debit card without authority of account holder?

...so you're getting the choice. There's no law against such inertia selling is there? After all, they'll claim the replacement does all the old one does, and if you don't want the other facilities that's up to you.

If you'd like the simplest possible diary for 2006 in Word97 or .txt format:

What have you got to complain about?

If you don't want it, then say so. They have said "unless you say otherwise", so you can clearly choose not to have it.

If they weren't giving you the choice, ten you could say it had been "foisted" on you, but since they are, you can't.

BTW, you are wrong in saying the risks are very different. There is a slightly higher chance that some scrote could misuse it, but only slightly. Not enough to describe it as "very" different.

It's the difference between opt in and opt out. I don't like people supposing I want their merchandise.

No, I beg to differ. The new card is would be a full debit card (chip&pin one assumes, to boot), and I perceive the potential risks of loss/fraud as vastly higher than for a mere cashpoint card, where in the worst case one might have a maximum of £100 or so go adrift each day.

Perfectly reasonable, but legally they are perfectly entitled to do that, provided they give you the option, and provided they are not going to be charging you for the "merchandise".

Beg all you like :-)

The fact is that the risk has not proved to be significantly greater.

You may *perceive* it as much riskier, but that perception is not borne out by the facts.

And in the worst case with a debit card you would be liable for £50. I believe that is the same for the cashpoint card too. I don't know where you get £100 per day from.

He presumes £100 to be the daily withdrawal limit. More like £300 these days, at least that's what mine is, but I'm with RBS, Lloyd's may be different.

I don't know where you get £50 from. Surely if someone pinched his debit card and went on a shopping spree, he'd be liable without limit for all spending thereon up to the moment at which he reports it stolen, because he would have had to have knowingly or negligently disclosed his PIN, or so the bank would argue.

Alex Heney posted

Can you cite them?

There is an obvious extra threat model with the debit card: that liabilities can be fraudulently run up without the thief needing to know the PIN. I'd be surprised if that's never been done.

Where does it say that, Alex? This is a debit card, and (AIUI) not subject to the 1974 CCA.

They have to prove that he did so, not just state that it "must have been the case".

I can't find the figures now, but I recall seeing something saying that the most prevalent form of card fraud was fraudulent withdrawals from cash machines.

Nothing to do with the CCA.

It is in the Banking Code. (see section 12.12)

Well, yes, just stating it is not enough, but if they can prove that it must have been the case, then they have thereby proven that it was indeed the case.

And of course to prove (on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt) that it must have been the case is, unfortunately for the cardholder, easy.

The fact that the PIN has been used by a thief means that the thief either got lucky and guessed it, which is so unlikely as to be not worth considering, or else that the thief somehow gained knowledge of it, which means he must have been told it, or seen it written down, or observed it being keyed in.

"Alex Heney" wrote

I understand that it is actually *illegal* to send unsolicited "credit vouchers" to people - eg credit cards are a type of these "vouchers" (the law in question was written before credit cards become common, so the terminology used at the time now looks unusual!).

Marks & Spencer got into trouble recently (last year?) under this law, when they started sending out unsolicited credit cards!

So - as debit cards on accounts with an overdraft facility can allow the cardholder to obtain credit, and this would be obtained through use of the "voucher" which was unsolicited (the debit card) - couldn't Lloyds get into trouble sending debit cards out which have not been requested? (assuming the relevant a/c has an overdraft facility)

That would be the same banking code that prohibits sending advertising literature when the customer doesn't want it? I know how well banks adhere to that advice :-(

We've been round this loop recently in a lengthy thread on chip&pin. Never got anywhere either - the argument reduces to a "they will", "they won't" exchange. And since no-one here seems to have any actual experience of the banks' true attitude (as opposed to their publicity announcements), leaving people arguing from their own perceptions of human nature, it will never get anywhere.

Let's just say I'm determined not to be the guinea-pig ;-)

Anyway, to return to the original question, is a bank permitted to issue a debit card without the authority of the account holder?

Actually, it is almost impossible.

Or used a "skimmer".

The customer is only required to use "reasonable care".

Talking of which , went to a barclays bank (in London) last week, on their ATMs outside they had small devices stuck on them (slightly protruding) plus a long note underneath saying 'these are here from barclays as anti-skimming devices blah blah blah' .......except, thats just the sort of notice someone putting a skimming device might use, (and almost certainly will in future I bet). I'm pretty sure it was genuine from the bank but I didnt take the chance, I went to another bank. Its little different to banks who in the past have sent out messages to people inviting them to click on links. Sigh.

Assuming the relevant account has an overdraft facility, a cashcard holder

Cards are replaced from time to time as matter of routine anyway, and don't require fresh solicitation each time, so a replacement card has the privilege of not being deemed to be an "unsolicited voucher".

A replacement card which happens to have an added facility bolted onto the side could therefore be argued not to be substantially an "unsolicited voucher", even though the additional facility was not solicited, by virtue of the "replacement" privilege.

I wish I could share your confidence.

Define "reasonable care" in this context. What lengths is the customer expected to go to to be satisfied he's not being watched while using a C&P machine?

So if the thief is caught and admits to having seen the customer key in his PIN, does than prove the customer's care to have fallen short of the expected standard of reasonableness?

So what is the problem? Just tell them you want to continue as you do at present. End of problem!

from Peter Crosland

There is an article along similar lines here (store card > credit card)

Trebor.....

Thanks for that. I'm not sure it's a real parallel though - the store card and credit card are functionally similar; the cards I'm concerned with are not -- and come to think of it, Lloyds offered me a debit card for this account years ago, and were told I did not want one. Oh well, have to do it again. The bright side is the customer service desk is in a very prominent position, and I have a very loud voice.......