debit card without authority of account holder?

Alex Heney wrote: ...

Getting as bad as me then :-)

The code does say you will be liable for that much, if taken before you notified them (which it was).

In message , PeteM writes

It has been many years since I felt any bank had integrity or a desire to do right by their customers. Just yesterday I saw a bank give a loan of £42000 with repayments of £700 per month to a person whose entire income was just £825 per month. Do right by their customers my arse.

Alex Heney posted

Same here. Card skimming is obviously a failure of the banks' security precautions for which they should hold liability.

The code is a promise published *by the banks*. As such it commits them to assume certain liabilities. It can't commit anyone else, such as their customers, to anything.

We used to go singing for a Christmass late night shopping thing (about

15 years ago[1]) and the Barclays branch was open so we went in and sang Zion Hears the Watchmen from Wachet Auf (Lloyds were using it in an advert with their black horse thingy at the time) [1] That's a scary thought

PeteM wrote: ...

But it probably reflects a clause buried deep inside their T&C's, which will commit the customer.

Anything onerous or unusual "buried deep inside their T&C's" is unenforceable, unless attention was drawn to it when the contract was formed.

Which has not much relevance here, as what we are talking about is neither onerous nor unusual.