Without really happened
I had the opportunity to closely follow a story which featured a current account, the bank in which the account is current and that the ATM had been stolen.
These are the facts:
The account holder in question undergoes, Friday and in the evening, the theft of the bag containing, among other things, the portfolio enclosing the ATM. Aware of what's called the toll free number to block the card and went to the police to report the theft.
The following Monday, opening of bank, reported the incident by delivering a copy of its complaint, declaring immediately that the pin code was not stored in the wallet along with the ATM, together with the disavowal of any incorrect transactions.
Let's stop here in telling the facts, because first I want to give you some information.
The object of the ATM theft has both chip and magnetic stripe, Dual technology still present in Italy and beyond, because not all businesses are equipped with the new generation of POS machines with player exclusive data in the middle of the chip. This technology is safer because it does not allow you to copy the data stored on the chip as opposed to the magnetic stripe, from which, through the use of special tools and software programs is "easy" to obtain the pin code stored on it. The thing is also confirmed by recent news reports and television, which showed that in Italy there are real gangs of "specialists in fraudulent transactions", able to copy the pin along with the code of 16 numbers stored in the magnetic stripe, and how they usually operate on weekends when bank branches are usually closed.
Returning to the facts, the account holder declares in the complaint that The theft took place between the eighteen thirty and twenty, while the bank are carried out several operations to remove the ATM and POS payments in shops, among the eight five p.m. (before operation) and twenty and forty (last payment POS).
From reading the documentation showing the detail of these tasks, and holding valid the above information in italics, shows how the thieves have had plenty of time to extract the data from the card to them to clone and duplicate, seen that all the operations were carried out in about forty minutes and various shops / ATM, although in the same shopping center, arranged over several floors.
Having said that I inform you that the bank has communicated in writing to the holder does not want to initiate the refund of transactions, as asserting that without the knowledge of anyone PIN, outside of the holder, can use an ATM, unless the thief can not find the PIN at the ATM together, negligently maintained along with the payment card.
Upon receipt of that refusal, the account holder NOT 'DONE TO WIN THE LAZY.
He rolled up his sleeves and, laws to the hand, filed a "complaint" written against the decision taken by the bank, together with a claim for damages, suffered as a result of the aforementioned theft, intimating to the same bank, in the absence of reaction in the thirty days provided, or dissatisfaction with the outcome of the complaint, contact Financial Banking Arbitrator (I talk about in this post: https://www.economiafamiliare.it/2010/03/arbitro-bancario-finanziario/), Judicial Authority and the Ordinary.
Which legislative instruments taken as a reference and identified in the written complaint:
Legislative Decree 11/2010 – implementation of the European Directive 2007/64/EC - on payment services in the internal market (listed in order of appearance in the complaint) into force on 1 March 2010:
Article 10 - "If the payment service user denies having authorized a particular transaction is the responsibility of the provider of payment services provide proof to the contrary ...... it is up to the provider of payment services demonstrate that the user has acted fraudulently or with intent or gross negligence "
Article 12 - "Except in cases where the user has acted with intent or gross negligence or has not taken the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of custom devices .... the user can bear the loss resulting from the use of the payment instrument in undue up to an amount not exceeding 150 EUR ".
Article 7 - "Obligations of the payment service user in relation to payment instruments ..... the user should communicate without delay to the service of payment (or the entity specified by him) the loss, theft, misappropriation or unauthorized use of the instrument, as soon as it becomes aware of.
Article 8 - "Duty payable by the lender .... shall prevent any use of the payment instrument after notification , above, attributing the intermediary burden to bear the risk of loss for the excess of the amount of 150 euro and that is not always able to prove intent or gross negligence of the customer, thus derogating from Article 1218 of the Civil Code in that it establishes a standard of liability that is independent from the model shown in the foregoing statutory legislation.
Legislative Decree 206/2005 (Consumer Code).
How did it go?
The current account is seen to recognize the repayment of the sums spent by thieves, net of 150 euro held by the bank.
Puooi investigate the matter with the following books: