2004 Graham Case

Key Facts

Amount stolen	£6,850
Number of Withdrawals	130
ATM Locations	Lloyds TSB, 1 Claremont Road, surbiton
	Link (HSBC) St Leonard's Road, Thames ditton
	Link 90/100 Brighton road, Surbiton (Petrol Station possibly HSBC ATM)
	Link (HSBC) I Victoria Road, Surbiton
	Link (Barclays) 10 Victoria road, Surbiton
Issuing Bank	Lloyds TSB
Acquiring Bank(s)	Lloyds TSB, HSBC, Barclays
Card Type	Debit Card for Current Account
Withdrawal time period	5 months
Days from theft to discovery	105 days (6th Aug- 24th Nov)
Card theft involved	No (see details though)
Level of customer action	Bank enquiries, written and in person. Police report.
PIN Status	Original PIN issued in 2001, shared between joint account holders.
Outcome	Unresolved.

Customer holds joint account at Lloyds TSB. Customer checked joint account online on 24th November 2004, and spotted several ATM withdrawals on same day. Customer contacted husband to ask if he had explanation for withdrawals, then realised they were on her own card. On studying past statements in detail, customer discovered many small ATM transactions, often less than GBP50, dating back to 6th August 2004. Customer telephoned bank, and visited nearest branch to provide statements with disputed withdrawals marked.

The customer's card had actually been lost during early November, well after the disputed transactions had started, but this was not seen as security significant, and a replacement card was issued with the same PIN. Customer cancelled this card immediately after discovery of the fraud, when reporting the disputed transactions. Customer was re-issued with a new card, and a new corresponding PIN.

Customer checks account again in late December, and finds that the withdrawal pattern has not ceased, and further withdrawals had been made against her husband's card. At this stage both account holders went in person to bank and demanded cancellation of cards, and banning of ATM transactions on replacement cards.

Customer made repeated enquiries to bank as to progress of their investigation over the subsequent months, and demanded police investigation. A CID police officer visited customer in late January, and informed customer that bank believes that she or her husband were responsible for the withdrawals. Police officer ascertained that CCTV footage was available for some of the ATMs used, however the bank released the footage without time codes, making it next to useless.

Fraud department from bank interviewed customer by phone on 11th Feb, and customer states she was informed that the withdrawals must have been made by 'someone who resides at the premises'. Customer states that bank did not directly accuse her of fraud, and insisted that the PIN could not have been compromised any other way.

Customer since made repeated requests to view the CCTV footage, which have been denied by the bank, who claim that only the police are authorised to investigate, and that the police are no longer actively pursuing this case. Customer has now contacted the Independent Banking Advisory Service who are acting on her behalf.