Disputed ATM transaction

I've asked for a chip & sig card from two organisations (Bank & Credit Card) and they both refused. Both asked for documentary proof of disability and in both cases they refused to let me speak to anyone more senior.

I cancelled both accounts.

Try Tesco or the Halifax. Both where more than happy to oblige. Hell, Tesco didn`t even ask why I wanted on, they stopped me when I said I wanted a chip&sig card to tell me it`d be with me in 5 working days :-)

As a matter of interest, it is argued by the bank that if you use an ATM the machine will first try to read the chip on the card and only if that fails will try to read the magnetic strip. They say the chip cannot be cloned or copied and therefore if the chip was read, it follows that it cannot be a cloned card and must be a card used by the customer or with the customer's permission.

I don't suppose anyone is in a position to contradict the bank on this point - but if the customer is absolutely sure he didn' t use the card at the ATM, that presumably leaves only some sort of computer error in the bank's operations, and I don't suppose that could ever be proved.

It would be interesting to see what a county court judge makes of it though.

At 10:06:20 on 05/04/2009, The Todal delighted uk.legal by announcing:

They're partly right. The chip cannot be cloned or copied*. However, what you can do is read some information off it and write it to another chip. What you can't do* is read the secret information such as PIN, keys etc.

Currently, this allows you to copy genuine data to a fraudulent card and to get that card to accept any PIN and approve offline. However, the cryptogram generated by the card proves whether the card was genuine or fake. The new security being adopted over the next 18 months will prevent this and ensure only a genuine card can be used for a transaction.

• For all practical purposes. Given enough time and money, many things are theoretically possible.

But even if that is so, the rest of the claim (that it follows that it must be a card used by the customer or with the customer's permission) is utterly false. This does not follow at all. The card could easily have been stolen (or "borrowed") from the customer and been used without permission, given that PINs can be gleaned by "shoulder surfing".

The customer is sure that he had the card with him at all times ;(

Possibly the bank (and the ombudsman) would be more helpful if he were to lie and to claim it was temporarily stolen from him.

At 17:06:04 on 05/04/2009, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by announcing:

If it was used at an ATM, and it was a chip transaction, it had to be the genuine card. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the authorised cardholder was in possession of the card at the time.

Alex posted

That's what the banks say, but in view of their record of lying I don't think we have to believe them.

At 19:16:54 on 05/04/2009, Big Les Wade delighted uk.legal by announcing:

If a chip transaction goes online then the card has to authenticate directly with the Issuer. Only a genuine card can do so.

That's all well and good, but how can anyone then explain why it is that the card was in the possession of the customer at all times and was not used by the customer for drawing money from the ATM?

Some form of computer error would be the most likely explanation. But that's not really the customer's problem. The real problem for him, assuming that he is neither lying nor mistaken, is persuading the bank to accept that he is neither lying nor mistaken. If they do accept that, then the question of how the transaction occurred is their problem, not his. If they don't accept it, then his only recourse would seem to me to be the courts.

Essentially, he has to prove (on the balance of probabilities, since this is a civil case) that he was nowhere near the ATM where the disputed transaction occurred, and that his card was in his posession during that time. The former should be quite easy (witnesses will help, but if there's CCTV at the ATM then that can be used to show that the transaction was not made by him), but the latter may be harder. It would help a lot if he could show that he used the card himself on the same day at a different location. It will also help if the person who did make the transaction (as shown on CCTV) is unlikely to be known to him.

Mark

One of my friends also has the similar situation. He went for with drawl option in a local ATM where the amount was deducted without dispense of cash. Reasons for these problems should be identified for better service to customers.

How is he going to prove on balance of probabilities that he's not lying and that the PIN was written down next to or with the card? A bank is going to come out with all manner of security procedures to make sure it doesn't happen, and that he must have used the card or allow it to go out of his possession.

Having said that, I had a foreign transaction on a business account for a card that had never been used. I still feel it could only be an inside job but since all the money was returned there was no reason to pursue the matter.

Alex posted

Like all propositions put forward by one party in its own interests, that can't be established simply by assertion. Evidence is needed. That evidence would then be assessed in the light of the fact that the banks said the same thing about mag stripe cards, but it was later shown by Ross Anderson and others that they deliberately lied in order to defraud their customers.

Well, he should find it pretty easy to prove that it wasn't him who actually made the transaction. All that requires is a few witnesses as to his actual location at the time the transaction was made, or simply the CCTV images from the ATM location (if there are any). It's the second part that's harder: proving that he didn't lend the card to someone else.

That could also be the source in this case. If it is, of course, the bank will almost certainly want to hush it up.

Mark

At 10:06:35 on 06/04/2009, The Todal delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Was the ATM in the UK?

At 13:29:54 on 06/04/2009, Big Les Wade delighted uk.legal by announcing:

If somebody had truly cracked the secret keys on a card then they'd have done much more than just withdrawn a few quid. Oh, and they'd have needed possession of the card as well; and probably destroyed it in the process.

Alex posted

But that's what the banks said about mag stripe cards.

They said that about mag stripe cards too.

Add me to the list of those who are not a fan of these so called secure cards and protective chips on the card. I agree it's just passing liability to the consumer instead of the bank.

Before all this though I had a friend who had his bank card stolen, someone figured out the pin and withdrew 500. My friend found this out when he called the bank to report his card stolen. The bank would not let him dispute the withdrawal because the proper pin was entered. He persisted that they check the bank machine's video records and that he could prove it wasn't him.

Now this part is strange... while this was several years ago I'm a bit surprised about the antiquated technology mentioned. The bank informed him that he would have to pay $300 to have the film developed in the atm machine. It apparently costs so much because it's a "special film". So.... those camera's are sitting there recording video footage all day that no one's going to ever look at? That sounds like a bit of a waste of money to me. Special film? Sounds a bit strange too. So he could risk another 300 to get his 500 back.. which if it worked he'd be out