#11



Thank you for your replies.

I guess our only hope may be if jonesMUFCforever is correct as nothing was read out to him. But how do we prove that?



Does anyone know if they ought to have read something like this out to him?
Originally posted by BarnieBoy


You can't prove it. Even if you could, you'd then have to get around the issue that he'd been explicitly told not to tell anyone at the bank and trusted the people on the phone enough to go to the branch and send his money away. FOS have ruled against many people even where disclaimers had not been given, because they were so deep into the scam that they would have made the payments regardless of any warnings given.



You are obviously free to take this to FOS, and doing so will not cost you anything, but the chances are they will still not instruct the bank to refund because they almost never do. However if you are going to do so, do so now as the clock is ticking.

#12
Well I can only reiterate that action was taken against the receiving bank on the grounds that they had not done enough work to ensure that the person opening the account was who they said they were. in this case it wasn't a mule account it was an account opened using forged documentation. the bank had to repay the money because they were deemed at fault for not taking enough care to ensure the person opening the count was the correct person. as I said that's all I know I can't find the article but I definitely remember reading it

#13
Ok I have found it I remember now it was a BBC Radio 4 Moneybox episode about 3 weeks ago were the bank was forced to refund cash transfer to it you can find it on the iPlayer

#16
Good to see a bank admitting it was at fault for not following its own anti fraud measures on account set up. However, I don't expect this to open the floodgates.



On the details of this story, if he used PayPal to pay for an eBay purchase, why didn't he get refund from PayPal?



On the very few occasions I've had problems with non receipt of eBay purchases, I've received a full refund.



However, mobile homes, cars etc are usually specified as cash on collection only, for obvious reasons, so PayPal would not be involved.



Sloppy journalism?

#17



Thank you for your replies.

I guess our only hope may be if jonesMUFCforever is correct as nothing was read out to him. But how do we prove that?



Does anyone know if they ought to have read something like this out to him?



Thank you
Originally posted by BarnieBoy


No .

#18
Unforunetly this is 100% the fault of the elderly relative and i don't think the bank should have to refund any of the money. If we start going down that route making the banks responsible all it will do is make is more and more difficult for people to legitimetly transfer their money to other accounts, plus increase costs for the banks which will be passed on to their customers.





The only way to reduce these types of scams is for people to use common sense when they are being asked to transfer money to unknown accounts. It's a shame that relatives of his didn't step in earlier and help him manage his finances if he was showing signs of being unable to.

#19
Takman makes a very good point. My parents are 67 and 62 and as yet show no signs of dimished capability. However I still make sure they are aware of the kinds of scams that are occuring and talk to them about how to protect themselves from being scammed. I think we all should take some responsibility for our elderly relatives and ensure they have as much informastion as possible and hopefully to avoid this kind of fraud.

#20
Anyone who thinks that someone allegedly from their bank telling them to move money from their bank account to another bank account to 'protect' it shouldn't have a bank account controlled solely by them.



The Bank has the money. The Bank has the money. The money stays in the Bank unless they release it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron