Tweet
BARCLAYS BANK admits blunder that led to account holder being blamed when £1,150 was stolen from her account
Bank refused to return cash to Rachel Addison
She was told the missing money must be her own fault
By TARA EVANS
PUBLISHED: 18:35, 22 June 2012 | UPDATED: 18:37, 22 June 2012
Barclays told Rachel Addison, from south west London, the missing money must be her own fault and refused to return it
Barclays Bank has admitted it made an embarrassing blunder by blaming an innocent victim of fraud when more than £1,000 was swiped from her account.
Rachel Addison was told the missing money must be her own fault and refused to return it, This is Money reported today.
Rachel had £1,150 stolen from her account in more 30 transactions, but the bank claimed her PIN was used and so accused her of being negligent, until This is Money stepped in and Barclays admitted it had blundered and the transactions were actually signed for fraudulently.
In January when Rachel tried to use her debit card and it was declined she immediately contacted Barclays to find out what had happened.
She was told that her debit card, which was shortly due to expire, had become invalid, as a new card had been posted out and used. But Rachel had never received the card, let alone used it.
It was then that she discovered more that £1,150 had gone from her account in a series of swift transactions over just two days.
The bank tried to force the 32-year-old, who lives in south west London, to accept liability by accusing her of being negligent with her PIN.
Rachel, a publicity manager at Sony, had no idea that her replacement card had been sent and consequently stolen. She refused to accept that it was her fault.
More...
NatWest glitch goes on: Bank to open on Sunday as millions of customers are still unable to get access to money
She said: 'I live alone and I’ve never written my PIN down or told any of my friends and family. I don’t know how it happened.
She was told that five transactions had cleared from her account, with a further 25 pending – a total of £1,152.30. Each of the 30 payments was for £40 or just under.
She said at first Barclays told her the money would be put back into her account. She said: 'I thought everything had been sorted out.'
A spokesman for Barclays said: 'In this instance, due to human error the investigation was not undertaken properly and we incorrectly believed that the PIN was used for the transactions.'
But then a week later Rachel was contacted by Barclays, which informed her that because the correct PIN had been used that she was liable for the full amount.
Barclays told Rachel that because a replacement PIN was not sent with her card and because no cash withdrawals were attempted that it may be someone she knows.
She said: 'The person implied that someone else living in the property must have taken the card, a fact which I disputed as I live alone. Or that I was guilty of negligence with my personal information and had allowed someone to gain knowledge of my pin, which I also strongly disputed.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...x642_popup.jpg
Error: A letter sent to Rachel accusing her being negligent with her PIN
In a letter from Barclays to Rachel, Jon-Marie Powney, a customer relations manager, said: 'The very fact that the card has been misused clearly indicates that the PIN was not adequately protected against misuse.'
Rachel also contacted the police when the bank first told her that she would be liable. However, she was told that it was up to the bank to report this type of fraud and it would be up to Barclays to contact them.
It was then that Rachel contacted This is Money to see if we could help. Initially when we contacted Barclays, we were told that because Rachel had used her PIN she would be held liable and the money would not be refunded.
'I live alone and I’ve never written my PIN down or told any of my friends and family. I don’t know how it happened.'
Rachel gave us a copy of the letter that Barclays had sent detailing all of the transactions. There were 30 payments, all for around £40 – the limit which banks check for fraud if payments are unusual.
Some of the transactions were at the same shop within minutes of each other. They just did not look possible.
It looked like Rachel would have to take her case to the Financial Ombudsman.
This is Money asked Barclays to review the case one more time, from the very beginning to make sure that her PIN had not been issued with the replacement card.
Its fraud team discovered that the transactions were actually authorised by signature and not PIN, and that the signature was clearly not Rachel’s.
It turned out that a mistake was made by a member of Barclays staff during the initial investigation.
A bank spokesman said: 'All Barclays customers who are the innocent victim of fraud will be refunded their losses, however we do always need to investigate to ensure that it is fraud as we unfortunately receive many bogus claims.
'In this instance, due to human error the investigation was not undertaken properly and we incorrectly believed that the PIN was used for the transactions.
'Because of the other circumstances of this case, this meant that Ms Addison was held liable.
'We have since reviewed the case and discovered that the transactions were authorised by a signature which was not the customer's. We apologise to Ms Addison and have refunded the money to her immediately.'
Barclays have also given Rachel £300 in the way of compensation.
She said: ‘Thanks so much for all your help, I feel sure that I would have struggled to get any answers without your persistence.’
Mhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163287/Barclays-Bank-admits-blunderled-account-holder-blamed-1-150-stolen-account.htmlOST READ NEW
Bank refused to return cash to Rachel Addison
She was told the missing money must be her own fault
By TARA EVANS
PUBLISHED: 18:35, 22 June 2012 | UPDATED: 18:37, 22 June 2012
Barclays told Rachel Addison, from south west London, the missing money must be her own fault and refused to return it
Barclays Bank has admitted it made an embarrassing blunder by blaming an innocent victim of fraud when more than £1,000 was swiped from her account.
Rachel Addison was told the missing money must be her own fault and refused to return it, This is Money reported today.
Rachel had £1,150 stolen from her account in more 30 transactions, but the bank claimed her PIN was used and so accused her of being negligent, until This is Money stepped in and Barclays admitted it had blundered and the transactions were actually signed for fraudulently.
In January when Rachel tried to use her debit card and it was declined she immediately contacted Barclays to find out what had happened.
She was told that her debit card, which was shortly due to expire, had become invalid, as a new card had been posted out and used. But Rachel had never received the card, let alone used it.
It was then that she discovered more that £1,150 had gone from her account in a series of swift transactions over just two days.
The bank tried to force the 32-year-old, who lives in south west London, to accept liability by accusing her of being negligent with her PIN.
Rachel, a publicity manager at Sony, had no idea that her replacement card had been sent and consequently stolen. She refused to accept that it was her fault.
More...
NatWest glitch goes on: Bank to open on Sunday as millions of customers are still unable to get access to money
She said: 'I live alone and I’ve never written my PIN down or told any of my friends and family. I don’t know how it happened.
She was told that five transactions had cleared from her account, with a further 25 pending – a total of £1,152.30. Each of the 30 payments was for £40 or just under.
She said at first Barclays told her the money would be put back into her account. She said: 'I thought everything had been sorted out.'
A spokesman for Barclays said: 'In this instance, due to human error the investigation was not undertaken properly and we incorrectly believed that the PIN was used for the transactions.'
But then a week later Rachel was contacted by Barclays, which informed her that because the correct PIN had been used that she was liable for the full amount.
Barclays told Rachel that because a replacement PIN was not sent with her card and because no cash withdrawals were attempted that it may be someone she knows.
She said: 'The person implied that someone else living in the property must have taken the card, a fact which I disputed as I live alone. Or that I was guilty of negligence with my personal information and had allowed someone to gain knowledge of my pin, which I also strongly disputed.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...x642_popup.jpg
Error: A letter sent to Rachel accusing her being negligent with her PIN
In a letter from Barclays to Rachel, Jon-Marie Powney, a customer relations manager, said: 'The very fact that the card has been misused clearly indicates that the PIN was not adequately protected against misuse.'
Rachel also contacted the police when the bank first told her that she would be liable. However, she was told that it was up to the bank to report this type of fraud and it would be up to Barclays to contact them.
It was then that Rachel contacted This is Money to see if we could help. Initially when we contacted Barclays, we were told that because Rachel had used her PIN she would be held liable and the money would not be refunded.
'I live alone and I’ve never written my PIN down or told any of my friends and family. I don’t know how it happened.'
Rachel gave us a copy of the letter that Barclays had sent detailing all of the transactions. There were 30 payments, all for around £40 – the limit which banks check for fraud if payments are unusual.
Some of the transactions were at the same shop within minutes of each other. They just did not look possible.
It looked like Rachel would have to take her case to the Financial Ombudsman.
This is Money asked Barclays to review the case one more time, from the very beginning to make sure that her PIN had not been issued with the replacement card.
Its fraud team discovered that the transactions were actually authorised by signature and not PIN, and that the signature was clearly not Rachel’s.
It turned out that a mistake was made by a member of Barclays staff during the initial investigation.
A bank spokesman said: 'All Barclays customers who are the innocent victim of fraud will be refunded their losses, however we do always need to investigate to ensure that it is fraud as we unfortunately receive many bogus claims.
'In this instance, due to human error the investigation was not undertaken properly and we incorrectly believed that the PIN was used for the transactions.
'Because of the other circumstances of this case, this meant that Ms Addison was held liable.
'We have since reviewed the case and discovered that the transactions were authorised by a signature which was not the customer's. We apologise to Ms Addison and have refunded the money to her immediately.'
Barclays have also given Rachel £300 in the way of compensation.
She said: ‘Thanks so much for all your help, I feel sure that I would have struggled to get any answers without your persistence.’
Mhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163287/Barclays-Bank-admits-blunderled-account-holder-blamed-1-150-stolen-account.htmlOST READ NEW