Lucky really.
I can perhaps understand that, in the moment, you might be unable to resist, be blindsided, and ignore the warnings but I’m not sure what else Lloyds could do? Block every fifth transaction?
Glad they got their money back.
2 Likes
I rather suspect that the £153k of spending/transfers was way out of usual pattern of usage, plus the victim was clearly quite vulnerable, not to mention the media involvement.
For those against refunding in cases like this - how do you think the system should work?
The problem is that there are so many vulnerable people out there and, often, those people are vulnerable through no fault of their own. Do you exclude these people from the banking system? Do you ask a 3rd party to approve every transaction? How do you even identify who’s vulnerable in the first place?
I sympathise with the banks to an extent because, in cases like this, the person sending the money really did want to their money sending to the perpetrator. How are banks supposed to stop that?
I think the key here is the amount. It’s huge. We don’t know what warnings it triggered, or what steps the victim took to override them, but the fact that Lloyds have refunded the amount makes me think that they didn’t do as much as perhaps they should have.
Generally, I think we want to be a society that looks after and protects is vulnerable members and sometimes that will mean banks refunding these people, even if they’ve clicked through warnings. Though victims clearly bear some responsibility for their losses, it’s important to remember that they’ve been actively targeted and exploited by a criminal.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Removed Posts - March 2023
This is a particularly uncharitable way to view vulnerable users…
6 Likes
yeah to be so perfect as some on here
1 Like
Not perfect, none of us are, but if there’s an inability to understand simple warnings then maybe online banking isn’t for them.
It’s not exclusion to want to protect the vulnerable or negligent, it’s following out a duty of care.
Refunding people doesn’t teach them anything and I can probably bet that same person will fall for the same stuff down the line.
Does the bank have to refund them again for being careless?
2 Likes
I don’t know if it would unduly infringe on people’s independence, but maybe there needs to be additional checks once either people reach a certain age or especially if they fall into the bracket of “particularly vulnerable”, however that is defined. Maybe to either flag high payments, repeat payments, and if possible get a 3rd party to help verify what the payments are for (family member, neighbour etc). I know some people truly have nobody but for people who just genuinely don’t understand the risks in what they’re doing, I can only see it being solved with human interaction and intervening to personally review the circumstances.
1 Like
The thing is, banks have these protocols in place if they suspect something isn’t right.
Fraud then reach out to customers and have a conversation about it but doesn’t take much for the customer to spill some story that can sound truthful and off the payment goes.
1 Like
but its ok to call people idiots when you dont know their situation what ever
1 Like
A post was merged into an existing topic: Removed Posts - March 2023
General reminder to disagree agreeably: let’s not make this personal - either in how we debate issues or the words we use to describe others.
Now, what else is happening in Lloyds world? Was it here that I saw a link to an opinion piece saying that Lloyds should buy Freetrade?
3 Likes
I’m usually quite sympathetic in these cases, but this…
…is the bank going way beyond. Very lucky to get the money back.
5 Likes
This is an interesting thought, however I feel Monzo, starling and even chase have captivated those in their late teens and twenties!
1 Like
Lots has happened in the five years since that post!
2 Likes
Increasingly this is literally the only option. If you’re an elderly person in my hometown you have zero banks to go to in person. Online is it. This is often touted as a positive on this forum (or rather, “the way the world is going so get on board or else”).
Lloyds will have likely paid out as they didn’t meet standards of protecting their customers who are vulnerable. In-person bank transactions for far, far less have had police attendance as a protocol most banks adhere to to check there is nothing illegal going on.
There are idiots, but then there are very vulnerable folk who with the best intentions still haven’t got a grip of the very different world we live in now. They should be protected in ways “idiots” are not.
7 Likes
From what the article mentioned, they did. They contacted the person, blocked some of the transactions, invited the person in for a face to face chat. Sadly this person was completely taken in.
I am somewhat torn between whether the bank was right to refund the person especially once you’ve contacted the person, tried to meet face to face and they still ignore everything.
What more measures should the bank have taken and when are you overreaching or overstepping the mark?
Should vulnerable people have a second person to authorise payments and how would the vulnerable react to that?
3 Likes
So it’s fairly common for other agencies to get involved or family members to be involved if there’s even a slight suggestion that there might be vulnerabilities at play.
Any bank worker will know what to do when an elderly person comes in and tries to transfer their life savings without an adequate reason. They will likely initially call the police, particularly if there is anyone with the customer who doesn’t quite sit right with them. Further investigations will ensure safeguarding is in place before releasing funds.
This is incredibly common and regular stuff for (at least) physical banks. Bank workers should know exactly what to say when calling the police, for example, and operators know exactly what to do. It’s that common that there is an agreed and pretty common system in place.
A vulnerable person ignoring face to face meetings with this much at stake should be a block until a welfare check has been completed.
2 Likes
I think was largely done online, rather than in branch. If this person was vulnerable and the controls are as suggested, how were they not stopped from transferring any money.
Hence why I think they refunded.
This is an issue that will need to be addressed as bank branches close. A lot of vulnerable people are safeguarded by a physical presence of a human (who often might know them well) who has the ability to just “sense” when something doesn’t sit right.
Lloyds will have abided by all their policies probably. Because a lot of the actual safeguarding comes from within a branch from staff members who have a relationship with their customers. There they have a process that goes beyond just insisting on something until they give up. They literally do not allow something to happen until they are satisfied that it’s genuine and of no concern.
I don’t use bank branches myself, but for a certain demographic it’s important because money is a central part of our lives; and they just haven’t been exposed to a lot of the scams and such that most newer generations have grown up knowing what to look out for/avoid.
The Nigerian prince emails we can all laugh at. But they are still a thing because enough people fall for them. Otherwise they would cease. It seems incredible that anyone would believe such things but they do.
4 Likes