Community

Jonathan - many thanks for the incisive input and comments below:

Fair comment on banks and some PSP. Both traditional and new banks along with PSPs can treat scammed customers insensitively. 

Agree on the £30K limit - its a WAG (wild arse guess).

The figure of £415K is being treated by the PA and its financial influences as a scare tactic. Complete nonsense as you rightly point out there is a review before money is paid away. Also the scammers would be at this level (and beyond) if it was a market possiblity.

I like the £100 excess option as it gives the bank/PSPs the opportunity to show compassionate on the first instance. As scammers swap 'live' names (e.g. saying take me off your list you are added on), the probability is high for another scam.

Given the PA mission is: "...helping almost 300 companies enhance their commercial interests, ... solve societal problems..." the first by delaying mandatory refunds saves bank/PSP £230 million/year as the customers carries on paying for the scammed amount. The contribution to solving societal problems is an oxymoron.   

Ketharaman - good long term positioning for the big American companies as India's international instant payments grow, where payment and FX fees are allowed, revenues will flow. 

Ketharaman - reimbursement details are being finalised by the PSR for the UK for consumers and SMEs. Larger companies where revenues exceed £5 million per year are excluded. EU is adding CoP mandates in 2024 so we’ll have to see how euro reimbursements are addressed.