On 27/02/2021 15:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/02/2021 14:00, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
Fredxx posted
On 27/02/2021 11:04, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote:
Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly
difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them
all.
why zat ?...got me worried

My thoughts too. With banks now responsible for losses through hacks
I would say now is a good time.

Banks aren't responsible for push payment frauds though, which are the
most common at the moment. Nor for cloned website frauds.

They like to argue that, but the law is not totally in their favour on
this - especially if they don't implement confirmation of payee:



The cases discussed there (Quinecare and Singularis) involved in essence
fraud carried out by an agent of the account holder (the latter a
director of a company on the company's account). I don't think they
give much comfort to the personal account holder who authorises a
transfer as a result of a scam. The High Court confirmed last month
that the "Quinecare duty of care" doesn't extend to the individuals.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3eb91ee6-dedc-4d89-9393-6afe517a868b







--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid