No wonder fraud is on the increase

Another case of tough on crime but only if its an easy target where the criminal walks into the police station. I wouldnt mind betting they think its a victimless crime because its only money. The banks encourage these things by putting personal details in the refuse without shredding. Seems that no one cares tuppence.

I'm sure there's pressure on the morons in the police to reduce the statistics about crime. We hear how successful the government is at reducing crime. This is due to the police not recording crime properly and the public not reporting crime because the police will not investigate.

The Blair government is based on lies.

Your colleague isn't a victim of a crime, from what you have written. You colleague's bank is.

The bank card will be the property of the bank, if someone steals it and uses it then the bank's property has been stolen and the bank is the victim of any fraudulent use, provided it was reported stolen as soon as possible and your colleage wasn't grossly negligent (eg writing the PIN number on the card or giving it willingly to the Bad Guy).

Just tell the bank and let them worry about the crime. If they want your assistance then give it to them, but they are the victim, not the cardholder.

Unless the bank makes good the money ommediately then the customer and the bank are victims albiet a temporary one. If it caused the account to go overdrawn there would be charges as well as inconvvenience and we know how quick banks are to take charges and how long they can take to return them.

You could argue that we all are. But that doesn't the police anything. You don't have to be the victim to report a crime. And as the OP said, they were surely in with a good chance of catching him.

Tiddy Ogg.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

No its not.

Only from the point of it being informed. In any event, this isnt what happened here, the card details were merely used for online shopping without the cardholder or bank knowing anything about it.

This is a separate issue .

Not in this case. The victim is the cardholder.

"John Boyle" wrote

Does it matter who the "victim" is? Either way, the one out-of-pocket will be the *bank* !

Surely whoever is out-of-pocket is ipso facto the victim.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That's why I put 'victim' in quotes before - altho' JB doesn't seem to think so!

I take his comment to mean that, although the bank ends up paying for the fraud, the cardholder is the true "victim" (but they just get "compensation" from the bank after the fraud).

In message , Tim writes

Not in this case. The card was not stolen, its details merely written down and used on the internet. The account holder has suffered the loss, not the bank.

If the card had been reported stolen then form that moment on the bank carries the can and there is a maximum that the card holder can be liable. But in this case the criminal has stolen dosh from the cardholder, not from the bank.

In message , Tim writes

No I dont mean that. I am saying that the cardholder is the victim AND the one out of pocket (based on what the OP wrote).

John Boyle

"John Boyle" wrote

I disagree (see below).

"John Boyle" wrote

Agreed.

"John Boyle" wrote

Disagree. Banking Code Extract follows:

"Liability for losses

12.12 Unless we can show that you have acted fraudulently or without reasonable care, your liability for the misuse of your card will be limited as follows. - ... - If someone else uses your card details without your permission, and your card has not been lost or stolen, you will not have to pay anything. - If someone else uses your card details without your permission for a transaction where the cardholder does not need to be present, you will not have to pay anything."

Comments?

What makes you think that? Provided the cardholder wasn't negligent then she shouldn't be out of pocket.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Experience of what actually happens.

You use the word 'shouldnt' which is your prerogative. It doesnt mean that your view is what happens though.

Put it another way. Say you put a fiver in a hotel safe (i.e. the type thats in your room) and set the PIN. Somebody learns your pin and opens the safe and nicks your fiver. Does that make the BoE liable?

In message , Tim writes

Two points.

1) The Banking Code came after me! and I accept that point.

but 2) It is only a code and in law the situation is as I say.

"John Boyle" wrote

In any case of dispute, the consumer would go to the Ombudsman first (not court). Are you suggesting that the Ombudsman would ignore the Banking Code in his determination?

Well it's not my experience. I've had my card details used fraudulently twice, in both cases the money was refunded.

I mean 'shouldn't' as in 'almost certainly won't', not as a personal view.

I fail to see any correlation. The BoE doesn't have T&C's which say if my bank notes get stolen they are liable.

Really? According to the BBC that is not so:

"The law states that cardholders are not liable for fraudulent transactions as long as the original card is still in their possession. "

I suggest you write to them telling them they are wrong.

Oh, and APACS:

"Plastic Card Fraud Cards are always safer than cash. The chances of you becoming a victim of card fraud are still low (fraudulent transactions make up 0.141% of all transactions). If you are unlucky enough to be a victim you will not suffer any financial loss as a consequence providing you have not acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."