Photo: 123RF
A woman who lost more than $8500 when she fainted while shopping has only been partially successful in having her credit card issuer cover her losses.
But one banking commentator says it's not fair and there might be other ways she could get help.
The case was dealt with by Financial Services Complaints (FSCL), one of the external dispute resolution services that handles complaints that cannot be resolved between customers and their financial services providers.
The woman was overseas and went to buy medicine. But just after entering her PIN number at the shop, she fainted and was taken to hospital.
The shop's cashier had memorised her pin number, took her card and spent $8500 on it.
When the woman returned home she discovered the card was missing and the suspicious transactions.
FSCL said her credit card issuer rejected her request for a refund by pointing to its rule that people had to shield their PIN. If they did not they were liable for fraud, no matter the circumstances.
FSCL said it agreed protecting a PIN was vital but it was not always possible.
It said the payment machine was bolted behind a plastic shield and the woman's sudden medical emergency left her vulnerable.
"When making purchases, always shield your PIN at payment terminals," said FSCL's ombudsman Susan Taylor. "If someone gains access to your card and PIN, and you've failed to protect your PIN, you're unlikely to be protected from financial loss.
"Fraudsters look for opportunities, and everyday mis-steps can be costly. If your security is compromised, report it to your card company immediately.
"Credit card providers should also act with empathy, especially when circumstances are beyond a consumer's control."
Taylor said FSCL worked with the card issuer to reach a fair resolution, resulting in half of the disputed debt written off - with no fees or interest.
'Grossly unfair' - commentator
Banking commentator Janine Starks said the Banking Ombudsman scheme, another of the dispute providers that handles complaints about banks, would take the approach that people should take reasonable care to protect their PIN.
She said the finding seemed "grossly unfair".
"Shops tend to have guards around the keypad and angle them away from other shoppers. It is not on someone's radar to assume the staff are criminals and therefore, the standard protections of entering the PIN were taken.
"An ordinary reading of the word 'reasonable', would be that another shopper couldn't see what you were entering. No one intentionally lets staff see a PIN either, but they have next to no opportunity to grab a card and are trained to look away. A stranger shoulder-surfing could grab the card and run. The circumstances in this case were highly random. How many people faint just after buying goods? How many people faint and are then preyed on by criminal staff? The odds are so fractional, that a bank denying this claim is not acting with fair conduct. They should review their stance and repay in full.
"Overseas, even shoulder surfing is fully repaid by banks, because the test is gross negligence. New Zealand has very poor consumer standards and this bank in particular is milking that."
She said it was also worth the customer checking what she could claim on her travel insurance.
"Some insurers like Cover-More specifically cover fraudulent losses that banks have denied. Others like Southern Cross exclude these losses. You need to have reported the loss to police and the bank, but given the medical episode, reporting to the police is unlikely - the insurer may take this into account. What is interesting is whether the banks own travel insurance embedded in the credit card itself, would cover this loss. That would be ironic if it did."
