Chip & pin


M

Mel Rowing

Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> posted













Not at all. The bank simply asserts that they sent you a card, so you
could have used it, so you must have used it for these disputed
withdrawals. What can you say in response other than  "No I didn't",
which as we have seen doesn't cut any ice with them?
They may assert what they choose the claim they apparently use is that
the issued card was used by a third party with knowledge of the PIN
provided by me. By precautions I have taken I can show that the card
provided by me has not been used by anyone including me. I can further
show that the PIN still under the security patch they affixed could
not possibly be known by anyone including me.

Under these circumstances I doubt whether they would push the issue.
If they did I would appeal to the Financial Ombudsman and if needs
must the County Court.

It's as I said. No bank is going to damage customer relations for the
sake of recovering a few hundred pounds. I have had an instance of
impersonation a few years ago now but with the the then BoS. The
impersonation had taken place in Bognor where I have never been and
the cards concerned were in my wallet and the wife's purse. They were
never out of our possession. I reported the matter and the cards were
stopped. The next day I was rung by BoS security. They went through
our payments with me and I identified the ones that were legitimate
and the ones that weren't The missing money was returned to our
account immediately. No problem!

Why should a bank that has been defrauded compound the loss by trying,
possibly unsuccessfully, not everyone will lie down, by trying to
recover the loss from an innocent customer possibly losing him into
the bargain.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mike Scott

I hope you then asked them which act of parliament, statutory instrument
or order in council makes it illegal.
I had one bank manager deny they even existed - even when I showed her
the one her own branch had issued me a few days before (and after I'd
referred her to more than one website). She was "re-trained" after I
complained. So don't assume the staff actually know anything.

As GM suggests, ask them for their evidence. And do let us know who so
we can all avoid them :)
 
M

michael adams

Chris Blunt said:
But later on he claims the PIN is not an obvious number such as a date
of birth or something as simple as 1234. How could he make such a
statement if he doesn't know what the PIN is?
What he probably meant was he hadn't memorised the PIN.
Which he wouldn't needed to have done, given that as
the bank admits, he never ever used the card for PIN
transactions. However when he subsequently checked
the number, having arrived home following the theft
he saw it wasn't an "obvious" number the thieves might
easily guess.

To me, the only questionable aspects are why, if he only
ever used the card for telephone transactions from home,
he carried it about with him, and why he ever opened the
PIN notification. Had this been intact and in his possesion
he would have had proof positive the PIN must have been
compromised without his knowledge.



michael adams

....

This apparent
 
A

anonymous

Big said:
Not true. I tried to get a chip and sig card when my CC company issued
me with a PIN, but they wouldn't. They said (I kid you not) it was
illegal to issue them to anyone without a doctor's certificate of
disability.

It's very well to talk about "leaning hard enough". It didn't matter how
many times I asked them, they simply said no, and there was *nothing* I
could do about it.
It's the banks choice whether to issue you with any sort of card or not
- you're not entitled to one by law. But at such a blatant lie you
should have invoked their complaints procedure. You might even have
merited some compo.

Adrian
 
A

anonymous

michael said:
What he probably meant was he hadn't memorised the PIN.
Which he wouldn't needed to have done, given that as
the bank admits, he never ever used the card for PIN
transactions. However when he subsequently checked
the number, having arrived home following the theft
he saw it wasn't an "obvious" number the thieves might
easily guess.

To me, the only questionable aspects are why, if he only
ever used the card for telephone transactions from home,
he carried it about with him, and why he ever opened the
PIN notification. Had this been intact and in his possesion
he would have had proof positive the PIN must have been
compromised without his knowledge.
I don't know whether it's the situation here, but with some cards you
have to 'activate' them by putting them in a terminal and entering the PIN.
michael adams

...

This apparent
Me too.

Adrian
 
B

Big Les Wade

Graham Murray said:
I hope you then asked them which act of parliament, statutory instrument
or order in council makes it illegal.
Of course I did. The answer was some variant of "**** off". And there is
*nothing* you can do about it.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

Big Les Wade

Mike Scott said:
I had one bank manager deny they even existed - even when I showed her
the one her own branch had issued me a few days before (and after I'd
referred her to more than one website). She was "re-trained" after I
complained. So don't assume the staff actually know anything.
I don't, but that doesn't help. If the person on the other end of the
line doesn't cooperate, there is nothing you can do to make them.
As GM suggests, ask them for their evidence. And do let us know who so
we can all avoid them :)
This was Alliance & Leicester, but I am sure they all do much the same.
 
B

Big Les Wade

anonymous said:
It's the banks choice whether to issue you with any sort of card or not
- you're not entitled to one by law. But at such a blatant lie you
should have invoked their complaints procedure.
Of course I did. The response was a variant of "**** off, we can do what
we like". And they were right. They could do what they liked, and there
was nothing I could do about it.
You might even have merited some compo.
Ha ha.
 
®

®i©ardo

If they only have as much proof as the customer has, then the bank
should pay, because it created and imposed the system that made such
frauds possible.


Perhaps it shouldn't if the customer really has been negligent. But that
is often *not* the case, except by the banks' own special definition of
the word "negligent". It is known that there are ways of obtaining a PIN
fraudulently that are certainly not the customer's fault. Some of these
are no doubt technically sophisticated but others are as simple as
shoulder surfing combined with pickpocketing.



They are imposed by the bank and thus are not relevant to the question
of fairness or equity. If you reply "But the customer did not have to
accept these T&Cs, he could have chosen a different bank", I will reply,
"yes he did, because all banks impose the same terms".
Well, given your paranoia you'll just have to do without then, won't you.
 
T

tim.....

®i©ardo said:
They've as much proof as the person who claims to have lost money, when
the money has been extracted from the account using the appropriate card
and PIN number. Why should the bank pay for the customer's negligence?

Because banks have form for claiming the above when they haven't even
bothered to check if it is the case

tim
 
A

anonymous

Big said:
Of course I did. The response was a variant of "**** off, we can do what
we like". And they were right. They could do what they liked, and there
was nothing I could do about it.
I don't think that's true. Once you've invoked their complaints
procedure, they have to take you seriously.

Recently I was given the runaround by a high street bank. As soon as I
uttered the magic words "I wish to make a complaint", they suddenly
started taking me seriously and came up with an acceptable circumvention
to the problem of their making.
I've seen press reports of £25 for 'inconvenience' for the most trivial
of complaints.

Adrian
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Theo Markettos

In uk.finance Peter Turtill said:
I also have a distant memory of a QC eventually being able to disclose
something he had kept secret as he feared it would bring the banking
system crashing down. He disclosed that at one major bank at least
there were only 3 sets in PIN numbers in use.
From 1994:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/wcf.html
('Simple examples', point 3)

Theo
 
M

Mark

They may assert what they choose the claim they apparently use is that
the issued card was used by a third party with knowledge of the PIN
provided by me. By precautions I have taken I can show that the card
provided by me has not been used by anyone including me. I can further
show that the PIN still under the security patch they affixed could
not possibly be known by anyone including me.
But it is the responsibility of the bank to prove that you were
neglient, not your responsibility to prove that you weren't. I had a
colleage whose card was somehow cloned and used miles away from where
he was. Even though he could prove he was nowhere near the ATMs the
bank would not accept it.
Under these circumstances I doubt whether they would push the issue.
If they did I would appeal to the Financial Ombudsman and if needs
must the County Court.
But it's a lot of hassle. Have you ever used the FO? It takes ages
and, in the case I took, I could have handled it easier and quicker
myself.
It's as I said. No bank is going to damage customer relations for the
sake of recovering a few hundred pounds.
I've not convinced. I have personal experience of several companies
damaging "customer relations" for amounts far smaller than a few
hundred pounds. BT have lost my business for ever over £10. Orange
also for a similar amount. I can name several others too.

Having said that, when my credit card account was used fraudulently
recently, I was not asked to prove my innocence. Although the matter
was handled really badly by the bank and took over 6 months to sort
out, I was not accused of fraud myself.
 
M

Mark

I don't think that's true. Once you've invoked their complaints
procedure, they have to take you seriously.

Recently I was given the runaround by a high street bank. As soon as I
uttered the magic words "I wish to make a complaint", they suddenly
started taking me seriously and came up with an acceptable circumvention
to the problem of their making.


I've seen press reports of £25 for 'inconvenience' for the most trivial
of complaints.
I've not received compensation for 'trivial' complaints. I did get
£10 from First Direct for totally cocking up the transfer of my direct
debits but all that covered was the cost of the phonecalls to them to
sort out the mess that they made.

I did receive more compo (~£50) from the Co-Op bank for a series of
errors, incompetences, and other problems that went on for about 9
months.
 
B

Big Les Wade

®i©ardo said:
Well, given your paranoia you'll just have to do without then, won't you.
No. I can't do that either. Modern society requires that I have a bank
account, otherwise I would not be able to buy essential services or
receive payment for my work. That's the problem.
 
Ad

Advertisements

®

®i©ardo

Because banks have form for claiming the above when they haven't even
bothered to check if it is the case

tim
Please cite a few cases.
 
T

tim.....

®i©ardo said:
Please cite a few cases.
There was one on "rip off Britain" last week (no I think it's been two weeks
since it was on?)

tim
 
A

anonymous

Big said:
No. I can't do that either. Modern society requires that I have a bank
account, otherwise I would not be able to buy essential services or
receive payment for my work. That's the problem.
And guess what - *ankers want to make you pay for the privilege :(

Adrian
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jethro_uk

What he probably meant was he hadn't memorised the PIN. Which he
wouldn't needed to have done, given that as the bank admits, he never
ever used the card for PIN transactions. However when he subsequently
checked the number, having arrived home following the theft he saw it
wasn't an "obvious" number the thieves might easily guess.

To me, the only questionable aspects are why, if he only ever used the
card for telephone transactions from home, he carried it about with him,
and why he ever opened the PIN notification. Had this been intact and in
his possesion he would have had proof positive the PIN must have been
compromised without his knowledge.
It was suggested a while back that upon receiving a card, you should
scratch the CVV number off it (after memorizing it). It's not needed for C
+P usage, and removing it means anyone handling your card can't clone it
for cardholder not present transactions.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

chip and pin 12
Chip & PIN - Bin the PIN. 69
Chip & PIN in Saibsury's 54
Chip and pin fraud. 268
Chip & Pin ready? 29
Chip & Signature - confused by Chip and PIN! 22
Chip & PIn (AGAIN)!! 23
Chip&Pin cashback 6

Top