Table of Contents
In July my mother-in-law, who is in her 80s, was shopping in Aldi in Milnrow, Rochdale, when someone stole her handbag. Aldi has it on CCTV, the police attended and there is a crime number.
Her debit card was in her purse, so she notified Halifax and cancelled the card while she was still in the store.
She does not use online banking, so it was only when she received her next statement a month later that she realised that the thieves had withdrawn £750 in cash from an ATM.
This happened almost immediately after the card was stolen, in three transactions within a six-minute period. They also spent a small amount at a convenience store.
Halifax did not mention these transactions when my mother-in-law called to report the missing card, even though they had already occurred at that time.
Target: JC’s mother-in-law had her debit card stolen while shopping at Aldi (file image)
The bank has refused to refund her money because her PIN was used at the ATM. It claims she must have allowed the thieves to take it from her, and that this was “gross negligence”.
I think she was followed, maybe while shopping at Aldi or somewhere else.
She goes there at the same time every week, and it would have been easy for a thief to follow her to the register and write down her PIN, before returning the following week to get her card.
I think Halifax has acted unfairly and should give my mother-in-law her money back as it was not her fault. She was saving up for a holiday and now she can’t go. JC, Rochdale
Helen Crane, consumer rights campaigner at This is Money, replies: I was saddened to hear that your elderly mother-in-law was attacked in this way, and I hope she is not too affected by the experience.
She said that the Aldi staff, particularly the security guard, were supportive and helped her contact the police, which I was glad to hear.
Unfortunately, stalking elderly people at checkouts to find out their PIN number before snatching their card appears to be the latest in a long line of cruel tactics employed by thieves.
A few months ago I wrote about a similar case, where an elderly man had his debit card stolen and the criminals were able to spend over £5,500 on jewellery.
Like his mother-in-law, he did not use any banking apps or websites, so it was only when he received his monthly bank statement that he realized what had happened.
Like her – and countless other older people – he also had a strict routine and could be seen in the same shops at the same time every week.
This would have made it easy for a nefarious character to track you down, spy your PIN over your shoulder, and return another time to take the card.
When money is spent that the account holder did not authorise, Financial Conduct Authority rules state that banks must refund it. However, there are exceptions.
A bank can refuse to give you your money back if it can prove that you “intentionally or with gross negligence” failed to protect your card details, PIN or password in a way that enabled the payment.”
It’s up to the bank to interpret what that means, but some common examples might include giving someone your card and PIN, only for them to steal from you, or having your PIN written down on a piece of paper in your wallet.
When Halifax was contacted by her mother-in-law, she claimed that she had acted with gross negligence, but I don’t believe that is true.
Cross: JC is upset that Halifax didn’t pay his mother-in-law after her card was stolen
This was a very targeted attempt to steal your data, possibly over several weeks. It’s very different from simply being careless with your PIN.
I contacted Halifax to ask if they would reconsider.
I argued that withdrawing £750 in cash in six minutes was suspicious behaviour, but I was told it was not as you were withdrawing cash regularly.
However, I am pleased to report that the £752.19 has been returned to him, as well as a goodwill gesture of £75 and £4 in lost interest on the money.
You told me she was “over the moon” and was now booking the vacation she was saving up for.
A Halifax spokesman said: “We have deep sympathy for her mother-in-law who was the victim of crime.”
“We have spoken to her to inform her that we have returned all the money that was stolen from her.”
Bun fight: AM is unhappy he received a parking charge notice while visiting McDonalds as signs in the car park showing time limits were obscured.
More drama over McDonalds parking lot…
In February, I finished a night shift at work and headed to McDonalds in a retail park for breakfast at 4 a.m. I ate and then took a nap in the car before heading home. I was parked there for just over two hours.
Shortly afterwards I received a parking charge notice for £60 from the company that manages the car park, UK CPM, saying I had exceeded the time limit.
However, the signs for the car park in question have white stickers covering the time limit, making it illegible. I therefore assumed there was no limit.
I appealed but was denied. The UK CPM sent me pictures of the signs in the car park, but they must have been taken before the stickers were put up.
It has now been sent to debt collectors. I am, Essex
Helen Crane responds: This isn’t the first time I’ve had to deal with a reader complaint about an unfair parking charge received while eating an Egg McMuffin.
Hidden: This is what the signs looked like at the time of AM’s visit
Maybe it’s the ubiquity of McDonald’s or its location in shopping complexes with strictly enforced parking rules, but the fast-food chain seems to be something of a magnet for these kinds of problems.
You say that these signs are attracting customers, and I agree that having the hours left blank would suggest that there are no set boundaries.
The incident left me with a great deal of resentment, so I contacted the UK CPM.
He explained that you received the charge because you were recorded on the parking lot cameras for having stayed longer than the two hours allowed.
He said there were 29 signs explaining this around the retail park in question.
However, he admitted that parking signs at that location had been vandalised over a period of time and that length-of-stay limits were often hidden.
He said he had no recent evidence that the signs were obscured at the time his parking charge notice was issued.
This is despite you sending images of the taped-up posters to the UK CPM when you appealed.
But having reviewed the matter, he now accepts that they were vandalised when you received the charge and has promised to cancel your £60 bill.
CRANE OVER THE CASE
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. This helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationships to affect our editorial independence.
