Community

I don't believe that Citi are the first to offer a single view of accounts as they claim. HSBC have offered this in Australia for a number of years plus real time global transfers.

Almost a month after opening their first branch Metro Bank have said that they will be launching their personal and business internet banking services on Monday 23rd August. https://www.metrobankonline.co.uk/personal/Login/

For a bank to be successful it first needs to engender trust and be convenient. (If you don't trust it or can't access it then you won't open an account no matter how competitive or innovative the services are).

For the moment I'm not clear that Metro have got over the first hurdle. As has been mentioned you can't open an account online, there is no internet banking service yet and yesterday it wasn't clear that the site's security certificates were working properly.

As regards physical location One Southampton Row may sound a good address but it's diagonally opposite Holborn tube away from the direct footfall and in a quieter area between the West End and City in Bloomsbury. Opening hours are better than offered elsewhere but gimmicks such as a free cash counting machine and being dog friendly are unlikely to attract many.

I wish them well but they need to do a lot more if they are ever to be more than a niche player.

It's just not correct to say that HSBC (UK) offers no retail mbanking facility.

The bank offers both a text message balance alert and report service and the Monilink service. See http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/personal/current-accounts/express-banking/monilink#top

While these services may not be as sophisticated as some other offerings I suspect that once the bank has fully deployed its full OneHSBC Gold Suite in the UK the mobile facilities on offer will quickly expand.

Has James Gardner even checked what's on offer before blogging?

While Barclaycard say that "Verified by Visa could prevent CNP fraud and identity theft" my recent experience suggests that they don't really believe that.

I made two purchases on my Barclaycard at the weekend each of which was verified using Verified by VISA yet later I still recieved an automated call asking me to confirm these transactions were genuine.

Come on Barclays get your act together. If I use VbV don't then get your wires in a twist when two validated transactions hit what was a dormant account.

By the way the sooner all Visa and MasterCards incorporate a OTP feature the better since the CVV is a fatally flawed and vulnerable "security" feature.

The difference is trust.

Sure I'll spend a few dollars on eBay using PayPay but I trust my Bank each month with thousands of dollars of my income. As for undifferentiated some of the strongest global Brands are Banks. Some brands will suffer but others will thrive.

Nothing yet makes me want to switch from a brand I know and trust to something new and unknown. (I'm not talking about RBS obviously).

You're absolutely right. Fraud happens. From my experience it is common but the response from card issuers can be excellent or abysmal. Customers judge by experience.

Ideally I want to be proactively informed when a fraudulent transaction happens. But whether I'm notified or notice a spurious charge I expect it to be reversed immediately while the matter is investigated and plain and straightforward paperwork sent to me quickly to certify that the transaction is bogus.

Sadly the response from different issuers varies markedly with the best earning my trust and the worst leading me to dispair. The quality of response has no bearing on the size of the institution or the apparent spend on fraud prevention. While many Banks track their customer experience it's amazing that they seem unwilling or blind to tracking experience when customers are subject to fraud. No one yet has asked "How did we do and what could we do better" after I've been the victim.

Far the worst in my experience is Citi who openly admitted that they were six weeks behind in dealing with fradulent transactions and who even now continue to charge interest on fradulent transactions they finally reversed almost two months after being notified of the fraud. If the biggest issuer can't get it right what hope do we have?

In the short term I think its inevitable that contactless transactions will be "successful". Consumers want less hastle and there is a growth in low value transactions. (When originally established credit cards were an easy way to pay for higher value consumer purchases but this primarary purpose has become eroded over time.)

The problem is that for successful transactions in a secure system there needs to be both a secure transaction conduit and a unique transaction validation. Neither of these is present in a basic contactless transaction. All that is being done is that an RFID is being read. (Sometimes there is a random request for a PIN validation but this is not standard).

The result is that the card companies are balancing the risk of fraud on low value transactions versus the chance of card RFID skimming. The low values of fraud in pilots has clearly led to decisions to more widespread deployment.

The test will be whether RFID in every card will result in an acceptable balance of risk and reward. However if every card becomes a potential target for skimming then the potential cumulative rewards are likely to grow whereas the risks of detection and prosecution still remain low. If every card I encounter as a fraudster has the potential to reveal its RFID to me then I'm in clover and random PIN validation risks little.

Ten pounds isn't much these days but having to deal with hundreds of fraud reports and replacing compromised cards which have been read by people who pass within a few feet of you could create a level of hastle which the banks find unacceptable.

It would be great if RFID were to provide the solution to low value transactions. But, as in the past, we have perhaps been blinded by the benefits without being cognisant of the risks.

I've just invested in a wallet that claims to protect my cards from RFID skimming by having layers of stainless steel woven into it.

Until PayPass and PayWave offer a really secure payment mechanism I suggest you do too. 

The transactions were not at a Bank and all bear the name "RANC". There were transactions in "Hammersmith", "Shepherds Bush" and "London". I'm assuming they are an ATM because the amounts are all Cash Advances for either £100 or £250 with multiple withdrawals over three days. Since the card was cloned I can't see how these withdrawals would have been over the counter.

Graham

These withdrawals took place in the UK so there seems to be a hole somewhere.

Mike