If anyone remembers that spending offer, internally on the CIS for my accounts it states I’m not eligible… which you can find out via a DSAR if curious.
(Sorry cannot remember who had it)
What is a CIS? What is a DSAR? What does any of this mean?
2 Likes
Client information system, I suspect?
Data Subject Access Request
My thoughts about most of the recent posts
3 Likes
You were spot on.
So Lloyds ran a spending deal where you got a tenner, a few regulars got the deal but I did not.
The DSAR showed a screenshot of the CIS and it said “Student/Postgraduate Account - Spending Offer - not eligible” words to that effect.
This guy. Carlo.
1 Like
So you submitted a DSAR over not being offered £10?
2 Likes
Not at all. Something to do with needing info from it for employment lol. I just noticed it as a consequence when reading through it.
Good job I got it too, turns out that’s why my report came back that I’m married. Need to call them. Or find my wife….? Long as she likes Human League (other thread) we are in (-:
1 Like
Didn’t you ask, “Don’t you want me, baby?” 
4 Likes
I think she was too busy working in a cocktail bar to respond! Currently got Alan Parsons Project on, who as a hormonal teenager, I find have a great album called Eve which feels relatable regarding the two sexes. Listen in order.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Obviously it’s a scam, but it wasn’t the usual “Your account is at risk” type where they get you to transfer it to a “safe” account.
Greed took over and she thought she could make extra money.
5 Likes
Indeed - and it appears she was refunded some of the cost, too. In these cases where it’s greed, I have even less sympathy.
Also, I noticed the article is just over a month old - my bad. Seems like I need to work on my game still.
2 Likes
What sort of balance transfer credit card offers have people seen after the eligibility checker? Are they standard 0% for 17 months with 2.9% fee, or are they more competitive like 27 months 0%?
2 Likes
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
The bank blocked a number of transactions, it spoke to James on the phone to warn him and even called him into a branch to speak to him face-to-face.
I can’t believe he’s had a refund. At what point do people have to take some personal responsibility
10 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?
You ignore the massive warnings, you’re out of luck.
Or if you’re going to refund everyone, get rid of the stupid warnings, pop-ups, and logic puzzles before people can send money.
Though in this case I’m slightly more undecided. It’s not an investment scam or a “your money is in danger” scam; rather a romance scam involving a person at a difficult time of their life. That said £150k is a lot of money to send without any alarm bells starting to ring.
2 Likes
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.