Court rules in bank’s favour in “phantom withdrawal” case
by Gill Montia
Story link: Court rules in bank’s favour in “phantom withdrawal” case
A UK court has found against a customer who sued his bank after being held liable for withdrawals from cash machines, which he claims he did not make.
So called “phantom” withdrawals occur when money is withdrawn at bank ATMs without the card holder’s permission and where card details have not been revealed to third parties.
Chip and PIN technology has been designed to prevent stolen and lost cards being used in this way but Halifax customer, Alain Job, claimed that he was not responsible for £2,100 disappearing from his account.
However, Mr Job failed to convince Nottingham County Court that his card could have been used to withdraw the money at ATM’s without any negligence on his part.
Lawyers argued that the card could have been cloned but Halifax produced evidence that it claimed showed Mr Job’s original card had been used in the transactions.
IT experts appear to differ over whether cloned cards can be used in this way and Mr Job is reported to be considering an appeal.
Add to Bookmarks:
Related stories to: Court rules in bank’s favour in “phantom withdrawal” case
Banks have eight weeks to deal with a million complaints ...
Supreme Court rules in favour of banks’ overdraft charges ...
High Court rules in favour of OFT in bank charges case ...
OFT brings test case on overdraft charges ...
Banks use delaying tactics in repaying charges ...
2 Comments »Previous: « FSA addresses building society risk management
Next: West Bromwich Building Societys’ struggles continue »
Visited 956 times, 1 so far today
Gill, the evidences submitted by the bank at trial do not show any evidence that the legetimate card issued to me by Halifax was involved in the disputed transactions; in fact you might have added that Halifax destroyed the only evidences that could have established those allegations(the transactions cryptograms).
The entire banking security industry agree with these, the court ruling was given to halifax on the balance of probability. Halifax did not even produce the receipts of the till of the ATMs through which the disputed transactions took place, i hope this helps you and your readership.
Comment by Alain Job — July 7, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
How awful that the bank had behaved in this way. Instead of investigating the complaint they have covered up their failings. I am disgusted by the courts who allow these large companies to win by using powerful and expensive lawyers when this claim should have been dealt with through the small claims court.
I hope that the publicity from this morning’s “Fake Britain” will make Halifax think again about pursuing this customer for costs. I would hope that my bank would not behave in this way if I had a problem but I just don’t
Comment by Mary T Reilly — March 9, 2010 @ 10:20 am