[ad_1]
After the woman, who lived in a nursing home, died last year, her daughters discovered NZD 60,000 in transactions and withdrawals over several months, using her stolen eftpos card.
The girls said the bank should have noticed the off-character transactions.
They filed a complaint with the New Zealand Banking Ombudsman, requesting reimbursement of the full amount. The ombudsman does not identify the people who complain, or the banks they complain about.
When the ombudsman program investigated, the bank said it only learned of his death when staff arranged a meeting with the women about their concerns.
At this point, trading had stopped because the account was overdrawn.
But the family felt that the bank had not investigated sufficiently and had not communicated with them sufficiently. The ombudsman determined that one of the women’s daughters entered a branch the day after her mother died and notified staff.
The girls said the bank did not keep CCTV footage from its ATMs long enough and asked how the overdraft was cleared when no facilities had been approved.
The bank said it was not responsible for the transactions but offered a goodwill payment to acknowledge what had happened. The family said it was insufficient.
The ombudsman said the offer was confidential but exceeded NZ $ 9,700 in transactions made after the woman’s death.
The investigation showed that the person using the woman’s card got their PIN on the first try every time. This indicated that the client had disclosed it or had somehow kept it with her card.
The mediator said banks had no general obligation to monitor customer transactions, but the bank should have ceased all activity on the account once it was informed by the woman’s daughter that she had died. .
“[It] was therefore responsible for any operation subsequent to that date. The following days trades totaled NZ $ 9,700 and ultimately overdrawn the account.
“We found that the bank could have communicated more clearly and effectively with the family. However, we found nothing to suggest that the bank did not properly investigate the fraud, assist the police or keep the CCTV footage. available. “
The bank accepted that it was responsible for the transactions carried out after being notified of his death. The amount of these transactions was less than the amount he had offered as a goodwill payment, so the ombudsman program suggested that the family accept the offer.
âIt was a distressing situation for the family at a very sad time,â said banking ombudsman Nicola Sladden.
“[She] was in a vulnerable situation and taken advantage of. We found that the bank could have communicated more clearly with the family and was responsible for transactions made after being informed of [the woman’s] death. However, we did not find that the bank had not properly investigated the fraud.
âThis unfortunate case is also an opportunity to dispel a common misconception: there is no general obligation for banks to monitor our daily transactions. Banks have fraud monitoring systems in place. However, it is the clients’ responsibility to regularly check the bank statements and immediately report any suspicious transactions.
“This case is also a reminder to check on any support elderly parents may need with their banking operations.”
The banking ombudsman last year received 330 complaints about fraud or scams, 62 of which concerned stolen cards.
âAll bank customers have a duty to take care of their cards, which includes PIN codes,â Ms. Sladden said. “Never share PIN codes or write them down.”
[ad_2]