Online Fraud

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 16:07 Sat 28th May 2016 | News
16 Answers
Do you agree with the proposal that victims of online fraud should carry the financial burden, rather than their banks?

If you get an email purportedly from your bank, asking you to login and change your password because of 'a security breach', or if you're tricked into giving your debit card to a courier 'from your bank' - why should the bank bear the cost of reimbursing you?


1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The banks must be sick to the back teeth of telling online customers how to keep themselves safe. I know my banks regularly give simple to understand, clear information whenever I log on, also I've had letters through the post giving safety advice.

I wouldn't expect the bank to reimburse me if a thief snatched the money out of my hand after using a cash point. I really don't see the difference.
I think it depends on the situation.

If it is down to the bank's system that no customer has any say over, or if it something that could only be avoided by unreasonable action such as not trusting my bank, or performing excessive scrutiny, then the bank should cover for their system. They insist on their flawed system after all.

However if the situation is regarding the customer doing something utterly stupid, then the bank has less of a responsibility. (Although even then they could insure against it. After all they are the ones making fortunes out of supplying a gradually less decent service.)

The one thing I'm not decided about is when the person suffering from fraud can be classed as someone who should not be expected to be vigilant. For example, it's easier to fool older folk whose minds are not as sharp as they were when younger, but the system they have to cope with is the same as the rest of us. They have no choice, the bank is dictating the situation again.

I think every incident needs to be judged on it's merits, or whatever.

///he suggested consumers should not be refunded by banks if they fail to protect themselves from cybercrime.///

Don't see too much wrong with that, the ones that will argue with it will be the ones who believe it's always someone else's fault and no way could they be to blamed.
I kinda agree with hc...except when it comes to the elderly who can be less internet savvy.
If its the bank that was at fault they should pay, as in Carakeel case, they emptied her account twice in two weeks, the bank refunded her money within 24 hours both times. If it was her own fault, we would not have expected any refund.
It really depends on what would be meant by "fail to protect themselves" as banks could decide its online customers should use X or Y Anti Virus / Firewall
Question Author
I don't think that banks should be able to dictate that their customers install the latest version of the operating system or indeed antivirus software. However, if someone is tricked into handing over their banking details, either by phishing or that new scam, where fraudsters telephone the victim pretending to be their bank - I don't think the bank should be held liable.

But yes - each case really needs to be judged on its own merits.
One type where the bank could be at fault is where the customer is conned into withdrawing £10000 cash to hand over to a 'plain clothes policeman' in a taxi outside. The bank should really question people more. especially older vulnerable people.
Hell no, I don't agree with that at all. Banks encourage us to trust them with our money. If you trust a bank with your money, the bank should take responsibility for its safety. If the money is lost through fraud of any kind, it is the responsibility of the bank.
chanel5, why should a bank be responsible for something they could not have prevented?
If the bank is negligent in any way or if it is the bank that itself that is targeted, such as an attack on their database, then yes, they should be responsible, but if a customer hands over cash or pin numbers willy nilly, what could the bank have done to stop it?
The difficulty here is these attempts at fraud are extremely official looking.
Sorry to intrude - message to Mikey - did you see my post about The Kraken Wakes which was on this afternoon on Radio 4?
On the subject of banks - when the elderly gentleman was conned at a cashpoint machine a few weeks ago,(it was all over the media) in that case he should have been reimbursed as the thieves were so quick and plausible, and a person of his age would not expect that to happen.
chanel5, "Hell no, I don't agree with that at all. Banks encourage us to trust them with our money. If you trust a bank with your money, the bank should take responsibility for its safety. If the money is lost through fraud of any kind, it is the responsibility of the bank."

So if I send you an email asking for all your banking details and then you give them to me, I then empty your account of all your savings, the bank should reimburse you?

Crazy nonsense!!
The less responsibility people need to take for their own actions, the less responsible and more rash they become.

I know several people who have bought items through eBay that they knew could be 'dodgy' but took the gamble anyway as they knew they'd be refunded by PayPal. They would never have risked their own money.
Every single time I log on to my bank I am warned about keeping myself safe from fraud. I may be elderly but I'm not stupid so No I don't expect the bank to bail me out when it's my own fault. But if the bank's own security fails then they cover my losses which is fair.

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Online Fraud

Answer Question >>