According to Whic?, people who are duped into transferring money to a fraudster should be afforded the same safeguards as crime victims whose money is stolen from their bank account without their knowledge.
The consumer group claimed that the way banks use a optional reimbursement code when consumers are duped into making an authorised bank transfer to a fraudster is “riddled with chronic flaws,” and that victims are not receiving the protections they require.
Which one is it?
According to the report, the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) should be given new powers to make it essential for all companies to refund customers who have acted responsibly.
This, it added, would mean that protections would be similar to those in place for unauthorised fraud, such as when a person loses money after their identity is taken and there are clear expectations about when customers should receive their money back.
Unless they acted in a very irresponsible manner, fraud victims who had money moved from their bank account without their knowledge can normally expect to be compensated.
Which one is it?
“This would eliminate the reimbursement lottery, which puts a victim’s odds of receiving their money back contingent on where they bank,” they said.
According to the report, more than PS700,000 is lost every day to bank transfer scams, but less than half of the money is refunded to victims, with institutions habitually blaming clients for falling for what may be very sophisticated crimes.
About three-quarters of complaints about how banks treat victims of approved payment fraud are sustained, according to the consumer organization.
Which one is it?
a Nationwide customer was initially denied reimbursement for PS53,500 after failing to notice a fraudster had changed one digit of a solicitor’s email address and misled them into wiring money to their account, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
According to the FOS, expecting customers to spot such inconsistencies is unrealistic.
It had cost tens of thousands of pounds to use an “i” instead of an “l.”
In another case, a Santander customer was denied reimbursement for PS2,299 after booking flights on the grounds that he was using a travel agency.
The FOS decided it was fair for the customer to believe he was dealing with a real operator when a fraudster presented plausible false documentation.
We’re working with the government to close the holes in our authority that we’ve identified, which will help us address the issues surrounding a lack of obligatory protection Payment Systems Regulator Which?
Moreover, he believes that more transparency about how businesses handle situations of bank transfer fraud is required.
Which?’s head of money, Gareth Shaw
, stated that the PSR must “take matters into its own hands by adopting new rules requiring all corporations to reimburse victims when they are not at fault.”
“We released a series of measures at the beginning of this year to ensure that victims of APP (authorized push payment) scams are adequately safeguarded,” a PSR spokesman said.
“One possibility was to make it mandatory for victims who acted responsibly to be reimbursed within payment system standards.”
“Another alternative we looked into was establishing and improving the current CRM (contingent reimbursement model) code, which would be approved by the PSR to ensure victims received the best possible outcomes.”
“It will take a lot of work from industry and other groups to get this right.”
We’re working with the government to close the holes in our authority that we observe, which will help us handle the issue of required protection.
“We are considering the feedback to the suggestions we had proposed and will consult on any proposed course of action in September.” We agree that more has to be done, and we genuinely believe that a regulated code, supported by legislation, is the most effective solution for ensuring that consumer protections are applied consistently across the banking industry Katy Worobec, UK Finance Katy Worobec, managing director of e-money Katy Worobec, managing director of e-money Katy Worobec, managing director of
“Since the permitted push payment optional code was launched in May 2019, thousands of clients have been refunded a total of PS182 million.”
“But, we agree that more needs to be done, and we are certain that a regulated code backed by legislation is the most effective solution for ensuring that consumer safeguards are applied consistently throughout the banking industry.”
“At the same time, it’s critical that the government and regulators recognize how vulnerabilities in other areas, such as telecommunications and online platforms, are supporting these crimes and develop a comprehensive strategy to safeguard consumers from fraud.”