
Originally Posted by
Marq
Just wondering if the other banks give the same dreadful service and terms of banking?
Are their terms hidden in their dungeons of despair or are they open about them and are they as onerous as Standards?
I have to say I've been reading the latest changes to Standard's terms and conditions, particularly those relating to online transacting, with some concern.
6.6.4 If we receive an instruction from you, using your Access Codes, we are not required to check the authenticity of that instruction and this will be the case even if the instruction is a fraudulent one, unless it is proven that we clearly knew the instruction was fraudulent.
It seems like a self-fulfilling prophesy clause - If there is no check for authenticity, there is no way of knowing that the transaction is fraudulent.
If I accept that they have no responsibility whatsoever to check for authenticity, when challenged they need only respond that they did nothing to authenticate and it's game over.
It really does seem like a bridge too far. There has to be some level of responsibility on the bank to take due care...
..and in reality, it's quite obvious they actually are doing quite a lot to try to validate any deviation from normal behaviour.
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.