Should banks refund defrauded customers?

I WAS impressed to see the robust suggestion by Ross McEwan, the boss of RBS, that victims of bank fraud should accept the blame and not expect refunds (Mail). Much the same principle, I suppose, as the £46 billion, which taxpayers will never see again, used to bail out RBS after the crash of 2007 and 2008. The cause then was not fraud, but corporate greed and hubris.

BOB BELL, Croydon, Surrey. WHEN RBS made massive mistakes, the taxpayer had to bail it out. But when my friend, who has been a customer of RBS/NatWest for 44 years, lost £7,000 in a computer sting, the bank abandoned him. The police have told him he is a victim of fraud and they are investigating, but the bank has rejected his claim.

PETER BRYANT, Ramsgate, Kent.

GIVE Ross McEwan a cheer for stating that customers should not be reimbursed automatically if they hand bank details to fraudsters. If the banks paid out every time a greedy customer fell for a con trick, they would never make a profit. How about stopping compensation and giving us decent interest on savings?

ANN HOGARTH, Oldham, Gtr Manchester. RoSS McEWAN says people should take more care over managing their accounts. That’s all well and good, but consumers are being compelled into using online services with faceto-face options being withdrawn. As recent hacking attacks prove, websites and apps are not secure. So if banks want to absolve themselves of compensating victims of online fraudsters, they need to provide more secure offline services.

ANGUS LONG, Newcastle upon Tyne.