Unknown Laser Card Transactions

Smashbox

Registered User
Messages
2,797
Posting this on behalf of my friend.

Last December, she noticed an unknown charge of €64.75 August and November and wrote to her bank querying them. Yesterday, she recieved a call saying that these charges have been going out of her bank every 3 months (on the 8th of the month) for the past year. The bank say they cannot identify the person requesting the money, only that the code on her statements say LR0802.

They also say they cannot do anything about this, unless she cancels her laser card, and will not consider it as a fraud case since she 'obviously gave out her laser card number'.

My friend has no idea what this charge is. Yes she was silly for not checking her statements before now, but does anyone know who that charge might belong to or how she could find out?

Thanks in advance.
 
The bank appear to be very blaise with this response. Your friend has a certain obligation to quickly report any unauthorised transaction on her account, but the Bank cannot assume that this was "her fault". Her card could have been skimmed while using a ATM machine and she would be entitled to a refund from the Bank. tell her to identify all of the unauthorised transactions and write in a complainet to the Bank, identifying the resoponse she got over the phone. She should be entitled to some level of compensation.
 
The bank say they cannot identify the person requesting the money,

This doesn't seem right to me. They should be able to tell her where the money is going. She should report this to the fraud prevention office in the bank as the staff should be more active.

In all probability, though it's a genuine transaction. The annual total is €259. Would that ring a bell?

I suspect that you probably introduced her to some free offer a year ago and she didn't read the terms and conditions properly :)
 
I suspect that you probably introduced her to some free offer a year ago and she didn't read the terms and conditions properly :)

When I took leave from the forum, my bargain hunting ceased too :)

We have gone over the dates and tried to figure it out. As of yet, she hasn't been able to identify what it could be. I thought myself that surely the bank shouldn't be so dismissive. It also took them 6 weeks to get back to her letter.

I'll pass on all comments, thanks so much.
 
A few initial observations, followed by some comments on the legal position.
1… Many bankers have not yet woken up to the changes in the law in relation to payments, which have been enacted in all EEA countries (EU plus some ethers), to standardise the rules in all of those countries
2... The Laser card is a debit card. It was designed for use as a device to facilitate payments in "cardholder present" transactions. Some organisations began to use it in a situation where direct debits should normally be used, i.e. for repeating transactions of a "cardholder not present" nature. Whereas Direct Debits are governed by a formal scheme with scheme rules and guarantees, no such scheme exists for repeating Laser transactions (or for repeating credit card transactions for that matter). So, from the outset, we are in a limbo situation.
3...Now to some law
The legislation in relation to such matters has recently been updated by S.I. No. 383/2009 — European Communities (Payment Services) Regulations 2009 most of which came into force from 1 Nov 2009, and more particularly, Chapter 2 of the above statutory instrument, which governs the authorisation of payment transactions (excluding cheques).
Article 68(3) states “(3) In the absence of consent, a payment transaction is unauthorised.” In the event that a customer claims not to have given consent to a transaction, the obligation is on the bank to prove consent. Normally, in the case of a card transaction, the consent is given by the combination of chip and PIN. It appears that no PIN was used for these transactions, so some other evidence of consent is required to make it an authorised transaction. You could challenge the bank to produce such consent.
Article 73 further extends the point:-
“73. (1) If a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction or claims that a payment transaction was not correctly executed, it is for the payment service provider concerned to prove that the transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered in the accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other error or failure.
(2) If a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the use of a payment instrument recorded by the payment service provider is not in itself necessarily sufficient to prove either that the payment transaction was authorised by the payer or that the payer acted fraudulently or intentionally or failed, because he or she acted with gross negligence, to fulfil one or more of his or her obligations under Regulation 70.”
Note that the above term “gross negligence is not defined in Irish law, but is clearly a significant step higher than just ordinary negligence.
In the event that the transaction is not proven to be authorised, the bank is obliged to refund the payer “immediately” and “and, if necessary, restore the debited payment account to the state it would have been in had the transaction not taken place.”
You should note that the customer is obliged to notify the bank “without undue delay on becoming aware of the transaction, and no later than 13 months after the debit date” of the unauthorised transaction, and the bank may therefore reject claims in relation to older transactions.
You can find the relevant legislation on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0383.html .
There would appear to be sufficient grounds in the above to challenge the bank effectively. There is always the possibility, as suggested that you authorised the transaction and forgot about it. While the bank appears reluctant to disclose the name of the payee, you can be assured that they have systems which could trace the transaction back to its source. You may have to use the legal language above to force them to do such trace
Disclaimer:- No liability arises to Askaboutmoney or its contributors in relation to reliance on the above information.
 
I'm surprised at the bank. Last December I noticed a strange deduction with my laser card and queried it. Anti-virus protection was purchased (ironically) and not by myself. Bank immediately put a stop on my card, refunded me the amount and I had to fill out a fraud form. No problem with it at all.

I'm surprised they are dragging their heels on this one. Maybe it depends on the bank she's dealing with.
 
Sounds like Bank of Ireland. Typical enough response from them in experience.
 
Thanks for your reply Gulliver, I have copied that into an email to send to her.

Scots, I was pretty surprised it took them so long to get back to her letter. She was also promised a return phone call on Thursday which didn't materialise. She then called her own branch (and yes, it was BOI) and the girl on the phone said she didn't know how to deal with her query, but would have someone call her back on Monday regarding this.

She still can't figure out what the charges could be, so is at a loss unless the bank tell her, even after saying they can't.

Thanks for all replies, I have passed everything along.
 
Back
Top