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true!

Dodgy equipment at a retailer, thief guessing correctly (it's gonna happen sometime!), high-tech inside job at the CC co, any of these could lead to someone else knowing your PIN without you being negligent.

Please try to prove otherwise!

wrote

Yeah, right. NOT!

wrote

No they don't - you can deny a transaction just as easily.

wrote

You don't need to do it "well". A signature doesn't have to be an *exact* copy of what is on the back of the card - for instance, some people's signatures come out different every time they sign. All a fraudster would need to do is make a mark that looks like

wrote

A thief who has stolen your card, *does* have a copy of the original "in front of him" - on the back of the card.

wrote

That's because it is part of the normal use of the card...

wrote

You shouldn't be expecting that. Part of the "normal use" of the card is to have it inserted into any number of retailer's equipment - it is therefore not negligent to use it at a retailer.

But one of the retailers might have dodgy equipment hooked up at POS, even though it is *reasonable* for the customer to assume that it's legit....

This shows that it *is* possible for the PIN to have been compromised, *without* negligence on your part.

Palindr?me wrote

Very topical. "Cashcards roasting on an open fire...."

"Palindr?me" wrote

I am not convinced that some people using credit /debit cards can't use chip and PIN. I suggest though that those opting for chip and SIG are really doing so because they don't like change, ie new ways of doing things, they live in the past.

It's obvious to most people that chip and PIN is more secure than chip and SIG.

Derek

"Palindr?me" wrote

I prefer chip and PIN I am far less likely to have my money stolen that way.

Well the one with PIN would work, just use that PIN Derek

"john boyle" wrote

Who decides what the maximum cashback is? Do the banks decide the actual maximum, but the retailer is free to set its own maximum below whatever the bank has set.

Derek

However the benefits are not directly felt by the individual, so it matters little, indeed you get the same benefits of reduction in fraud if everyone else uses chip+pin even if you don't.

So given the difficulty in having to learn new practices and given the understandable fear that the card-issuers will attempt to use the "you were negligent with your pin" argument to transfer the fraud liability to individuals, it makes complete sense for an individual to not use chip+pin as they bear none of the costs, but get all the same benefits.

Jim.

HSBC did that with my Visa, even going to the extent of blocking half of the transactions until they had spoken to me.

This included transactions as small as £30, from retailers I had previously used the same card with.

Needless to say, I don't have a credit card with them any longer.

John.

In message , Derek Hornby writes

Its universally £50 set by all the banks as part of the 'cashback' scheme. The retailer has no discretion..

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Derek Hornby said

but if you do, you chance of proving it wasn't you is close to zero. Look lets stop arguing, we're all saying the same thing...

Chip + Sig - chances of having card stolen/used x. However it can't be used for cash or at an ATM, and the customer's hand writing expert can prove it wasn't them using it. Loss to banks/retailers x .. loss to customer .. 0.

Chip + Pin - x/10 chance of having it stolen and used. However it can be used at ATM. Customer's chance of proving it wasn't them - close to zero. Loss to bank/retailers 0. Loss to customers, x/10.

Pity you didnt write that a few days ago would have saved several hundred messages :-) Interesting article in todays telegraph money supplement; Basics are, student complains about unauthorised withdrawals, bank first says will refund, then says it wont, then finally says it will, grudgingly. However, it also says 'if that happens again forget about getting any money off us'.

FWIW, one of their reasons for not believing the guy is that a balance enquiry was made first, and the withdrawals were relatively small, and these are things crims dont usually do. So if you ever do get ripped off, you had better hope they withdraw a lot of money!

One thing that *didnt* happen was an CCTV/camera evidence from either of the two ATMs. Maybe the majority of ATMs dont have cameras?

QE nothing.

That is just completely false.

Sometimes (probably rather too often) the banks will try to argue that.

But they are wrong to do so, and will very rarely let you go as far as the Financial Ombudsman before backing down.

Unless you are prosecuted for attempted fraud, as has happened.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

But it can't happen, (if card is used correctly) that's the point!

mmm not necessarily! I am sure not all handwriting experts will agree with each other.

You forget that we all pay for the loss.

So one should not make false claim.

Anyway if one uses chip and PIN card correctly, nobody (apart form user) will know the PIN, so is follows no thief can use it. Derek

"Jim Ley" wrote

I disagree! At end of the day *all* customers pay for cost of fraud. Just same as saying we all pay for cost of shoplifting.

But if every card user used chip and PIN the reduction in fraud would be even lower, and so everyone would benefit.

Not true! What is true though is that one is more at risk of having money nicked from account if one uses chip and SIG

So the message is clear, want to make sure your account is secure, then use chip and PIN Nobody can use my card, why not? Because only I know my PIN. I am 100% positive that nobody can, or will ever see my PIN when I use card. So no matter what happens only I can use my card!

Put it this way, if someone was to break into your house, or mug you on street, and nick your card. If that card was chip and SIF the thief could easily use that card in say shops if he/she goes in at very busy times and makes sure SIG looks same as on card. But if I get muged and my card is nicked, no way can it be used without PIN! Derek

Do you understand the words "very rarely"?

The thread on carjacking is interesting. Increased car security makes it less likely that your car is stolen but more likely that violence against the driver will be used.

A chip and PIN card is much like a car with an unbreakable locking system.

"No matter what happens only I can use my card". I just hope that no one "asks" you for it.

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Derek Hornby said

Rubbish. if I steal your card I have a 1/3000 chance of guessing your PIN, given 3 attempts. You can not be 100% certain that the terminal you stick your card in at the shop has not been gimmicked to record key presses. If you are 100% positive about =anything=, you have failed to turn your brain on.