From: PeteM 
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:01:48 +0000

john boyle  posted
>In message , PeteM  
>writes
>>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>>But it's not as bad as being stuck with a
>>£2000 liability, as Barclays tried to do with Sophia Davis.
>
>The 1974 act doesnt apply to her case.

I know. I quoted the story to show that the banks *do* use the argument
I quoted above ("Chip and PIN is invulnerable, these transactions were
PIN-authenticated, therefore you authenticated them, therefore you're
liable"). They do NOT automatically accept liability.  

-- 
PeteM