From: PeteM 
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:11 +0000

Peter Crosland  posted
>>>
>>>Wrong! Ulimately ALL loses get pased on to consumers by way of higher
>>>charges even if they are not itemised as such.
>>
>> With chip and pin an individual customer might get stuck with several
>> thousands of pounds direct liability for some fraudulent transactions.
>
>You are wrong! The customer is not responsible for fraudulent transactions. 
>Go and read any UK credit card issuer's terms and conditions to confirm 
>this.

I don't need to, it's in the 1974 act. However, that doesn't stop the
bank *holding* the customer responsible (on the basis "Chip and pin is
invulnerable, these transactions were PIN-authenticated, therefore you
authenticated them, therefore you'r eliable") and causing him a huge
amount of hassle. 

>
>> These are the bank's gain and the customer's loss.
>
>In what way would the bank gain? 

By persuading the customer to accept the bank's liability. This won't
work on customers who know about the 1974 Act, but will work on
sufficient of them that it's worth the bank trying the swindle on. 

>Do you have any understanding of basic 
>economics? Any losses the bank incur will reduce their profits. The end 
>result is that charges, which get passed on to customers, are likely to 
>rise.

That happens to some extent. But it's not as bad as being stuck with a
£2000 liability, as Barclays tried to do with Sophia Davis. 

-- 
PeteM