Reverse Gear [Was [LINK] Clarkson stung after bank prank]

[matthew at sorbs.net]

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:45 am
Subject: Reverse Gear [Was [LINK] Clarkson stung after bank prank]


> Before exercising a payment instruction that it receives, a bank 
> requires provision of some kind of authenticator.
> 
> Clarkson should ask his bank on what basis it determined that the 
> direct debit instruction was requested or authorised by the 
> customer (or by an approved agent for the customer).

I've used my wifes credit card (without her present in the shop) on more
than one occasion and signed 'Mick E Mouse' and never been stopped.


> There are then several possibilities, including:
> -   masquerade (e.g. forged signature)
> -   inadequate care by the customer (e.g. allowing capture of a PIN 
> or password to be
>     observed, or writing it down, or giving it to someone else, or 
> giving it to someone
>     else for one transaction and forgetting that it would enable 
> more than one)
> -   error by the bank
> -   inadequate procedures by the bank
> 
> Clarkson has demonstrated himself many times to be an entertaining 
> idiot, so customer culpability can't be ruled out.  But the facts 
> as 
> reported don't support it, because there are many circumstances in 
> which bank account details need to be published (e.g. they're on 
> every invoice my company ever sends out).  So publication of them 
> in 
> a column doesn't even come close to being contributory negligence.


Having grown up in the UK I do know a bit about this.

The UK Direct Debit system is very good for paying bills, but does have
a number of issues.  For example, I had a telephone service, and to get
it paid by direct debit all I needed to do was to sign a form with my
name and bank details on it and that was all that was needed to
'authorise' the transaction.  Theoretically the form should have been
forwarded to the bank for signature check, but it's obvious in some
cases it isn't.


He will have recourse against the bank just by asking for the
authorising signature as the bank is supposed to keep the details.

Regards,

Mat