Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls

"PeteM" wrote

If they can afford to give up that easily, then they can't value the loss at much. If they *can't* affort to give up that easily, well - you can't stop people being stupid...

The same way you prove that you did not hand your sig. card to an accomplice to use in Bermuda. i.e. you cannot - but neither do you have to.

There is no deliberate fraud that you could do with your C&P card that you could not also do with your signature card. The fact that the signature does not match does not prove that you did not make the transaction - you may have deliberately signed with the wrong hand or otherwise made the signature totally different.

In fact, if the forgery of a signature is *very* good, there is a possibility that the bank may use it to "prove" that it was you who made the transaction, whilst the fact that the correct PIN was entered proves only that the person making the transaction knew the PIN.

Fortunately the burden of proof in all cases is on the bank to show that on balance you made the transaction or were extremely negligent with your card.

"Chris Street" wrote

If you mistrust them that much, then you can choose not to use them...

AFAICT, a message appears on the till screen if the card is authorised for cashback. As you have said, you don't know whether your CC works in an ATM. I would be interested to know whether there are cards that work in ATMs but are not eligible for cashback.

I also see a lot of people showing their PIN to the world. But just because *they* are stupid does not compromise *your* security. The reverse in fact, because a crook will rather go for the easier targets such as those who they can easily see the PIN rather than you, if you are more careful.

If it was a valuation "for insurance purposes" then 450 is the sort of thing one would expect. If he *really* had been offered

450 to sell it, then you can be quite certain he had not bought it at a jeweller's shop for anything like 500, whatever he might have told you.

A gold chain necklace offered for sale in a jewellery shop for

500 would have cost 150 to 250 wholesale (depending on that shop's markup). An offer to buy a second-hand item would come nowhere near the wholesale price new. For a second-hand gold chain necklace it would be little above the scrap value at most.

If one wanted to buy gold and then sell it later for anything approaching its original cost, it would have to gold coin, such as sovereigns or krugerrand, whose value is mostly intrinsic.

Tim posted

And thereby see my family starve, since I won't be able to get paid?

Tim posted

Idiotic comment.

Another idiotic comment.

I beg to differ. By being so stupid, they are *encouraging* shoulder surfing followed by the theft of their card. What, if then, everyone becomes more careful? These thieves may not just give up - they may start to ask for the PIN, instead. I hope that they will still target those with trolleys full of expensive luxuries and using a PIN. In which case, they certainly won't bother me! But, if not, who will they target? A man? A family? A young girl? Or an older woman (OK, ancient crone) who is less likely to have maxed out her card limit and shouldn't put up much of a fight?

Yes, of course there are.

Most credit cards work in ATMs.

I know mine does, and I have never been offered a cashback when using it in a shop.

None of my new chip and sig cards do - unless all their PIN notification envelopes were lost in the post.

As the only point, IIUC, of issuing chip and sig cards is because the owner "cannot" use chip and PIN - I can't see much point in them sending a PIN out.

Stranger things have happened at sea, though..

"PeteM" wrote

Howso? If the loss is significant to them, then they can't really afford to give up insisting on their rights, can they?

"PeteM" wrote

Why again? When it is important to you, isn't it stupid to give up insisting on your rights?

False argument by introducing the word 'significant'. What does that mean? In what context? Many of us might give up depending upon the percieved effort, ie the hassle factor, and chances of winning. Money isnt the only factor to be taken into account.

For example I have a car I am selling but I am coming to believe the hassle isnt worth it, I'd be better off taking it to a breakers than trying to sell it for the 50 it might be worth. Thats not to say that 50 isnt 'significant' (whatever that means) but it has to be balanced against the potential aggravation I'd go through to get it. Plus the loss of time, and we all know that time=money :-)

Again, what does 'important' mean? Maybe the hassle isnt worth it to you even if it is 'important'. Maybe your perception of the chances of winning, or the hassle, or negative outcomes,, would make you give up. People have lost cases and thus lost the money, one guy was even prosecuted for fraud for claiming phantom withdrawals! Its not the no-lose game you seem to believe it is, eg "if you argue long enough you'll get your money back." You

*could* end up with a criminal record instead!

At 16:02:37 on 15/12/2005, GSV Three Minds in a Can delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Why can it never have a PIN?

I thought it was fairly obvious - if the loss is (say) 200 and that's what you earn in a week, then it may be fairly significant to you -- and so worth spending even a few hours "insisting on your rights".

But if you earn that much every ten minutes, you might decide not to bother going to the time & trouble of "insisting on your rights" (it could take longer than ten minutes to get the refund!).

"Tumbleweed" wrote

But we're talking about a case where the law is on your side (otherwise you don't have the "right" to "insist"!) and so the "chances of winning" (at least eventually) should be 100%.

So, it comes down to just "perceived effort"(hassle factor), which is where it matters how much you value your time/hassle against money. If you think the hassle is worth more than the loss you'd win back, then I'd say "the loss is not significant". If on the other hand you think it's worth the hassle, then I'd say "the loss is significant".

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Exactly! I'm talking about the significance of the amount (to you) compared to the time/hassle it would take to get it.

"Tumbleweed" wrote

When I said "When [the loss] is important to you" here, I meant that your comparison of the "loss" against the actions required to get it back, puts the loss higher (ie it's worth the actions to get the refund).

I've just come from natwest and writing a /very/ stroppy letter to their customer relations dept. The local manager told me an hour ago point blank that there was no such thing as a chip&sig debit card. Not that they didn't/wouldn't issue them - but that there was no such thing.

The fact that they had already issued a couple last year didn't seem to faze her in the slightest.

I'm still seething.

"PeteM" wrote

Do you have any evidence of that ("hundreds or thousands"), or are you just hoping it is true to justify your point? ;-)

"PeteM" wrote

What, no cases at all where the customer sought publicity and the bank still didn't pay out? So you are saying that publicity magically *always* makes the bank pay out?!

"PeteM" wrote

But according to you, they *always* pay out *whenever* the customer seeks publicity... Oh yes!

"Mike Scott" wrote

How would you show that you didn't give your

*sig* card to someone, then help teach them how to reproduce your sig, and send them off to Bermuda? :-(

"Mike Scott" wrote

But it's not the banks that matter - it's the Financial Ombudsman and/or the courts...

"Chris Street" wrote

Did they chase you for the extra 180? If not, then they effectively *did* refund the money.

So, as you said "They never refunded the money", do you mean that they *did* come after you, and actually got you to pay, the extra 180 overdraft?