HELP!! Barclaycard holding me liable for £582 worth of fraudulent transactions.

[dadamax]

My bag was stolen a few weeks ago and thieves got hold of my Barclaycard. I rang the police as soon as I discovered the bag was missing but Barclaycard refuses to refund anything based on the fact that a pin was used to make the transactions and that as a result these transactions cannot be accepted as fraud.

I have no idea how the thieves got hold of my pin and I don't know what time the transactions occur. I have police reference number and as well as witnesses who can testify I was not the person who made the transactions.

I do not understand why Barclaycard does not apply section 83.1 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

83 Liability for misuse of credit facilities

(1) The debtor under a regulated consumer credit agreement shall not be liable to the creditor for any loss arising from use of the credit facility by another person not acting, or to be treated as acting, as the debtor’s agent.


Can anyone tell me the best way to recover the money from Barclaycard?

Many thanks in advance.


Dadamax

[buzby]

This was modified when Chip & PIN came in, effectively eroding those rights. This is one of the reasons I declined to go this route, and went Chip & Signature instead. As to what you can do, you may - if you hit a brick wall - have to raise a court action against them and see if they try to enforce their revised conditions that you disclosed the PIN or were careless with it.

[mooreda]

I understood that as long as you were not negligent - ie you did not keep you pin with your card the bank has to reimburse your money. Someone may have been watching you previously type your PIN in and have at some opportunity stolen your card. Dont back down - argue to the hilt and if necessary complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I'm sure they're in the wrong if you have not been negligent

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[buzby]

Have you READ the revised conditions for C&P? Negligence is now decided by the bank, and if the correct PIN is used this is automatically deemed as such.

[demon_x_slash]

That's why I go to all the extra hassle of going to an ATM whenever I need cash - my ATM card isn't chipped (yet...)

[dadamax]

Just checked out the webpage of APACS concerning new chip and PIN cards and it says there, I quote:"With the introduction of chip and PIN there is no change in liability for the cardholder. Consumers remain fully protected from the cost of card fraud and are covered under The Banking Code."
and in the Banking Code it says
12.12 Unless we can show that you have acted fraudulently or without reasonable care, your liability for the misuse of your card will be limites as follows.
If someone else uses your card , before you tell us it has been lost or stolen, or that someone else klows your PIN, the most you will have pay is £50

So it comes down to how you define "reasonable care".
In the Banking Code is another section referring to "reasonable care".
12.5 Never write down or record your PIN, password or other secutity information;
Always take reasonable steps to keep your card safe and your PIN, password and other security information secret at all times.

I complied with both points. I've never written down my PIN.
The point is they can not proof otherwise!!!!
Therefore Barclaycard is liable, not me.

	The Banking Code Follow this link to read the Banking Code in full. Ofen ignored by its subscribers, half-heartedly monitored and poorly enforced

[buzby]

If you read similar threads here, you'll find the APACS statement is nonsense. There has been a sea change in the liability, and proof of transactions which has moved from the banks to the merchant (if a PIN is NOT used) and the cardholder (if the PIN IS used). The banks are stating that by inputing the correct PIN, the cardholder accepts that he entered it, or disclosed it to a third party (otherwise how would the correct code be known?). I disagree with this, which is why I went to great trouble to retain a signature. Do you really think they would go to all this trouble if it didn't benefit them in some way?

Just like bank penalty charges, those prepared to stand up and fight will benefit, but if you roll over, they will. I do not think that 3 attempts to hit a 9999 chance of getting the correct PIN code is an acceptable risk. Previously, the banks would refund and then ask questions. Now, the refund is the last thing that will happens, the burden of proof has shifted to you - YOU need to prove you didn't use or disclose the code, and if the only way you can do this is provide a similar transaction 200 miles away where you also entered your PIN, that's a long shot.

Remember, THEY don't have to prove the fraud, you DO - and it is THIS that has changed, so you've a lot of work ahead.

[StudentInDebt]

There was something about this on Radio4 yesterday (some sort of money program on about lunchtime). I think they had someone from the Financial Ombudsman saying that for credit cards your liability for a fraudulent transaction is a maximum of £50 and that if banks are holding customers liable then they should file a complaint with the FO.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[buzby]

It is BBC R4's 'MoneyBox' and you can listen to it on their website. As for the FO statemnt, they really need to get with the changes. Your liability for a fraudulent transaction is ONLY limited to £50 if the cardholder has not been deemed negligent - which is a major caveat, but to be fair even before C&P, if you didn't tell them your card was stolen, they refused liability.

[StudentInDebt]

If you listen to the program the chap said that negligence in handling your PIN in the opinion of the FO is would involve writing your PIN number on the card itself, anything else and they believe the bank should pay out (according to this interviewee).