My 82-year-old neighbour banks with Santander. In March, she was phoned by a man claiming to be from the police, who said her bank account was subject to a fraud investigation and detectives needed her help.
She was told to buy gold bars from a local jeweller and take them home where they would be collected by couriers. The police, the man said, would be trailing the couriers and make arrests. After that, her money would be returned.
My neighbour made six purchases totalling £136,910 over a few days. She realised it was a scam, but Santander refused to reimburse her. Anon.
Sally Hamilton replies: My heart sank when I read your letter, as it always does when details emerge of how ruthless scammers rob innocent victims of their life savings. The crook used a technique called ‘spoofing’ to make it appear as if he was calling from an official police phone number. That is why your neighbour was fooled into believing his story.
He then coached her to lie to Santander about why she was buying gold, so as not to scupper the ‘undercover investigation’. She told branch staff on two occasions that the gold was for a granddaughter’s wedding.
On the third purchase, the transaction was blocked. But on the insistence of the scammers, she used a different card to proceed. She even had to call the bank to release these funds. This happened three more times.
At one point she said she didn’t want to buy any more gold, but the imposter got heavy-handed and said she could be prosecuted if she did not. Terrified, she did as he asked.
The spell was broken only when during one call from the ‘policeman’, your friend heard a woman in the background, whom he referred to as his wife. Your friend recognised the voice from an earlier call – supposedly a senior officer brought in to emphasise the importance of the case – and realised she was being lied to.
Your neighbour reported the fraud to Santander. It investigated, but the stolen funds could not be traced. Reimbursement was refused as the bank said it had given enough warnings. She reported it to the real police.
Your friend was naive and made a series of mistakes. It was wrong to lie to the bank about the gold purchases. But only those who have been on the receiving end of sophisticated social engineering scams can know how crooks twist the truth to hook them in.
She was told to buy gold bars from a local jeweller and take them home where they would be collected by couriers
Your friend is of a generation that was brought up to trust the police implicitly. Her age and lack of engagement with technology also made her vulnerable.
I felt your friend would be eligible for reimbursement under a policy introduced last October by the Payment Systems Regulator. This requires banks to reimburse victims of Authorised Push Payment scams where they are duped into transferring money to crooks, up to a maximum of £85,000.
An exception is if the victim has been grossly negligent. Gross negligence has a very high bar under the rules, and this exception does not apply to vulnerable customers. The reimbursement policy only applies where victims have been tricked into making bank transfers. You also pointed out how branch staff never mentioned that buying gold on behalf of the police was likely a trick – even though this is a scam familiar to many banks.
They did read out a list of stock scam questions, which suggests they considered the transactions unusual. And no wonder – six payments over a few days of £23,396, £23,148, £20,019, £23,148, £23,664 and £23,535 should have raised a giant red flag.
Under the Banking Protocol, an industry-wide scheme, branch staff are trained to spot signs of a customer being scammed and call the police. No calls were made. I asked Santander to reopen your neighbour’s file. It spent a month investigating, but I am sorry to say it came to the same conclusion: no reimbursement.
A spokesman says: ‘We have the utmost sympathy for our customer. Our investigation found that she authorised genuine transactions with a legitimate jeweller and received all the items she paid for as expected. As such, we will not be refunding the funds.’
Santander argues your friend did not suffer a loss at the point the money left her account and says age alone is not an establishing factor for vulnerability.
I argue she was vulnerable. The criminals targeted her for that reason. Had she been familiar with searching online, she may have read of such crimes and been able to protect herself. I also thought that the warning signs should have been spotted under the Banking Protocol. Santander said it would apply if staff had strong suspicions a customer was being scammed.
As your friend answered the staff’s questions and gave reasons for the payments made to a genuine firm, it says this did not raise alarm. Your only recourse is to the Financial Ombudsman, which I urge your friend to do with your help – and mine, if you need it.
Barclays told to pay interest on £800,000 balance.
I often encourage readers who have hit a brick wall to try the Financial Ombudsman. It is free and there is little to lose. I was cheered last week to hear from a reader who had done just that. She and her husband were executors for an estate whose proceeds of £800,000 were held in a Barclays executor account.
The balance received no interest over six months, despite confirming it was an interest-bearing account.
When they complained, Barclays said it was its own fault and paid a measly £50 for the inconvenience. But after my intervention, it agreed to pay £1,126.
The couple were pleased, but decided to give the ombudsman a go. They received a total of £3,631.02 interest minus tax.
Income tax of 20pc is deducted at source on interest paid on savings held in a deceased’s estate, but can be reclaimed if it is not due.
The readers told me: ‘We would never have received this without your assistance, and you gave us the confidence to contact the Financial Ombudsman.’
STRAIGHT TO THE POINT
I switched my current account to First Direct as it had a £175 switching bonus, but I’ve yet to receive it some 50 days later. I believe I’ve met all of the requirements to receive the sweetener but First Direct has bluntly told me that I’ve not qualified. N.S., via email.
Sally Hamilton replies: First Direct apologises but says you didn’t qualify for the incentive. The bank says five debit card payments must be made within 45 days to qualify but you mistakenly believed direct debit payments would count.
Read More
One of my friends died before our birthday trip to Dubai
Over Christmas I was away from my rented flat for three weeks but when I returned my electricity bill was huge. My energy provider investigated and found my flat was wired up to the meter of a different flat in the building and I’ve been paying for someone else’s electricity. But six months later my provider still hasn’t billed me correctly. It says I owe £630 but I think I owe half of this. T.R., via email.
Sally Hamilton replies: Your energy provider apologises. You have now received your latest energy bill which shows you owe just £51.24, after a £300 gesture of goodwill was used.
I have just been billed £493 a month by Thames Water although I am sure I do not use that much water. My plumber has checked for leaks and none have been found. I could do without this worry as I am a 78-year-old pensioner and not in marvellous health, so I have cancelled my direct debit. Please help. P.C., Twickenham.
Sally Hamilton replies: Thames Water apologises and says the issue was caused by an inaccurate reading of your meter. It has amended your bill, set up a payment plan and applied a goodwill gesture, which means your account is now in credit.
Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@dailymail.co.uk — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.