It’s not all fintech and we don’t always get the full story.
Barclays would close accounts for repeat claimants of fraud, in a way that was either too coincidental or there was enough evidence to satisfy the regulator (if they needed to) that exiting the customer was the right thing to do.
If they can’t afford a few thousand quid here and there they are probably going to bankrupt soon either way. Also potential for legislative change adversely affecting income is one of the risks any startup investor or senior employee should be aware of, especially in a bank.
Barclays email came in to tell me about the new regulations, and it clearly states:
So are banks going to be able to refuse claims if they have shown such an alert and you just clicked through it? Do they do so now (refuse if you click through alert)?
I appreciate the excess part. It’s hard to disagree with that.
People need to face consequences for their actions, particularly if they’ve ignored warnings, and ideally, this will make them think twice in the future, ultimately making things tougher for scammers in the long run.
However, I have a feeling there are several ways people could quite easily make illegitimate claims to have the fee waived
Some things aren’t covered, like:
- Claims where you’ve been grossly negligent
Just out of interest, who gets to decide if my negligence is gross or not?
There are precedents for this because it’s a similar rule for card fraud.
Keeping your PIN number on a post it in your wallet, or telling it to a friend so she can buy a round in the pub with your card might be considered gross negligence for example.
The bank would decide, if you disagreed you could appeal to the ombudsman who would make a final decision
Must resist… 
You’ll live 
Lloyds makes this far more clear.
Basically £100 is ours, unless a vulnerability meant you couldn’t protect yourself.
Monzo sounded the other way around.
If we reimburse you, we may not pay the first £100 of your claim. For example, for an eligible claim of £500 you’d get back £400.
That’s perfectly clear no? Where’s the possible confusion?
The wording of this reply.
I asked when would this apply, and I read it in reverse to what it meant.
Another post I made asked for clarity but think it was ignored.
You weren’t ignored, he replied.
Also, more the last sentence from the Lloyds screen grab, not the top bit.
You’ve not just moved the goal posts here, you’ve packed them up, shipped them to another continent and had them extended!
I was solely referring to the last sentence I just wasn’t clear, aligned with the screenshot I added.
My posts in the topic refer to the reasoning behind the excess or no excess; not the fact one would be taken - that part is clear.
That’s at the bank’s discretion though so could be different bank to bank. And Monzo have already said they won’t give too many details of when they’ll apply it. I’d just assume it’ll be applied, to be honest.
Seems that way with monzo.
Pretty much, the regulation itself says:
5.20 PSPs may not apply a claim excess if the victim was a vulnerable consumer when they
made a reimbursable FPS APP scam payment, and this had a material impact on their ability to protect themselves from the APP scam. https://www.psr.org.uk/media/xenefhgp/amended-specific-requirement-1-july-2024-corrected.pdf
Although banks could also opt not to charge the excess in any circumstances they want, the rules make clear it’s optional to apply. But most likely both will just stick to the legislation.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
