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

[Raisinganiguana]

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?

But we don’t pay for it. It’s not like it’s coming out of our taxes.

The banks pay for it out of their profits. Our savings are unaffected.

I’m sure you’re an intelligent, self sufficient person who would never fall for a romance scam, but some people are much more easily manipulated - as a result of lower intelligence, loneliness, isolation, desperation etc. It doesn’t hurt to have empathy.

Banks have a duty of care and should be able to prevent vulnerable customers from transferring their life savings to strangers.

And why do you think there is such a difference between lendingand savings rate. It's to cover costs of which this is a very substantial one. So yes, it does because banks could give a better savings rate.

No but it affects the overall economy and how much banks charge for stuff doesn’t it. They said romance scams cost banks £92m per year. That has to come from somewhere!

And why is it the bank’s fault anyway?

To be honest, it's generally cheaper for a bank to blanket reimburse than go through a long investigation process, potentially being taken to the financial ombudsman. Customer reimbursement is a controversial topic though albeit one that the government are pushing forward with despite opposition.

@Harella empathy has nothing to do with it. I have empathy for people who’ve been scammed. I also have empathy for those who have gambling or drug addictions and have lost their money. But they don’t get repaid. I don’t understand why this some special exemption?

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.

£92m is nothing. The four largest banks in the UK alone make £20bn in profits every year. They can easily afford £92m.

And banks have a duty of care to their customers.

Meh. I mean I agree to a point I suppose. But..i mean there but for the grace of god and all that. Could be someone’s wee mum.

Everyone you make a bank payment now you get warnings about looking for potential scams and have to click you’ve read them to continue. If you wilfully ignore these what else can banks do?

plenty of people aren’t very intelligent and they lose money in all sorts of ways. Why is this special?

Banks are respected, trusted, pivotal institutions in our society. They have a duty of care to look after vulnerable people who are putting their trust in them. It is very possible for them to put in place measures that raise red flags when someone is at risk of being scammed - to stop it before it’s too late. When they fail to do that, it’s right that they should compensate victims.

Drug dealers and gambling companies don’t quite occupy the same elevated status in our society, do they?

It is very possible for them to put in place measures that raise red flags when someone is at risk of being scammed - to stop it before it’s too late. When they fail to do that, it’s right that they should compensate victims

But they do. I worked (for a very brief time) on a project with a bank helping them to manage this. They try very hard. You can’t make a payment these days without being asked to consider whether it’s a scam, and there are tons of warnings and tons of advice.

It doesn’t matter that the banks make x profits. The money will ultimately come out of OUR pockets not theirs.

Generally it's 'special' because of the degree of social engineering involved and the way that victims are preyed on (often multiple times), tricked and manipulated into handing over their money. It also has a massive impact on people's wellbeing. Action Fraud, the police reporting line, receives over 300 calls a year from fraud victims who are suicidal because of what has happened to them.

Oh and scammers manipulate you to ignore the warnings. That's why they're hugely ineffective. There's not really any good evidence that all the warnings actually change customer behaviour that much.

I'm hard on this... I see this as natural selection.

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

(Sorry)

I know 2 people who fell victims to this kind of scam.

Both had learning difficulties. Both gave their disability payments over.

Yes they should get their money back.

So what do you suggest? How do banks stop people paying scammers without placing a huge burden on legitimate payments?

@mynameiscalypso I get what you're saying and I do agree but I just can't get my head around the fact people will send these lump sums of money to people they've never even met/seen on a video call. It's just absurd to me.

That's quite naive. Of course banks will want to protect their profit margins.

If they have to spend on fraud payouts and spend even more on fraud controls, education and awareness because some people keep falling for it * then there will be less money available to spend on other improvements for customers.

I get that some scammers are incredibly sophisticated, but there are also plenty of people doing exactly* what the banks have specifically warned them not to do.

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?

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

Scammers are always one step ahead though. They often have a plausible story and an answer to everything and they also have a way of picking out the vulnerable and playing on insecurities. Also, we've all seen the scam warnings so often that we probably don't pay attention any more.

You are being very naïve to think Banks will pass this on to their customers. They set rates based on the market and competition. A small cost like this will impact their profits

Vulnerable, if in terms of learning difficulties, obviously I get it.

But why does simply being lonely make you special? This woman on the tv today worked, had a family, seemed ‘normal’ enough. She also gave £30k to a hot model who needed parts to help fix an oil rig because he was in love with her. Why should that be funded?

Yes, because any savings made would definitely be given back to customers, instead of creamed off for shareholders…..