Bank Of Ireland credit card theft.

retneil

Hi ,

My credit card got stolen.

It is a business card from bank of ireland.

It was used before i contacted them and they are talking about wanting me to pay for the balance.

Is this not incorrect?

Has anyone had experience of this ?

THis is frustrating as away from the country at the moment.

BuffyBot

Technically, you are only covered from when you report it to them on. So yes, they can say you're liable for anything which happened before the card was reported stolen.

How long was the gap between the theft and the report, and how much was racked up on the card?

Gillo

Unfortunately, yeah you are liable for any transactions which happened before you reported the card stolen to your bank. This is the case with any card not jou BOI one's. when the bill comes in you may be able to query the transactions made on the card, and hjopefully nothave to pay for them all.

If it is a case that you are away and need the case, you could try requesting that under the circumstances the bank would increase your credit limit, even if only for a short while.

It's the same with mobile's you are also liable for calls made unitl you report the phone stolen.

amerden

I would argue that the transactions on the credit card after it was stolen was not valid, I presume the card had a signature on it and the signature on the transaction was different than that on the card, the retailer was at fault for not checking the signature as per their merchant agreement, if the card required a PIN and the correct PIN was used then your out of luck, they must have obtained the PIN from you i.e. it was with the card when stolen, someone knew it or it was obtained when you used the card previously, your problem.

kluivert

It just goes to show that anyone can get away with signing for a purchase on a stolen credit card. Chip and pin is the way forward.

I would you to use a company cheque book instead and get rid of the credit card. It will be the company who is going to pay the credit card bill.

FX Meister

Amerden is right, you do not have to pay for any of the purchases made since your card was stolen if they were signed for. Buffy and Gilo have obviously no idean what they are talking about. The retailer has to foot the bill as it is his responsibility to check the sigs. I've been signing a different sig on each my CC and Laser transasctions for nearly a year now and I haven't been refused or questioned once about it. The best is when they give you back the CC before you even sign the receipt.

BuffyBot

Amerden is right, you do not have to pay for any of the purchases made since your card was stolen if they were signed for. Buffy and Gilo have obviously no idean what they are talking about. The retailer has to foot the bill as it is his responsibility to check the sigs. I've been signing a different sig on each my CC and Laser transasctions for nearly a year now and I haven't been refused or questioned once about it. The best is when they give you back the CC before you even sign the receipt.

Actually, I do know a little bit about this - but that's beside the point. The OP hasn't told us the background to the transactions. How do you know the card was used in sign-for transactions and not on the web or over the phone? How do you know the card wasn't cloned, and a new signature put on it by the fraudster?

Do tell...

The point is, BOI must have some reason to have said they want to hold the OP responsible. As I said, technically they can. I'm surprised they are, especially if it's a business account customer, but they are within their right to do it. Until a bit more information is forthcoming, only general advice can be given out.

retneil

AIB say that u are liable for only the first 50 bucks.

In the states people are also only liable for first 50 bucks.-


BOI think they are a law onto there own once again.

Outr of the thread persons who has or hasnt got a card..

My card is not chip and pin yet

Gillo

FX Meister wrote:

Amerden is right, you do not have to pay for any of the purchases made since your card was stolen if they were signed for. Buffy and Gilo have obviously no idean what they are talking about. The retailer has to foot the bill as it is his responsibility to check the sigs. I've been signing a different sig on each my CC and Laser transasctions for nearly a year now and I haven't been refused or questioned once about it. The best is when they give you back the CC before you even sign the receipt.

I am curious, which cc do you use??
thr irony here is that what you are doing is just as bad if not worse than they people who used the stolen credit card. YOU ARE COMMITING AN ACT OF FRAUD.

antoinolachtnai

Gillo, who is he defrauding, and of how much?

I have had BoI try this one on me before, also with a business card. (As it happened, I had reported it stolen.)

I think that the liability for dodgy transactions on Visa/Mastercard for magstrip cards has shifted since the beginning of the year with the introduction of chip-and-pin. Does anyone know is this correct?

The Corinthian

kluivert wrote:

It just goes to show that anyone can get away with signing for a purchase on a stolen credit card. Chip and pin is the way forward.

Because if they can swipe your card and make a copy of it when making a normal purchase, there's not way they could surreptitiously steal your pin in a similar fashion or make a copy of a chip based card - thieves aren’t that sophisticated, after all :rolleyes:

I would you to use a company cheque book instead and get rid of the credit card. It will be the company who is going to pay the credit card bill.

Ever make an online purchase with a chequebook?

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I think that the liability for dodgy transactions on Visa/Mastercard for magstrip cards has shifted since the beginning of the year with the introduction of chip-and-pin. Does anyone know is this correct?

There was a thread on this topic a few months ago here, AFAIR. I’ll have to admit there’s precious little info on it online at present and so the entire question is based upon rumours.

Gillo

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Gillo, who is he defrauding, and of how much?

I have had BoI try this one on me before, also with a business card. (As it happened, I had reported it stolen.)

I think that the liability for dodgy transactions on Visa/Mastercard for magstrip cards has shifted since the beginning of the year with the introduction of chip-and-pin. Does anyone know is this correct?

Appoligies I misread FX meisters thread, aand thought that he was then claiming back for purchases which he had signed under an incorrect name, instead it appears he is jsut pretendign to be somebody else, similiar to Walter Mitty.

retneil

This is a joke.

MBNA cover this and every US bank seem to have to cover it by visa law.

However BOI do not. AIB seem to.

As usual the irish customer gets taken advantage of by the big bad bank.

Bank Of Ireland i loath this isnt the only problem i have had with them.

End of rant.

FX Meister

gillo wrote:

Appoligies I misread FX meisters thread, aand thought that he was then claiming back for purchases which he had signed under an incorrect name, instead it appears he is jsut pretendign to be somebody else, similiar to Walter Mitty.

No, I'm the same person, I just sign a different signature with the same name. The only time I used a different name was when paying to have a clamp released in DCU, I then got the bank to make a charge back to DCU.

uberwolf

FX Meister wrote:

No, I'm the same person, I just sign a different signature with the same name. The only time I used a different name was when paying to have a clamp released in DCU, I then got the bank to make a charge back to DCU.

you my friend are a legend.

secret_squirrel

FX Meister wrote:

The only time I used a different name was when paying to have a clamp released in DCU, I then got the bank to make a charge back to DCU.

Brilliant! Fraud but brilliant!

[Ontopic] Afaik the consensus among the more intelligent sections of the press is that Chip and Pin is a device to push liability for fraud onto the shops and the consumers. For instance I've seen it suggested that any shop who takes a fraudulent transaction based on a signature being used when the card was a chip and pin is going to be held liable for the fraud.

Also consumer groups are worried that if a fraud is commited with a Pin then the consumer will have assumed to have given the number away and made liable for the fraud. However thats never going to happen since we all know how secure a 4 digit pin is. :rolleyes:

As an aside have you noticed how many shops are meekly asking if you know your pin and taking your signature if you say you dont - kinda defeats the object doesnt it?

0utshined

secret_squirrel,

That's because it is still a transitionary period. The complete changeover to chip and pin doesn't occur till jan of next year IIRC.

antoinolachtnai

I certainly don't speak for the banks or IPSO, but I don't think it's fair comment to say that C+P is just about moving liability. I'd characterise it more as being about upgrading a ridiculously insecure system to being at least somewhat secure.

It is possible to clone one of those cards with a 'neutralized' PIN, but at least it isn't completely trivial the way magstripes are.

Gillo

If it's so bad, I'd suggest you stop whining and go back to cold hard cash.

The Corinthian

antoinolachtnai wrote:

It is possible to clone one of those cards with a 'neutralized' PIN, but at least it isn't completely trivial the way magstripes are.

Anything is trivial if there’s enough profit in it to merit making it trivial.

gillo wrote:

If it's so bad, I'd suggest you stop whining and go back to cold hard cash.

As I already pointed out, ever try buying anything on the Internet with cold hard cash?

Solair

If a retailer opts to bypass the chip & pin and just swipes and prints a slip to sign on a card that *IS* chip and pin enabled, they are liable for any fraud. It's just not good practice and doesn't make any sense to do that. There is still the odd place, like B&Q, that don't seem to have upgraded their tills to accept chip cards and pins yet.

Old-fashioned magstripe cards liability remain as-is until they're replaced by chip and pin.

The date for the liability shift for Laser cards is one year later, Jan 06.

Bank of Ireland seems to be painfully slow about rolling out chip and pin. Every other bank's cards seem to be updated, yet I just had my BOI Mastercard re-issued WITHOUT A CHIP!

BOI seem to be ridiculously low tech.

Our man in Havana

My BOI mastercard is Chip and Pin.

RicardoSmith

I've been in a few places where they've stopped using the pin and reverted to signing because its simply too slow.

Easily_Irritated

Take a look at the credit card agreement. Every credit card is offered with protection so that if the card is lost/stolen you are not liable. However, most customers can't be bothered paying the 10euro charge (depending on the card type) and then just bitch about it when they loose the card and its been used.

Plus, in some cases, even if cover wasn't purchased by the customer and the card was used directly after being stolen and it takes the customer, say, 6 hours to report it. Depending on your account type and credit rating the bank will pay the costs on the card. As long as it doesn't take you like a few days to report it. If its only a short amount of time. Don't assume you'll have to foot the bill. Get in touch with your branch asap and they can get onto the visa/mastercard ppl and you never know your luck

Easily_Irritated

RicardoSmith wrote:

I've been in a few places where they've stopped using the pin and reverted to signing because its simply too slow.

Theres a deadline for chip and pin. Its some date in august or september where signatures will no longer be accepted and only chip and pin can be used. Its some international cc fraud legislation thing!

Victor

retneil wrote:

MBNA cover this and every US bank seem to have to cover it by visa law.

Visa don't write the law.*

Well they shouldn't anyway, one wonders if any laws have been tailored for them.

ergo

to OP

my BOI mastercard was stolen back in 2001 when I was in Boston,

I reported it within 2 or 3 hours of the theft but the fecker had already spent $500 or more on electrical goods by then

I wasn't deemed liable presumably because either

a) the shops accepted a signature which wasn't mine

or maybe

b) it was a student credit card at the time with a tiny limit of maybe €300 or €700 or something

or maybe cos I reported it within hours, by which point said thief had already reached my little student credit limit mind you

Easily_Irritated

retneil wrote:

This is a joke.

MBNA cover this and every US bank seem to have to cover it by visa law.

I wouldn't sing MBNAs praises at all. I had a cc with them and they are a total rip off. If what you're saying about stolen credit cards is true thats the only thing they have going for them (and seeing as that'll be a thing of the past when the chip and pin is in full use)

MBNA charge; 19euro if your payment is late (considering it can tke up to 5 working days from when u lodge money in a bank for them to get it A LOT of people get charged this every time they get a bill and don't realise!)

They charge 15 euro if you exceed your limit (considering some shops [eg eager beaver in temple bar]still use the old paper cc payment system, which means the shop owner has to take the receipt to the bank, which is usually at the end of each week. That is when your payment is processed so you may continue spending cos ur card will still seem below its limit when in actual fact when the paper cc is put throu in the bank it'll push you over your limit and u get charged)

You also can get charge 19euro for a failed dd coming from an mbna cc.

No other banks charge for any of the above (aib, i think charge 3 if you go ovr ur limit but thats it) but MBNA make a killing from those charges alone because people like to think banks are a rip off and MBNA are a company not abank so its better!

Easily_Irritated

Lord that was some rant. Enough CC talk for me, methinks!

God I hate my job & the fact that i know **** like that!

GerardKeating

retneil wrote:

MBNA cover this and every US bank seem to have to cover it by visa law.

Visa "Regulations" are not "law"....

Solair

You can't simply not use chip and pin. It's not even possible! If a card is chip and pin enabled, when you swipe the terminal will prompt you to INSERT CHIP CARD >..

And it's only slower if the customers are particularly stupid!

I mean, you stick your card in.. tap in your pin.. and that's it!

It's certainly no slower than swipe and sign ever was. If the terminal chooses to dial up it's going to take a while regardless of what type of card was used!

secret_squirrel

RicardoSmith wrote:

I've been in a few places where they've stopped using the pin and reverted to signing because its simply too slow.

Thats very true actually some of the retailer machines seem incredibly slow.

heggie

Solair wrote:

You can't simply not use chip and pin. It's not even possible! If a card is chip and pin enabled, when you swipe the terminal will prompt you to INSERT CHIP CARD >..

And it's only slower if the customers are particularly stupid!

I mean, you stick your card in.. tap in your pin.. and that's it!

It's certainly no slower than swipe and sign ever was. If the terminal chooses to dial up it's going to take a while regardless of what type of card was used!

if you have an older machine, then u just insert chip card, and dont need to pin anything in

secret_squirrel

Solair wrote:

You can't simply not use chip and pin. It's not even possible! If a card is chip and pin enabled, when you swipe the terminal will prompt you to INSERT CHIP CARD >..

How do you explain shops swiping the C&P cards of all those that dont know their pins then?

Solair wrote:

And it's only slower if the customers are particularly stupid!

So its the customers fault?

Solair wrote:

It's certainly no slower than swipe and sign ever was.

Really? In my experience a certain percentage of the chip and pin machines seem to be significantly slower than the older swipe type.

RicardoSmith

Solair wrote:

You can't simply not use chip and pin. It's not even possible! If a card is chip and pin enabled, when you swipe the terminal will prompt you to INSERT CHIP CARD >..And it's only slower if the customers are particularly stupid! I mean, you stick your card in.. tap in your pin.. and that's it! It's certainly no slower than swipe and sign ever was. If the terminal chooses to dial up it's going to take a while regardless of what type of card was used!

Yes except you're completely wrong about everything.

jimmycrackcorm

Having developed chip and pin based software I see that it's like the blind leading the blind in this thread. The chip has instructions embedded for card usage. E.g. I have a chip and pin card that will only accept a signature and does not require a pin (and which I use always because I keep forgetting the pins on the others). Other chipped cards will enforce certain rules on their users. Some systems will refuse to allow non-pin transactions but most have an override facility for people who forget their pin. In this case the retailer accepts liability for any poptential fraud.

Chipped terminals are much slower than previous machines as there is a great deal of multiple communications between the chip, terminal and bank. Chips also are slow to write to as they have the ability to be updated with scripts from the bank during a transaction.

Having probably done more testing with cards than most people have swiped in their entire life, I can confidently say that pin usage is hardly any faster than signature use. Most of this is due to the placement of the pin pad.

There is no real advantage for us poor sucker consumers with chip and pin. Mostly we are protected by fraud - it is the banks who had to guarantee against fraud to ensure the stability of the CC system. Now the retailer has a greater shift of liability but funnily enough, though chip and pin will reduce stolen card fraud - we will not see lower card interest rates!

Also while the cip and determine if a dialup is required for validation, most banks offer a lower card use charge if the retailer choose constant online validation. Very few chipped cards are set for offline validation or use floor limits.

RicardoSmith

The main delay seems to be in the validation of the card initially. Its not the entering of the PIN. I noticed when in europe recently they had wifi keypads to bring to the customers table in restaurants. Seemed to be pretty widespread. A lot of places required a pin and a signature.

I've kept my old non pin debit card, for use in those shops that can't take the pin one. Theres seems to be a lot of them.

parsi

Chip and Pin in Duness is excruciatingly slow yet in my butchers its instantaneous and its on a cordless jobbie just like France...

Tesco usually ask for the pin but other times they swipe it (all in the same branch) and their systems are fast. Then again on one occasion yer man insisted I sign the docket even though it wasn't swiped...