Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why should we all pay for those who’ve been scammed?

363 replies

Raisinganiguana · 23/10/2023 13:14

I’m watching Steph’s Packed Lunch and there’s a woman on there who sadly got romance scammed for £30k. Afterwards, the financial expert was really clear that if this happens to you, the banks have to give you your money back. He even said they can’t ‘weasel’ out of it.

I’m sorry for the lady, but why should everyone else pay for what is essentially someone choosing to give someone else money? We don’t pay people back if they gamble it away, so why do we demand it just because they’ve fallen for a story?

She wasn’t someone very old or vulnerable. She chose to send this man money.

btw the scammer’s story was ridiculous - and the man’s photos were actually of some super hot model - so how one falls for these is another thing….especially as there are back to back warnings everywhere and on every bloody programme nowadays.

AIBU that people need to take some responsibility?

OP posts:
babetyouknow · 23/10/2023 16:24

BitofaStramash · 23/10/2023 15:43

@babetyouknow

Being the victim of scam is not the same as throwing your wallet at someone in the street.

And you are victim blaming.

Sometimes "victims" have to take some of the blame. I read a story recently in one of the money pages about a woman trying to get her money back after being scammed. She had been written to by the bank about the specific scam. She had been emailed. She had been texted. It was in the newspapers. She had ignored multiple warnings from the bank when making payments.

At a certain point, you have to be determined to be scammed. Short of the president of the bank knocking on her door to give her a good shake, what more can be done? And why, really, should she get her money back?

Nanaof1 · 23/10/2023 16:21

FudgeSundae · 23/10/2023 13:23

It comes down to whether you’d rather live in a society that helps people who are (perhaps) a bit less bright /savvy than you.

Then the same can be said for gamblers who think the next one will be the big one. And the next, or the next. The casinos and lotteries encourage it every single day, with a quick warning about addiction.

They seem less bright and not very savvy, so perhaps they should also get paid back.

Then there are the people who buy into MLM schemes, people who will spend lots of money on "health cures" and people who will fall for investment "opportunities". All of them are basically less bright and less savvy than the normal person, because, just like the romance scammers, they fall for these things. So, I guess they need to be paid back too.

Do people in the UK get paid back for phone scams? What about the fly by night contractors? The door-to-door scammers?

decionsdecisions62 · 23/10/2023 16:19

In the last few months online scam store websites have become very sophisticated. My dh nearly bought some shoes from one yesterday then at the last minute checked the sizing chart and that was the giveaway. In all other respects when we put the real website against the fake they matched. The shoes were £5 cheaper on the scam site too.

ClareBlue · 23/10/2023 16:18

Bank of Ireland announced in 2021 it is closing 103 branches out of around 320 with a wage bill saving of 114 million annually plus whatever it costs to run the branches, rent, electric, cleaning, etc
All those accounts are now online and will include a full spectrum of people, including vulnerable, who will not be seen by staff but are now a number in Dublin.
So they definitely have created a situation where there is more liklihood of a scam happening, so they should be compensating where it happens.
The CEO said they have seen a sharp decline in branch use over the last two years and a move to online and that was the reason. The survey period being 2020 and 2021.
Can't think of any reason people might have avoided their branch during that time🙄

stayingaliveisawayoflife · 23/10/2023 16:16

We were scammed by roofers. My bank found in our favour and recovered half the money. They would not refund the rest as they felt we had not done 'due diligence'. I would hope that the same would be expected of everyone. We learnt a costly lesson.

Choccyp1g · 23/10/2023 16:06

flagwaver · 23/10/2023 14:26

There are many instances of banks contacting potential victims of scams advising them not to proceed and the person insists it's OK or the bank takes the decision not to proceed and they're threatened with legal action.

So the banks are advising people not to transfer money into a particular bank account because they think that that account belongs to scammers.
What's to stop them investigating that scam account? Why did they allow the scam account to be opened?
Presumably the banks are making enough profit from the money going in and out of the scammers accounts than it costs them to sometimes refund people.

Harella · 23/10/2023 16:05

countrygirl99 · 23/10/2023 16:03

Its not £92m. That's only 1 part of the money refunded for push fraud. In the first 6 months if 2022 alone the total was over £140m and nearly half of all fraud attempts were blocked by banks.

Show quote history

Do you have a link to a source showing that that amount has been refunded? Or is that the amount that has been lost to scams? - because not all of those will be eligible for bank refunds

anunlikelyseahorse · 23/10/2023 16:03

It would be much better to stop the scammers in the first place.

countrygirl99 · 23/10/2023 16:03

Harella · 23/10/2023 15:58

Eh? My point was that £92 million is so insignificant to these institutions that it will make barely any impact on the rates they offer customers.

£92 million is not - on the scale that banks operate - a lot of money. Especially because it’s not being paid by just one bank - it’s spread out across all of them.

If you think £92m is significant here, you are showing your own lack of financial understanding.

Show quote history

Its not £92m. That's only 1 part of the money refunded for push fraud. In the first 6 months if 2022 alone the total was over £140m and nearly half of all fraud attempts were blocked by banks.

Oblomov23 · 23/10/2023 16:02

Why did she get her money back? What was unique about her case? There are plenty of people who have been scammed, eg accidentally given away the whole of their pensions, to some scam artist. They don't get theirs back.

countrygirl99 · 23/10/2023 16:01

Sugarcoatedcandycane · 23/10/2023 15:03

It’s not as simple as that. To take over someone’s finances you have to prove they do not have capacity around finances.

Someone can have learning difficulties, even a kind of a good 12 year old, but be able to do a simple budget, have direct debits set up for bills and know what day they get their money etc.
They may have never gotten into any debt and stick to a routine of withdrawing money on certain days etc.

So under the mental capacity act, they have capacity around finances right?

But then they meet someone online who doesn’t have learning difficulties and is able to easily manipulate them into believing they are in love with them. Then make them believe that they are about to be made homeless or something unless they get X amount of money.

So the adult with learning difficulties sends them X amount of money. Because they have been emotionally manipulated into doing so. Even if the person is clearly a scammer and not a gorgeous model/Nigerian prince.

They may have capacity around finances but that doesn’t negate the fact are vulnerable with learning difficulties.

What do you do then? Stop them from ever managing their money again?

It happens to reasonably intelligent people so can easily happen to adults with learning difficulties.

They should be refunded, safeguarded and educated. Not told they can’t get their money back and someone is now taking Power of Attorney over their money.

Show quote history

Loss of capacity is not necessary for Finance POA if that is how it has been set up. You can specify that they can be activated under other circumstances if you wish.

ClareBlue · 23/10/2023 15:58

As the banks are just about on the legal side of organised crime and facilitate money laundering and all sorts of activities that are negative to society, I don't have much sympathy for them. But of course it will be passed onto customers, but so are loads of other things like their huge fines for non compliance with regulatory requirements. Literally billions. At least this cost to us benefits vulnerable people.
But they should do everything to identify and freeze Bank accounts used by crime. It has to go somewhere electronically and they should know who controls any account. They make feck all effort to get the money back or take action against the scammwrs, which is the main issue.

whynotwhatknot · 23/10/2023 15:58

i agree op-she was sending money over time and said she knew him so why should the banks have to comepnsate her

it wasnt a fraud in the normal sense-if i decide to send someone i apprently know thats on me

Harella · 23/10/2023 15:58

ActDottie · 23/10/2023 15:35

Your lack of understanding is so apparent!!! Banks won’t Just say “oh bye bye £92m” they will have already accounted for this risk in the rates that they give customers.

Show quote history

Eh? My point was that £92 million is so insignificant to these institutions that it will make barely any impact on the rates they offer customers.

£92 million is not - on the scale that banks operate - a lot of money. Especially because it’s not being paid by just one bank - it’s spread out across all of them.

If you think £92m is significant here, you are showing your own lack of financial understanding.

Nospecialcharactersplease · 23/10/2023 15:57

Bex5490 · 23/10/2023 13:46

People who fall for this are lonely and vulnerable. They are also victims of a crime. Drug addiction and gambling is sad but the users aren’t victims of a crime committed against them.

Im glad they get their money back. Why would I feel better with ‘serves you right’ to vulnerable lonely people who are clearly less fortunate than myself?

But they aren’t getting their money back though, are they? They are getting other money in replacement. If they were getting their money back it would come from the slimy sod who stole it from them. I’m not sure it’s a banks job to carry the can for a customers poor decision making, no matter how compelling the back story.

Entwistle · 23/10/2023 15:55

I wish you were more irritated by the scammer and less by the victim...
YABU in my opinion... or if not unreasonable, certainly unfair/judgemental.

Peacelily001 · 23/10/2023 15:54

I heard a trailer on R4 this morning about this. A couple ‘invested’ £100, then it was worth over £500 within a week.
Their bank warned them umpteen times, delayed payments etc, but they still insisted and ended up losing tens of thousands. The programme will reveal as to whether or not they got their money back.

Although I agree that particularly vulnerable people should be refunded, at what point do individuals have to take some responsibility?

Harella · 23/10/2023 15:54

LuluBlakey1 · 23/10/2023 15:33

Don't be so silly. Banks don't lose profits. They pay us lower interest rates to protect their profits.

This is how everything works in a capitalist society. Businesses protect their profit margins. They expect a minimum increase of more than inflation every year. So if a businesses made 4% extra last year and their costs increase by 15 % this year because of inflation, they put up prices by 20% to protect their profits and adda bit. WE pay for everything.

We pay for our own additional living costs , we pay for those of every business we buy from - every shop's/cafe/hotel/landlord, company's increases in power, rents, staff wages, mortgages, taxes, repairs, whatever they sell.

It all comes down to us. Capitalists never lose out. If it costs them, they pass the cost to us.

Show quote history

A) If people don’t get compensated, and are left impoverished and destitute, we’ll just end up paying for them through the benefits system.

B) Your surface-level analysis of capitalism neglects the central point of capitalism - that there is not just one bank. There are lots of banks, competing with each other to attract customers by offering higher rates on savings accounts and lower rates on loans. Therefore, they have an incentive to guard against fraud, to reduce the amount they pay out in compensation, so they can offer competitive rates to their customers.

Original poster
Raisinganiguana · 23/10/2023 15:51

@Sworntofun well you didn’t read my post then as I’m talking about romance scams not finance scams

OP posts:
TenderDandelions · 23/10/2023 15:50

Raisinganiguana · 23/10/2023 15:46

Of course crime victims should be reimbursed. Fraud takes many forms, not just romance scams. It often involves panicking and intimidating a vulnerable person

but you’re not automatically reimbursed if someone breaks into your house and steals, unless you have insurance.

As a thought perhaps we should all have scam insurance?

I suspect that type of insurance does exist, particularly for businesses, but if you've given away information that you shouldn't have, they'll no doubt reject a claim. Just as a household insurer would reject a claim if you'd left your front door open and someone burgled you.

Original poster
Raisinganiguana · 23/10/2023 15:50

I would worry more about the bonuses that banks pay out their bosses than the crumbs they give back to fraud victims…

but that has nothing to do with this conversation?

OP posts:
Sworntofun · 23/10/2023 15:49

Perhaps you have a point in this case but a lot of scams are now super sophisticated and even bright rational questioning people get taken in. Last week I heard about a company finance director who was scammed for over a million pounds of his company’s money through a tremendously sophisticated scam. Financial fraud now accounts for 41% of all crime so clearly not all victims are unintelligent. It could happen to anyone. Therefore I voted YABU.

Ofcourseshecan · 23/10/2023 15:47

Bex5490 · 23/10/2023 13:47

I would worry more about the bonuses that banks pay out their bosses than the crumbs they give back to fraud victims…

Yes!

Original poster
Raisinganiguana · 23/10/2023 15:46

Of course crime victims should be reimbursed. Fraud takes many forms, not just romance scams. It often involves panicking and intimidating a vulnerable person

but you’re not automatically reimbursed if someone breaks into your house and steals, unless you have insurance.

As a thought perhaps we should all have scam insurance?

OP posts:
TenderDandelions · 23/10/2023 15:44

SausageAndEggSandwich · 23/10/2023 14:05

Agree.

Online banking has been pushed as convenient etc for the benefit of customers but it isn't really about that, it saves them loads of money. The insight that a bank manager might have had about their customers is all gone & gentle questioning at the counter about a transaction that seems odd doesn't happen any more - hardly anyone goes into a physical bank to make a payment these days or if you do, you have to use a machine instead of speaking to a person.

It's pushed the burden of checking whether something is legit to the customer, not the bank. And vulnerable people are the victims. You can be vulnerable in all sorts of ways.

Show quote history

I agree with this. My Dad is the type of person that could fall foul of something like this, but thankfully all the online banking falls to my Mum, who is massively suspicious of absolutely everything.

My FIL refuses to have online banking and asks us to help him if he needs a bill paying online or something, so we always have chance to check it first. It used to annoy DH that his Dad wouldn't use internet banking, but the more and more of these scams there are, the happier he is about it.

That said, I also agree that people do have to take responsibility where they have fallen for a scam, as it's not the bank's fault if you've explicitly ignored all the protocols they've put in place.

I was reading this story over the weekend - BBC - My business lost £1.6m in 20 minutes - and thinking, who should be made to be held responsible for falling for a con?

The banks should, however, do more to be able to trace the funds and find out where they end up, to try and recover it from the criminals directly. Of course this is much easier said than done as the money will be out of the country as quick as possible, no doubt to some sort of territory with blurry banking borders.