View source

From Phantom

for 2003 Lloyd Case

You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group user.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

== Key Facts ==

{|
| '''Amount stolen'''                || £409.26
|-
| ''' Number of Withdrawals'''       || 7 
|-
| '''ATM Locations'''                || 131 Ostrovskehi 6, Prague, and Andel, Vyst. Zensk, Prague
|-
| '''Issuing Bank'''                 || HSBC, UK
|-
| '''Acquiring Bank(s)'''            || Unknown
|-
| '''Card Type'''                    || Debit Card
|-
| '''Withdrawal time period'''       || 1 day
|-
| '''Days from theft to discovery''' || 3 days
|-
| '''Card theft involved'''          || Yes 
|-
| '''Level of customer action'''     || Written complaint
|-
| '''PIN Status'''                   || Issued c. 1986, never changed, never written down
|-
| '''Outcome'''                      || Resolved. Customer reimbursed
|}

== Case Details ==

* Victim was on holiday from UK in Prague, had card stolen 30 minutes after leaving hotel; the card had not yet been used in that country.
* Subsequently, aprox GBP400 was withdrawn.
* After initial complaint, bank investigated for 6 weeks, then agreed to refund the amount by which the account had gone into the red as a result of the theft.
* Victim sent a letter of complaint, quoting HSBC terms and conditions, arguing that these made it clear that HSBC were liable for the unauthorised withdrawals unless they could show that victim had not taken "reasonable care" with the PIN.
* The letter also quoted research into security of ATM systems by Mike Bond.
* About 3 days later, the bank declared they had made a mistake calculating the refund they intended to supply, and agreed to reimburse the full amount

Return to 2003 Lloyd Case.

Retrieved from "http://www.phantomwithdrawals.com/index.php/2003_Lloyd_Case"

View source

From Phantom

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

resources

Search

Toolbox