If the Santander quote is genuine I can’t see that she’s got a leg to stand on. Who knows what was going through her mind though.
“ A spokesperson for Santander said: 'We have the utmost sympathy for Ms Elwell and all those who fall victim to the criminals who carry out these scams.
'Unfortunately, despite repeatedly warning her of the dangers of transferring money to someone she hadn't met and directly raising our concerns that this was a scam with Ms Elwell and the police, she confirmed she wanted to proceed with the payments.'”
|
|
Compo culture (PPI, injury, whiplash) encourages some people to think there is going to be someone to bail them out or give them a bob or two. Some of the scams are hard to spot. Not this one.
|
I've made a few large transfers from Santander in the last few years, paying off my mortgage and transferring part of our Mother's estate to my sister.
On both occasions I was stopped from doing the transfers on line and had to go through a telephone process involving two members of the bank's staff. I was asked to confirm the nature of the payments and that I was sure I wasn't being pressured or wanted time to think.
Short of refusing me the right to transfer money from my own account they could not have done more.
Even transferring more modest amounts on line and to payees I've used before there are ample prompts to stop/think.
|
Although it can be a pain, I am grateful that the banks intervene to confirm unusual or large transfers or credit card purchases.
If people ignore that intervention they have only themselves to blame.
We live in a society where individual freedom is the norm - no matter how dumb some individuals are. The alternative is a society in which freedoms are won only by demonstrating (exams, interviews etc etc ??) that an individual is capable and able to take responsibility.
The latter approach would deny 50% + the right to manage their own finances and cause an outcry.
|
>'Unfortunately, despite repeatedly warning her of the dangers of transferring money to someone she hadn't met and directly raising our concerns that this was a scam with Ms Elwell and the police, she confirmed she wanted to proceed with the payments.'
I'd bet she was stroppy with them as well - around how it was her money and she could transfer it anywhere she wanted to.
|
>> I'd bet she was stroppy with them as well - around how it was her
>> money and she could transfer it anywhere she wanted to.
I wonder if Mark's thinking he might find that sort of sum useful in the near future?
;>)
|
|
Who? How do you know he hasn't alre................ :-)
|
Working in banking, I have a vested interest in this type of story.
A while ago I posted about a director of client wanting to pay £100k by transfer to buy a car to an account with another bank that had fraud markers on it and the other bank hand not closed the account. We told him in no uncertain terms that we believed the transaction was to a fraudster.
We refused the transfer.
We threatened to close his accounts and went to another bank to make the transfer. He lost his money and is now claiming from that bank who are asking the fraudsters bank for the payee details under a Norwich Pharmacal order.
His other bank is also asking for disclosure from us (recordings telling him it's all a scam etc.).
The problem is that the banks are not really responsible but are an easy target for the Govt who don't want to spend money tracking the thieves down so get the ombudsman to create a rules framework that compels them to pay out in most cases.
Imagine having goods in one of those yellow box storage centres. You send them a note to that a Joe Bloggs is going to collect the goods because he says he needs some new furniture urgently because his house got flooded and he will pay you after collecting the goods.
Joe Bloggs turns up and takes the goods and disappears for good.
Now imagine the response from yellow box storage company if you went back to them and demanded they replaced your goods!
I think they would refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
And I think the banks should do the same in many such obvious cases.
I do wonder if some of these stories are set ups. I.e. fraudster and victim get together to transfer money from a bank to effectively double their money when the banks repay them.
Sometimes I pop in to a local branch and work in one of their interview rooms if home is busy. I have witnessed OAPs usually, come in and ask to withdraws tens of thousands to pay the man who just did their drive. The staff are very good at explaining it's a likely fraud but the OAPs persist and sometimes the police have to be called under the Banking Protocol arrangements. We can freeze accounts should we need to, to stop money being withdrawn.
|
We've gone too far with protecting the lowest common denominator.
There should be a downside to being stupid, slow or lazy.
|
TBH I feel very sympathetic - a con is painstakingly designed to work on people reacting more or less reasonably and normally to very clever manipulation, to address fears and tug on every emotion. Most would not be quite so trusting, and it isn't the banks' fault, but I doubt if she is an utter moron. A very sad story.
There's a conundrum here of course which is that the more regulations and protections are created to mitigate risk to consumers, the higher is the expectation that we will always be protected and our guard can drop.
Anybody who has run a business, or part of one, knows that change creates opportunity. That applies to con artists as much as anybody else. They just adapt, they will never go away.
|
>>TBH I feel very sympathetic - a con is painstakingly designed to work on people reacting more or less reasonably and normally to very clever manipulation, to address fears and tug on every emotion. Most would not be quite so trusting, and it isn't the banks' fault, but I doubt if she is an utter moron. A very sad story.
I agree with much of that.
But I think the world's individuals have lost sight of how important it is to strive to be better. Mostly I think that they have lost any motivation or reason to try.
Remember some years back one of the oft cited approaches to encourage careful driving was a spike in the middle of the steering wheel? Something that would encourage one to improve one's driving?
Well I think we need a sharp metal spike on the steering wheel of life.
|
>> TBH I feel very sympathetic - a con is painstakingly designed to work on people
>> reacting more or less reasonably and normally to very clever manipulation,
20 days it took, from first contact to first money being paid, this is not painstaking
>> but I doubt if she is an utter moron.
Its this.
|
>> 20 days it took, from first contact to first money being paid, this is not
>> painstaking
I don't understand that comment - surely the longer the con the more painstaking it was?
>> >> but I doubt if she is an utter moron.
>>
>> Its this.
What takes some accounting for is how, when the bank was repeatedly drawing her attention to the likelihood of fraud, she managed not to absorb it sufficiently to penetrate the fiction. Perhaps fraud warnings are now so repetitive and familiar, even when we are making legitimate transactions, that they just aren't effective.
I have made a lot of large payments over the last year and unless it's an existing payee there is always a warning - even when, as it usually does, the bank details are confirmed to match the payee's name. On the app I use to make payments, after I have put the payee's bank details in, I invariably get a big green tick and a message that the details match, and on the same page a question as to whether I am sure I am not being conned. It always makes me uncomfortable. Cognitive dissonance I think it's called.
|
>>
>> >> 20 days it took, from first contact to first money being paid, this is
>> not
>> >> painstaking
>>
>> I don't understand that comment - surely the longer the con the more painstaking it
>> was?
20 days is not long. Its stupidly short. Thats just over 3 weeks from a complete unknown getting in touch with you, to starting handing over money. 3 Weeks. Thats not carelessness, thats not naivety, given the number of warnings she would have had to acknowledge and ignore thats is complete criminal negligence.
Export Manager? if she was in my company she would only be in charge of tea bags by now.
|
Victim of The Heartless Banks, or Idiot? - PeterS
