Our investigation

The Code of Banking Practice says banks must reimburse customers for unauthorised transactions provided they were not dishonest or negligent and took reasonable care of their banking details. Tabitha believed she was dealing with the bank, but she did not act with reasonable care when she handed over her cards and PIN, so the bank did not have to reimburse her for the eftpos transactions.

Tabitha could not fully recall what happened before the payments to the international money transfer service, but the evidence suggested the payments were authorised because either Tabitha made them or the scammer made them with her knowledge and consent. Nothing about the transfers gave the bank any reason to suspect she was being scammed, so the bank did not breach any obligation when it processed those payments. 

However, the bank did not contact the international money transfer service until five days after Tabitha reported the scam because it had mistakenly emailed the wrong financial institution. But for this error, it might have been able to recover the second amount, which remained in the scammer’s account at the time Tabitha reported the scam to the bank. The bank agreed it might have been able to stop the second payment if it had contacted the correct institution sooner.

The bank offered to reimburse Tabitha the second payment of $891, along with an amount for the stress and inconvenience she had suffered.

Outcome

Tabitha accepted the bank’s offer.