Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls

You have entirely omitted a potential source of loss, which is errors and fraud within the banks systems. If an error occurs which wrongly attributes 'Freds' withdrawal from his account, to your account, or someone within the banking system obtains your PIN, then you havent got a leg to stand on. In case you think these things dont happen, well only a few days ago the Inland Revenue shut down an entire department because of systematic fraud, there was a case a few weeks back of a fraud within a bank targetted at customers accounts, and there isnt a computer system on this planet that doesn't have bugs in it. I wonder how many undiagnosed cases of fraud and bugs there have been?

You could lock your PIN and card up inside Fort Knox the day after they were delivered to you and still suffer from loss from these causes.

Doh! There is a possibility you could be prosecuted even if your claim is genuine. This has happened. Or do you believe our legal system and police are 100% correct all the time?

Yes but so what. Do you understand that you omitted any downside, e.g. the worse that could happen is that you'd get to the Financial Ombudsman according to what you wrote?

yes, hence the directly... the cost of running a credit card for many is nil to themselves and just a small margin in the shop goods, there's no way even paying cash to avoid most of the margin in the shop goods.

Except of course there's plenty of ways of getting the card from the reader, do you really audit the devices before entering the pin?

Jim.

At 21:37:57 on 16/12/2005, Mike Scott delighted uk.finance by announcing:

What's so difficult to understand about having different verification methods for different types of transactions?

At 18:34:51 on 17/12/2005, GSV Three Minds in a Can delighted uk.finance by announcing:

That's not necessarily true.

That's not necessarily true.

In message , Tumbleweed writes

The vast majority do not.

"Tumbleweed" wrote

There is a possibility that you could be jailed for a murder you didn't commit. This has happened. So do you lock yourself up at home, never go out anywhere and never see anyone just so as there is less chance of being prosecuted for a murder?

Don't be silly. It's just a (very slight) risk, which people accept to get on with their lives.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Oh yes?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Disagree. Maybe so with a bad forger, but some forgers are better and might fool the particular "expert" used that time.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Maybe, maybe not - depending on circumstances.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Heartily disagree. CCTV might show the fraudster. Customer might be able to prove s/he was in a much different location at the time of the transaction.

Anyway - and more to the point - the customer doesn't need to prove it *wasn't* them. But the bank needs to prove it *was* them!

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Maybe, maybe not - depending on circumstances.

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Alex said

Merely disagreeing, without providing any examples, evidence, or rationale for your statements is not helpful.

If you are alluding to the potential existence of Chip&Sig cards which have a PIN for ATM use, or Chip&Pin with a different PIN for ATM use, or which are completely disabled for ATM use, then yeah, all of that is technically possible, and NONE of it is currently offered by any of the banks I have contacted, sow e can ignore is as 'fact' and continue to treat is as speculative fiction.

Maybe "understandable", but inappropriate.

... but then later ...

"Jim Ley" wrote

You can't have it both ways! *EITHER* :- (1) You think the only way of a thief getting the PIN is if the customer is negligent (your first comment above); *OR* (2) You think that there are other ways that the thief may get the PIN (your second comment above).

Well, which is it - (1) or (2) ?

At 12:05:29 on 18/12/2005, GSV Three Minds in a Can delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Making statements that do not tell the complete story is not helpful.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Agreed. So why did *you* do it? ... From earlier :-

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Where are your "examples, evidence, or rationale for your statements" above?

Sorry to piggyback on this but my worries aren't so much about being prosecuted. They are much more about being held in an alley whilst an accomplice goes to the ATM, or of being taken to a quiet one at knifepoint. Even of being seriously injured so that my cards could be raided for a few days, rather than one.

I have no idea how many cards people carry. I know some people walking around with 10 or more. Or what sort of funds are available on them. Most of mine seem to be well over 3000GBP. I suspect older people tend to have much more credit available and this, as well as them being less able to defend themselves, make them better targets. And an older female on her own even more so.

Let's say the aveage middle-aged woman on her own carries 4 cards each with several thousands of pounds of unused credit. That is 2000GBP cash from the nearest ATM. I wonder how that compares with stealing handbags and mobile phones?

Of course, before chip and PIN, this was academic. Most people, IIUC, didn't know their *credit* card PIN and would only have a limited amount of crdit available on their debit card account. A thief might have got a couple of hundred in cash and maybe some junk that he could only sell at

But I really don't like the idea of walking around as a potential

Very poor analogy, because you will not be prosecuted for fraud if you dont complain about unauthorised transactions (whereas you could still be prosecuted for murder even if you stayed at home). In all your writings you make out its a one way thing, eg if you complain long and hard enough, the bank will give in and you'll get your money back (and even, if you dont complain long and hard enough 'its your fault and you deserve to lose the money becayuse you can afford it or you are stupid').

But as has been shown by experience, if you complain, then there is a small but actual possibility that (a) you wont get your money back anyway, and (b) you might be prosecuted for fraud. C&P increases the chances of these happening because there is no paper trail to be investigated.

That is the crux of the matter, they dont. Your money has gone and the onus is on you to prove it wasnt you. If it was the other way round, banks would

"Tumbleweed" wrote

You're forgetting we are talking about credit cards here. It is wrong to say "your money has gone" - rather, the balance on the credit card has increased instead.

So you simply don't pay.

In order for the CC co to get you to pay this, the onus is very much on *them* to get you to pay. If they take you to court, *they* have to prove it!

"Tumbleweed" wrote

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there...?

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Well, you *certainly* can't be prosecuted for fraud for simply "saying it wasn't you". They'd need to prove fraud to the court's satisfaction for you to be prosecuted!

unfortunately history has shown that the banks do attempt to have it both ways, they denied that their ATM systems could ever go wrong, the phantom withdrawals must've been real, they continued to assert this long after there were proven cases of faults.

You seem to have deeply misread my first comment, I said that was the argument the banks could use, not that there was any such fact, there most certainly is not.. It doesn't matter that the banks argument is unsustainable, the cost of going to court or ombudsman will prevent many people from obtaining their refunds.

Jim.

You are correct I had forgotten that :-)

I agree, in the context of c cards you are a bit better off.

I'm trying to say that if banks realy had to prove it was you, they'd never dispute these transactions because (unless they have a picture of you at the ATM?) they cant.

No, they'd need to prove to the courts satisfaction for you to be found guilty. Nothing needs be proved fro you to be prosecuted, tahst what the trial is for

Bitstring , from theincredibly dumb person Alex said

Which you have consistently done.

I have stated all the facts that are currently relevant. Anyway, I'm thru talking to you since you appear to be incapable of listening.