Drunk Wife opened Ladbrookes online betting account and used my Natwest Card to spend £13k!!

[Mart1980]

So why did the bank fraud team say you would need to need to be prepared to prosecute your wife and we need all her details.?

[Manxman in exile]

If I'd lost 13k in the circumstances the OP has, I'd want to get it back too, but...

 

It may well be a hollow threat from the bank to pursue the wife for fraud, but I'm not sure there's a strong argument for the bank to reimburse the money either.  (I hope I'm wrong and I hope someone will tell me I am). 

 

AIUI the OP allowed his wife to use his debit card and also allowed her to use or to have his mobile 'phone(?). 

The bank identified an unusual transaction (or transactions) and sent a message to the OP's phone asking for authorisation. 

 

The wife replied to the message - I presume - authorising the transactions. 

The bank processed the transactions in accordance with the authorisation they reasonably believed had come from the OP. 

 

I'm sure the wife wasn't acting fraudulently or dishonestly (so there should be no question of fraud?), but how would the bank be expected to know the authorisation did not come from the OP? 

(Apologies if I've got my understanding of what happened wrong.  Please say if I have.)

 

My understanding of the new level of bank security introduced last September with two tier authentication is that it relies on a secure code (having a short expiry time) being sent to the bank account holder's 'phone.  If that is considered satisfactory then I would have thought a message sent to the phone requesting authorisation would be treated the same. 

(I know there's criticism of the two tier system but that mostly seems to be centred around poor mobile reception and where 'phone numbers have been illegally hijacked or otherwise intercepted).

 

I would have thought the people at fault here are Ladbrokes who appear to have acted in breach of their own T&Cs. 

But it's not at all clear to me how the OP gets them to sort this out without potentially stirring up a hornet's nest.

 

I may not know much about betting but I do know that gambling companies aren't in business for the benefit of others and would perhaps go to great lengths to avoid paying even legitimate claims.  I don't think they worry about poor publicity either.  Perhaps a complaint to the Gambling Commission, but that could lead to awkward questions too.

 

With 13k at stake plus possible complications, I'd get paid for legal advice.

 

Hope I'm wrong and apologies if I've got the details wrong.

[Manxman in exile]

Just to clarify - I'm presuming from the OP's earlier posts that the bank sent a txt message to his 'phone querying the transaction(s) and that his wife actually replied to that txt?

[Mart1980]

They actually said you must be willing to prosecute your wife and we will need all her details or you just take the loss if you dont.?

 

That's correct she used my phone while I was out and had one txt to say verify these transactions Y for yes or N for no and that was it just once and no call from the bank or any further txts I beleive.

 

Cheers

 

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, Mart1980 said:

So why did the bank fraud team say you would need to need to be prepared to prosecute your wife and we need all her details.?

Cause its natwest most of the time they havent a clue what they are doing..

 

post 37 please

Dx

 

 

[Mart1980]

So I can say with certainty they wouldn't prosecute just threat too

[unclebulgaria67]

They have to know you are serious enough about this, that you would go as far as having your wife's details passed to Police.

 

Otherwise it might just be you and your Wife regretting gambling away £13000.

 

Why should they believe what you are telling them ?

[Ethel Street]

43 minutes ago, Mart1980 said:

So I can say with certainty they wouldn't prosecute just threat too

 

No. I can't refer you to any published policies or personal experiences on this but my instinct is that you cannot be certain that your wife wouldn't be prosecuted. It's true that the bank itself wouldn't prosecute - it's the police/Crown Prosecution Service who prosecute, not banks - but if you recover £13k from the bank I don't think you can be certain they wouldn't refer it to the police. Unlikely, but not 100% certain. But I'm also not convinced the bank is much at fault here anyway.

 

I suspect (with no evidence!) that the reason the bank won't do anything unless you yourself report your wife to the police is because they think you could be in collusion with your wife to defraud them. I'm sure you aren't, but the fact of life is that other people do carry out frauds like that and your bank is only too well aware of that. They won't say it like that to you of course. [EDIT I see Unclebulgaria is thinking on this line too]

Edited January 15, 2020 by Ethel Street

[Mart1980]

I assure you this is not the case.The bank made a threat that made me feel like I could not do that too here but it's a lot of money.We are not talking a few hundred pounds.

 

Surely ladbrokes should refund the money as clearly it states that no other persons debit/credit card or bank details could be used that is not in the account holders name.

I also had a chat with there live chat and asked the question and apparently its impossible to do and if by some chance it did ever allow a deposit and winning would be void and a refund paid.

 

Yet in this case they are now totally ignoring my emails and trying to speak to someone who is in charge and actully knows there own rules and I believe the rule of law in gambling.

Below is the chat I had with them on live chat to ask the question.

[dx100uk]

so the police will prosecute M's of housewives that use their partners card whilst shopping in supermarkets or buying expensive things...I think not.

this is no different.

 

clarify...27 transactions were made to LB...

I will guess the card was only use ONCE by your OH and verified , then the rest just went thru when she wanted to add more funds to the LB gambling pot A/C

 

she did not authorise the card by entering the CVV 27 time I bet!! yes?

 

 

[Mart1980]

The crazy thing in all this is my wife is not a gambler

she was drunk and bored and seen a ad

opened a account and then added my card(she is my wife she has them most of the time for household phurchases)

 

She was then just asked to add the cc and auto top up but had no idea that she had used that much.

She gave no id at all either.

 

She can not remmber the log in details because she was very drunk at the time.

 

It is a unique thing it's certainly not something you hear of every day and I have not found any similar incidents.

I have seen one instant were a woman used her stepdad card and it allowed to take payment then had a win and when she tries to collect said it's against their rules and refunded her deposit.

 

The diffrence it seems is my wife didnt win they would of never paid out if she did that is clear because of the use of another persons card but they are trying to keep the deposits.!!!

Possible because of the amount.

 

How can they justify they made no checks a card was passed their systems 27 times and if she won they wouldn't pay out but they can also keep the deposit now.

[Mart1980]

Am not sure if she did enter the CCv she said quick deposit or something.?

 

I am still at a lose here and all emails are being ignored and trying to speak to someone about it at ladbrokes is impossible.

Surely its day light robbery from LB if even if she won they would not pay it and are just taking a deposit that they seem to think they can now just keep.!!

[dx100uk]

auto top up is CPA.

 

the bank should never have allowed £13k to be taken under even numerous CPA's

and under the FCA rules should now be refunding them ..no quibble.

stop ringing texting and live chatting

write a letter 

 

 

its all in that post I sent you before

 

[EssCee]

Putting Ladbroke's conduct aside. It's considerably different to a spouse using a card for shopping with authority. Ultimately the Bank is within its rights to refuse to credit the loss without substantive evidence of what is an allegation of fraud.  

 

If it was your business being faced with a loss of £13K because an account holder alleged that his wife (who had authority to use his debit card, had possession of that card, and the phone linked to it for authorisation) would you just accept what was said? refund the £13K and then take no action on reporting it or recovering that loss? 

 

Notwithstanding that the Bank doesn't appear to bear the fault of the transactions. The bank clearly wants evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible that they are obligated (to you and to their investors, shareholders etc) to refer it to the Police. I imagine that they are at the very least obligated to pursue the wife for the loss and to insist that the husband stands to give evidence of the fraud where it is not admitted. The sums here are not nominal and a decision not to pursue recovery will likely be a decision to be taken at a certain level, given the sums that would have to be written off.

 

 

[Ethel Street]

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

so the police will prosecute M's of housewives that use their partners card whilst shopping in supermarkets or buying expensive things...I think not.

this is no different.

 

 

That isn't the same thing at all dx. In your example the partner is using the card with the cardholder's authorisation and the cardholder isn't trying to recover the sums charged to the card. In OP's case, let's be blunt about it, OP's wife has stolen £13k from him and spent it on a gambling site.

[EssCee]

blunter than I was going to say it but in a nut shell what Ethel said

[Mart1980]

Agreed that's exactly what it is and she no longer lives at this address !! 

 

Is there even any gambling laws that prevent somebody using somebody elses bank details to make a bet or anything.?

[EssCee]

I'm fairly sure that would be the Theft Act 1968 Mart

[dx100uk]

sorry don't agree its theft, neither do I agree the wife should be punished or to be blamed.

 

you are equally at fault in having that much money available in an account accessible from a simple debit card.

what if you'd lost the card or gone to one of these places that skims the card, your CVV and pincode from a terminal via that certain program that's run on a mobile phone and drained your account?? 

 

I seriously doubt she ever entered the details of the card more than once and the rest was taken by CPA, cause I bet that's how the ladbrookes portal works.

 

the bank is to blame and the FCA are clearly down on record that these types of payments should be refunded immediately...your issue is it being NatWest..they are useless and don't abide by the rules.. it's shouldn't be classed as fraud, it's not. they are just avoiding their responsibility by labelling it as that as they have done numerous times here before.

[Mart1980]

Dx100uk.

 

So what should I do send a letter to the bank or just call there bluff and call when they ask if I will have to give them her name and be prepared to prosecute just say yes.?

 

The thing on ladbrokes side is they also broke all there t&c and even if they did do the correct checks and ask to add id all her I'd is in her maiden name and if they actully cross reference the name on the account that was opened with the bank card details it should of failed instantly so why didnt it.?

As for funds In my account that was a payment I had off work that was paid and a tax rebate and now it's at zero.

[Ethel Street]

I find the idea that it's OP's fault that their money was stolen because they shouldn't have had that much in their current account in the first place rather bizarre and not a view that the police or the CPS would agree with. It's akin to victim blaming.

 

Nor is it reasonable to say that OP's wife isn't to blame because she wouldn't have got away with it if the bank's/site's security had been better. Bottom line = she chose to steal OP's money and shouldn't be let off the hook as the primary wrongdoer. It's theft, however uncomfortable that makes it.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Ethel Street

[Mart1980]

Why is it bizarre to have that much cash that's not unusual to have amounts like that in my bank account sometimes a lot more sometimes less I am a sole trader and no it's not a business account because i am not limited.

[EssCee]

Having a sum of money in an instant access bank account does not convey some greater culpability on the account holder.

 

Don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion the wife shouldn't be blamed or punished for taking and spending 13k that wasn't hers. Its black and white

 

 

[Ethel Street]

4 minutes ago, Mart1980 said:

Why is it bizarre to have that much cash that's not unusual to have amounts like that in my bank account sometimes a lot more sometimes less I am a sole trader and no it's not a business account because i am not limited.

 

 

If you are asking me Mart, it's not my opinion that it's bizarre. What I found bizarre is the suggestion from another poster that having that amount of money in your current account somehow made the theft your fault.

[Mart1980]

It seems it's all a matter of opinion not actual facts and laws that I can pin down the correct answer.

 

What I do know that it seems ladbrokes can break every rule they have and if you win they dont pay out with someone elses card and if you lose it's the same outcome they just keep the money litterly they are allowed to rob you.

 

 the amount of ppl round the world who must do this at some point and not win they will never know the rule that the money should be returned due to not complying with there t&c,s

Sorry Ethel