Victory for Mail as banks unveil blitz on web fraud

New payment checks to catch out scammers But victims could STILL miss out on compensation

BANKS have pledged to introduce new alerts and checks to prevent customers transferring their money to fraudsters.

The new code of conduct will require banks to flash up warnings if they are worried a customer is about to make a questionable transfer.

In a victory for the Mail’s campaign for greater protections for scam victims, the guidelines will also ensure banks have to make greater checks to ensure customers are paying who they think they are.

The code also makes clear that victims should be refunded even if the bank was not at fault – but there is still no agreement on who will cover the cost of this compensation, and consumer experts said last night the guidelines did not go far enough.

Under the proposed new rules announced today, banks will have to:

Clearly warn customers they may be at risk of losing their money when making an unusually large payment online;

Check the name customers give as a payee matches those account details – and alert them if not;

Delay payments if they are sufficiently concerned the customer could be a fraud victim;

Refund victims if they are vulnerable, such as those who recently suffered a bereavement;

Consider allowing vulnerable customers to delay payments for 72 hours to give them time to contact a loved one for advice.

The rules are the result of eight months of work by a steering group of banks and consumer groups appointed by the Payment Systems Regulator. The group was set up after consumer group Which? raised a super-complaint about the lack of protection against socalled authorised push payment scams, where customers are tricked into trans- ferring cash to conmen posing as their bank or the police.

Most victims of this type of fraud do not get their money back, because banks argue that because the customer gave permission for the payment to go through, they should not have to repay them. But experts argue that most of these scams are so sophisticated, even the smartest of people are at risk of falling for them.

In the first six months of this year alone, about £145 million was lost to push payment fraud, of which only £31 million was refunded.

The new code of conduct will be voluntary but most banks are expected to sign up when it is finalised at the start of next year, with some pledging to begin introducing some of the new measures immediately.

It states that banks must provide customers with ‘effective information at key stages during the payment journey’. This might mean that when a customer logs into their online account to make a payment, a message would flash up warning that they should not proceed if they have been contacted by someone claiming to be from the police or they risk losing their money.

Or if they are transferring money to a retailer a message, may flash up urging the customer to consider a different payment option, such as a credit card, where they would have redress if something goes wrong.

Under the new rules banks must also introduce a vital check called ‘ confirmation of payee’. This means the bank must check the name the customer gives as the payee against the account details.

Though not part of the actual code, it was also suggested that banks allow customers to request a delay of up to 72 hours on payments after the instruction is given. This would give vulnerable customers time to speak to a trusted friend or relative.

Under the new rules, banks must make a decision on refunds within 15 working days.

The new code of conduct is a great step forward for the Mail’s campaign, but it was criticised last night for failing to go far enough because the new rules do not come into force until next year, it is not yet clear who will police them and until a decision is made about who will cover the cost of refunding victims, no one will get their money back.

Jenni Allen, of Which? Money, said: ‘Recognition, at long last, that customers who lose money to this type of scam through no fault of their own should be reimbursed is a significant win for consumers.

‘But it’s simply unacceptable that in cases where banks claim they could not have done anything more, it will still be the victim who is left to bear the cost. Urgent action is needed to address this injustice.’

Ros Altmann, former pensions minister and champion for older workers, said: ‘The Mail’s brilliant campaign seems to have produced a change of attitude by the banks. But action is needed urgently, with clear commitments as to how customers will be compensated.’

Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, said: ‘It is vital that we get the right outcome for customers and prevent the UK from inadvertently becoming a magnet for fraudsters, while ensuring innocent victims and customers are not penalised for the criminal actions of others.’

Hannah Nixon, of the Payment Systems Regulator, said: ‘Today’s publication and consultation is a positive step forward.’

FOR anyone having to wait three weeks for a GP appointment, the opportunity to consult a doctor within hours by video link presents an attractive alternative.

Indeed, those with busy lives who want advice about relatively minor ailments, may even prefer to receive a virtual consultation from the comfort of their home or desk, with the option of a face-toface appointment later if necessary.

So it’s no surprise that the new online service ‘GP at hand’, provided within NHS auspices by the private company Babylon Health, is already booming – with 32,000 patients signing up to its West London practice in just ten months.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is so impressed with the scheme that he’s joined it himself, and now wants to see it rolled out across the country.

But warning signals are being sounded by the medical establishment. The Royal College of GPs says doctors are already deserting their surgeries in troubling numbers to work for Babylon, who pay up to twice as much and offer the chance to work mainly from home.

The company also stands accused of cherry-picking its patients, discouraging the elderly and infirm, pregnant women and those with dementia.

As a result, conventional surgeries are losing both doctors and their younger, fitter patients – leaving them to look after the old and chronically sick with fewer staff and reduced funding because of their falling patient numbers.

And then there’s the question of safety. Although Babylon employs qualified doctors, there are anxieties about the risks of virtual consultations and diagnoses and little research has been done.

But for all the caveats, there is clearly a demand for online services. The shortage of GPs – exacerbated by so many retiring early, working part-time and opting out of evening and weekend duties – is gradually making patients lose faith in the system.

If that slide is to be reversed, imaginative and practical solutions are needed. So although this scheme has severe limitations, traditional NHS surgeries can learn from it and perhaps adopt something similar.

But even at best, virtual medicine should only ever be an add-on to core GP services. The truth is that no video link could ever replace the unique human interaction between doctor and patient.