From: jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley)
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:18:24 GMT

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:28:27 +0000 (UTC), "Tim"  wrote:

>> >"Jim Ley" wrote
>> >> ... given the understandable fear ...
>
>Maybe "understandable", but inappropriate.
>
>> >"Jim Ley" wrote
>> >> ... the card-issuers will attempt to use the
>> >> "you were negligent with your pin" argument
>> >> to transfer the fraud liability to individuals...
>
>... but then later ...
>
>"Jim Ley" wrote
>> Except of course there's plenty of ways of
>> getting the card from the reader, do you really
>> audit the devices before entering the pin?
>
>You can't have it both ways!  *EITHER* :-

unfortunately history has shown that the banks do attempt to have it
both ways, they denied that their ATM systems could ever go wrong, the
phantom withdrawals must've been real, they continued to assert this
long after there were proven cases of faults.

> (1)  You think the only way of a thief getting
>      the PIN is if the customer is negligent
>      (your first comment above);  *OR*
> (2)  You think that there are other
>      ways that the thief may get the PIN
>      (your second comment above).
>
>Well, which is it - (1) or (2) ?

You seem to have deeply misread my first comment, I said that was the
argument the banks could use, not that there was any such fact, there
most certainly is not..  It doesn't matter that the banks argument is
unsustainable, the cost of going to court or ombudsman will prevent
many people from obtaining their refunds.

Jim.