On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:27:11 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
. com...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually "assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

The OP is a victim of fraud the instant the money is taken from their
account.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the bank's
computer.

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually "assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

It may be that as a result of taking some action (i.e.
disputing the transaction) perhaps followed by some further action
(resisting attempts to be fobbed off), the customer manages to get
the charges reversed, but that just makes him less of a victim, not
no victim. He's still had the hassle. Some people can get really
stressed by this, so much so that it can harm their health and in
extreme cases trigger a fatal heart attack.

If anyone really gets that wound up by this sort of thing I'd suggest
they cancel all their credit and debit cards immediately.

He might get the charge
refunded in the end, but it'd be a bit of a pyrrhic victory if it
costs him his life.

Also, the matter of fact (of whether the transaction was genuine) is
not for the bank to judge.

Of course it's for the bank to judge, initially at least. Obviously if
the customer doesn't agree with the judgement they can turn to higher
authorities like the financial ombudsman or the courts.

It is not impossible to imagine the bank
somehow becoming convinced (by the frauster's smoke and mirror
tactics)
to declare the transaction genuine when in fact it wasn't.

Moreover, it's not just the fraudster who
would benefit, but the bank and card company too, from the
transaction
fees involved. Thus if there is fraud, and the bank and card
company
are facilitating it by being less than enthusiastically helpful to
the cardholder, they would automatically become accomplices.

If the bank refuse to refund the charges despite knowing that the
transaction wasn't genuine, then the bank themselves are the
fraudsters!

That's more or less what I said, but I'd put it stronger than you:

There is a big difference between "knowing that it wasn't" and
"not knowing that it was", but nevertheless I suggest the bank, if
they refuse to refund, should be considered complicit not only in
the
former case (as you said) but in the latter as well!

In the latter case the amount should be held "in dispute" until the
issue is settled. Because it *is* in dispute, a retailer has said it's
genuine and the customer has said not.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

can't be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the bank's
computer.

Well, both those should be straightforward to sort out. I wanted you
to expand on mistakes which would not be.

Another kind of mistake (and one which I'd guess would happen fairly
often) is where the transaction is indeed genuine but the customer
has forgotten about it, and the trader's name as it appears on the
card statement fails to jog his memory because it bears no relation
to that of the actual trader involved. Sadly this kind of proxying
seems to be quite prevalent these days. It ought to be disallowed.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

You're looking at the problem with too money-focused a view. A person
is a victim of a crime as soon as he suffers any injury or loss, even
if it is not loss of money. At the very least, he loses the time it
takes to get it sorted. That's not indirect, it's a direct result of
the fraud attempt.

It may be that as a result of taking some action (i.e.
disputing the transaction) perhaps followed by some further action
(resisting attempts to be fobbed off), the customer manages to get
the charges reversed, but that just makes him less of a victim, not
no victim. He's still had the hassle. Some people can get really
stressed by this, so much so that it can harm their health and in
extreme cases trigger a fatal heart attack.

If anyone really gets that wound up by this sort of thing I'd suggest
they cancel all their credit and debit cards immediately.

Don't be absurd. You might as well suggest that people with medical
conditions which would render them more likely to get a heart attack
if they should find themselves at the receiving end of a simple
weaponless mugging than someone of a more robust constitution should
stay off the streets and lock themselves in their homes. Even there
they're not safe from being attacked.

Also, the matter of fact (of whether the transaction was genuine) is
not for the bank to judge.

Of course it's for the bank to judge, initially at least. Obviously if
the customer doesn't agree with the judgement they can turn to higher
authorities like the financial ombudsman or the courts.

Well, of course the bank will make enquiries and form an initial
opinion, but they are in general unable to make a determination which
is sufficiently reliable for them to state with confidence that the
transaction *was* genuine. The best they can say is that they *think*
it was, and to tell the customer why they think so, such as by
forwarding to him any supporting evidence which has been provided by
the merchant.

It should go without saying that in the absence of such evidence
the bank would not claim a transaction was genuine, but one does
seem to hear too many anecdotes of customers running up against a
brick wall with their bank.

That's more or less what I said, but I'd put it stronger than you:

There is a big difference between "knowing that it wasn't" and
"not knowing that it was", but nevertheless I suggest the bank, if
they refuse to refund, should be considered complicit not only in
the former case (as you said) but in the latter as well!

In the latter case the amount should be held "in dispute" until the
issue is settled. Because it *is* in dispute, a retailer has said it's
genuine and the customer has said not.

Indeed it should. I'm just saying that if a bank fails to keep the
transaction suspended when the retailer's evidence is scant, and tries
to move the transaction to "settled" status without the customer's
consent (and anecdotes do tend to pop up from time to time of banks
giving customers a hard time in this respect), then they do become
accomplices to the fraud.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:27:11 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
. com...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the bank's
computer.

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually "assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

The customer is clearly a direct victim.

Everyone else is an indirect victim.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

can't be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to
sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong
and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the
bank's
computer.

Well, both those should be straightforward to sort out.

Why do you think some obscure bug would be easy to sort out? If a
particular chip is read as the wrong card number for instance? All
evidence would indicate the transaction was made with the customer's
card and verified by PIN.

I wanted you
to expand on mistakes which would not be.

Another kind of mistake (and one which I'd guess would happen fairly
often) is where the transaction is indeed genuine but the customer
has forgotten about it, and the trader's name as it appears on the
card statement fails to jog his memory because it bears no relation
to that of the actual trader involved. Sadly this kind of proxying
seems to be quite prevalent these days. It ought to be disallowed.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it
from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well
argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing
with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

You're looking at the problem with too money-focused a view. A
person
is a victim of a crime as soon as he suffers any injury or loss,
even
if it is not loss of money. At the very least, he loses the time it
takes to get it sorted. That's not indirect, it's a direct result
of
the fraud attempt.

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim. You not getting your £100 could cause you
all sorts of hassle. Or if you wanted to go shopping but couldn't cos
some arsonist has burnt the shop down. Etc...

It may be that as a result of taking some action (i.e.
disputing the transaction) perhaps followed by some further action
(resisting attempts to be fobbed off), the customer manages to get
the charges reversed, but that just makes him less of a victim,
not
no victim. He's still had the hassle. Some people can get really
stressed by this, so much so that it can harm their health and in
extreme cases trigger a fatal heart attack.

If anyone really gets that wound up by this sort of thing I'd
suggest
they cancel all their credit and debit cards immediately.

Don't be absurd. You might as well suggest that people with medical
conditions which would render them more likely to get a heart attack
if they should find themselves at the receiving end of a simple
weaponless mugging than someone of a more robust constitution should
stay off the streets and lock themselves in their homes. Even there
they're not safe from being attacked.

Having a fraudulent transaction on your credit card is one of life's
minor irritations. If someone really does get wound up enough about it
to cause them a heart attack then they are likely to get one anyway,
minor irritations are a fact of life.

Also, the matter of fact (of whether the transaction was genuine)
is
not for the bank to judge.

Of course it's for the bank to judge, initially at least. Obviously
if
the customer doesn't agree with the judgement they can turn to
higher
authorities like the financial ombudsman or the courts.

Well, of course the bank will make enquiries and form an initial
opinion, but they are in general unable to make a determination
which
is sufficiently reliable for them to state with confidence that the
transaction *was* genuine. The best they can say is that they
*think*
it was, and to tell the customer why they think so, such as by
forwarding to him any supporting evidence which has been provided by
the merchant.

It should go without saying that in the absence of such evidence
the bank would not claim a transaction was genuine, but one does
seem to hear too many anecdotes of customers running up against a
brick wall with their bank.

IME it's more like a paper wall on which they don't push...the first
instinct of any "complaints" type department is to fob you off...

That's more or less what I said, but I'd put it stronger than you:

There is a big difference between "knowing that it wasn't" and
"not knowing that it was", but nevertheless I suggest the bank, if
they refuse to refund, should be considered complicit not only in
the former case (as you said) but in the latter as well!

In the latter case the amount should be held "in dispute" until the
issue is settled. Because it *is* in dispute, a retailer has said
it's
genuine and the customer has said not.

Indeed it should. I'm just saying that if a bank fails to keep the
transaction suspended when the retailer's evidence is scant, and
tries
to move the transaction to "settled" status without the customer's
consent (and anecdotes do tend to pop up from time to time of banks
giving customers a hard time in this respect), then they do become
accomplices to the fraud.

More like they chose to back the wrong horse.

--
Andy

"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:27:11 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
.com...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to
sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the
bank's
computer.

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse
and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually
"assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges
reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it
from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well
argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

The customer is clearly a direct victim.

Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to
sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong
and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the
bank's
computer.

Well, both those should be straightforward to sort out.

Why do you think some obscure bug would be easy to sort out?

I don't. I think the effect of the bug should be easy to sort out.
No evidence available from merchant to show I authorised a transaction.

If a
particular chip is read as the wrong card number for instance?

Get real.

All
evidence would indicate the transaction was made with the customer's
card and verified by PIN.

*All* the evidence? I think not.

If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it
from the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well
argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing
with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

You're looking at the problem with too money-focused a view. A
person
is a victim of a crime as soon as he suffers any injury or loss,
even
if it is not loss of money. At the very least, he loses the time it
takes to get it sorted. That's not indirect, it's a direct result
of
the fraud attempt.

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim.

Agreed, but I wasn't talking about some other person, I'm talking
about the same person. The cardholder whose account is fraudulently
charged is directly affected, because he suffers grief. This grief
can take one form or another, i.e. he can suffer either loss of money
or loss of time and cool in trying to avoid the loss of money. Either
way he's a direct victim.

If anyone really gets that wound up by this sort of thing I'd
suggest they cancel all their credit and debit cards immediately.

Don't be absurd. You might as well suggest that people with medical
conditions which would render them more likely to get a heart attack
if they should find themselves at the receiving end of a simple
weaponless mugging than someone of a more robust constitution should
stay off the streets and lock themselves in their homes. Even there
they're not safe from being attacked.

Having a fraudulent transaction on your credit card is one of life's
minor irritations. If someone really does get wound up enough about it
to cause them a heart attack then they are likely to get one anyway,
minor irritations are a fact of life.

The trouble is that a minor irritation can easily turn into a major
one when attempts to sort them out turn into serious challenges,
especially when your bank and card company act as though you were the
criminal. It's easy to become paranoid when the whole world really is
out to get you. :-)

Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake), and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so it's
up to them to report it.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.
Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:51:52 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:27:11 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
a.com...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

It could be any number of things, some of which will be easier to
sort
out than others. It could be retailer typing in the number wrong and
happening to get a genuine other card, or an obscure bug in the
bank's
computer.

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse
and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually
"assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges
reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a
genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it
from
the outset.

Not a direct victim. OK, an indirect victim, but you may as well
argue
everyone is an indirect victim of fraud as the costs of dealing with
fraud increase the transaction costs which we all pay.

The customer is clearly a direct victim.

Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

They'll go to their trusty manual "How to reduce the crime statistics
and do as little work as possible" and then say that no crime has been
committed and it's a civil matter.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:18:16 +0000, Jonathan Bryce
wrote:

Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake), and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so it's
up to them to report it.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.
Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

Don't say that else the top morons in the police will adopt it as
policy!