We have sent a response to the Payment Systems Regulator on their consultation regarding the Contingent Reimbursement Model draft code.
This is about reimbursing victims of Authorised Push Payments Fraud – or not.
You can download our response here
This is one of the worst documents we have come across in a very long while. It starts in the wrong place, and muddies the waters as to what banks’ obligations are under current AML/CFT regulations.
The result is a carte blanche for the banks to give the victims the brush-off. Victims have to have taken numerous steps, show they have educated themselves, and in the process become semi-experts on matters for which the bank has a duty of care to them and not the other way round.
The banks are allowed to be judge and jury on the matter, and are permitted to apply numerous tests of reasonableness about their own behaviour.
Our summary – the victims have lost money and sometimes a lot, they have to prove to the banks that they have behaved in a manner that the banks regards as proper, and then the banks, pari passu, ipso facto, quid pro quo, mutandi mutandis and subject from time to time to their own judgement of the reasonableness of their own controls, processes, policies, staff training, documentation and other factors within their sole and undisputable control which they may or may not be at liberty to disclose and with deductions for any reason on account of hypothecations, imposts, levies, charges, mortgages, liens or other financial burdens whatsoever and within a period of 15 days not counting weekends, Bank Holidays, TARGET Opening Days, regional and local non-business days….tell the victim to get stuffed.
The draft code is a truly shocking indictment of the Payment Systems Regulator itself and of its orchestration of a so-called response to this growing problem.