Fraud victims have no idea how long they’ll be stuck on the phone trying to report the crime to their bank, an investigation has found.
Average wait times range from 16 seconds to over 30 minutes depending on the bank, according to consumer association tests Which?.
More priority should be given to victims in need, it said.
The credit union, which recorded the worst times in the exercise, said it had faced recruitment problems.
It added that retaining workers had been an issue, as had sick leave as a result of the pandemic.
Which? tested 11 banks and building societies by calling each of them 12 times at different times of the day over the course of a week in March.
It dialed the phone numbers listed on each bank’s website to report checking account fraud — only a few of which are dedicated hotlines. Monzo was banned as it asked people to use an in-app chat feature. Six out of eleven bank helplines charge a fee. Which? called.
The fastest call to answer took only 10 seconds. That was done on First Direct – a bank designed primarily to communicate with customers over the phone. First Direct also had the shortest average call wait time of 16 seconds.
A call to the credit union took more than an hour to be answered. The average wait time was the longest at 31 minutes and 40 seconds.
Typically over all the calls to all banks, the testers from which? had to wait 10 minutes and 51 seconds before he could speak to anyone.
Rocio Concha, which ones? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “Feeling scammed is already stressful enough for victims without having to wait long just to get through to your bank.
“Victims are urged to contact their bank immediately as every second counts. The fact that some companies take longer than half an hour to answer victims’ calls shows the lack of support that certain banks have given to fraud victims for far too long.”
Tony Hutt is among those who have had to wait a long time to deal with a potential scam on his account.
The 71-year-old had spotted a suspicious transaction on his balance and called his bank to stop what appeared to be a fraudulent subscription.
After three or four attempts, including a wait of over an hour, he finally got through. The web chat system he tried forwarded him to the same phone number.
“I’m sure I wouldn’t have to wait more than an hour if I was in a branch,” he said.
A UK Finance spokeswoman, representing the banking industry, said: “We know the devastating impact fraud can have on victims and as such companies always strive to respond to calls in a timely manner.
“Because fraud cases are often complex, a reasonable amount of time must be spent on each call to ensure customers receive the right assistance, which can impact call times.”
- Woman’s £112,000 life savings lost in love scam
- Beware of £150 tax refund scam, say councils
Hundreds of millions of pounds a year are stolen in so-called authorized push payment fraud – when victims send money to a company or organization they believe to be legit but is in fact a scammer.
Some victims got their money back from the banks while others lost.
The proposed legislation in the Queen’s speech should mean there is a one-size-fits-all approach to refunds going forward. It will be up to the payment systems regulator to formulate these rules, after banks have been unable to do so among themselves.
Currently, some banks have joined the 159 pilot program. It encourages customers to hang up on a potentially fraudulent phone call, e.g. B. Asking for personal information or money and dialing 159 to speak to their bank.
Citizens Advice urges anyone who believes they have been the victim of a scam to protect themselves from further loss by resetting passwords, immediately reporting the problem to their bank – and possibly the police on 101 numbers – and checking whether he is entitled to a refund.
Add Comment