But she will have suffered stress, aggravation and disruption to her life and the cost of phone calls to sort out the mess.
Therefore she is a victim, even if she ends up not out of pocket (apart from the phone calls).
Marvellous. 1 transaction in 700 is fraudulent, and they call it low?
Yup - I thought the same. I should see one fraudulent transaction every 4 years
- but I've had only 2 in over 20 years.
It's true that my colleague will probably not be out of pocket by the time that this is all sorted. But in the meantime, she is closer to her overdraft limit than she'd like, which is an inconvenience, and has also had to spend a lot of time talking to the bank and filling in forms. I'd say that makes her a victim as well.
Adam
A friend of mine had their door kicked in by a violent thug. However he has been made to pay for the damage by the court. Since my friend is not out of pocket for the incident, but the thug is, does that make the thug the victim? :-)
Only if he broke his toe.
In message , Tim writes
No. What makes you think I was saying that?
In message , Andy Pandy writes
What law is that then?
In message , Andy Pandy writes
In effect that is an insurance payout in so far as the bank indemnifies you..
In message , Andy Pandy writes
Along with about 1m other letters about everything else they get wrong?
I will note for future reference that you regard the BBC as a reliable source of fact.
"John Boyle" wrote
Because you seem to think that the strict law is more relevant to the outcome (you say that the outcome is that the cardholder is out-of-pocket); whereas the outcome, in cases of dispute, would be decided by the Ombudsman rather than the court...
Rubbish. The bank had incorrectly charged my account for a transaction carried out by someone else. I did not authorise the transaction so the bank cannot expect me to pay for it.
I don't know and I don't care. All I care about is that if a bank tries to charge me for a transaction I haven't authorised or gives my money to someone else who pretends to be me, then the bank have screwed up and they must refund me.
I take the BBC as a much more reliable source of fact than a single usenet poster.
But the poster in question might not be single.
The "mess" being the fact that the bank is trying to charge her for something she didn't authorise. That might be due to a crime against the bank, or a mistake made by the bank.
What if the bank had simply made a mistake (ie charged the wrong account for a transaction etc) and there was no fraudster, is she also a victim? The hassle she'd go through would be similar...
Yes, she would be a victim of the banks incompetence.
Of her bank. Not of a crime.
I've seen all sorts of rubbish published by the BBC on their web site. Nobody seems to check anything any more.
In message , Andy Pandy writes
Oh dear here we go again. I give facts. You give opinion.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.