Dec 22 2007, 11:03 PM
QUOTE(sancakAhNgau @ Dec 22 2007, 09:48 PM)
A few months ago, i lost my credit card and it was fraudently used by 3rd party amounted to RM3.5K.
These cilaka used my card to buy beer at Carrefour. But i wasn't aware i lost it until the bank called me to confirm the transaction
which i denied on the spot. The bank put my case as a lost card so i need to bear the cost but somehow they gave me 60% discount on that figure.
And until now i have already paid RM 1K to settle the disputed amount.
Anyway i hope to put this incident past behind me as i have moved but today this news came up , haiya....
Anybody out there got the same experience??? I still owe the bank abt RM400 on the disputed amount, should i use this acticle and dispute again?
Saturday December 22, 2007
Most unaware of RM250 limited liability
CARDHOLDERS need not pay more than RM250 whenever their lost or stolen credit cards are used by others. Yet, oftentimes, they end up paying much more.
This is because Bank Negara has not informed cardholders that they do not have to pay more than RM250 for fraudulent transactions carried out using their lost or stolen cards, when they had not acted fraudulently and had informed the banks about the lost or stolen cards as soon as possible.
This protection is given under Clause 13.2 of Bank Negara's Credit Card Guideline ("The cardholder's maximum liability for unauthorised transactions as a consequence of a lost or stolen credit card shall be confined to a limit specified by the issuer of credit cards, which shall not exceed RM250 provided the cardholder has not acted fraudulently or has not failed to inform the issuer of credit cards as soon as reasonably practicable after having found that his credit card is lost or stolen").
Banks know about Clause 13.2 but have chosen to ignore it. Instead they pursue cardholders for the fraudulent transactions.
They will tell cardholders that a clause in the credit card contracts states that all transactions carried out before the loss of the cards are reported to the banks, are deemed to be carried out by the cardholders.
Many cardholders then pay up because they are unaware of the RM250 limited liability.
Bank Negara should rule that:
ˇTHE RM250 maximum liability on fraudulent transactions is highlighted to cardholders in the card agreements as well as in the monthly card statements.
ˇBANKS are not allowed to insert any clause in the card agreement which is contrary to Clause 13.2.
ˇBANKS should refund all money in excess of the RM250 collected from cardholders whose cases clearly come under Clause 13.2.
S.M. MOHAMED IDRIS,
President,
Consumers Association of Penang
was wondering... what if we fraud ourselves and report? then we ended up paying only RM250...These cilaka used my card to buy beer at Carrefour. But i wasn't aware i lost it until the bank called me to confirm the transaction
which i denied on the spot. The bank put my case as a lost card so i need to bear the cost but somehow they gave me 60% discount on that figure.
And until now i have already paid RM 1K to settle the disputed amount.
Anyway i hope to put this incident past behind me as i have moved but today this news came up , haiya....
Anybody out there got the same experience??? I still owe the bank abt RM400 on the disputed amount, should i use this acticle and dispute again?
Saturday December 22, 2007
Most unaware of RM250 limited liability
CARDHOLDERS need not pay more than RM250 whenever their lost or stolen credit cards are used by others. Yet, oftentimes, they end up paying much more.
This is because Bank Negara has not informed cardholders that they do not have to pay more than RM250 for fraudulent transactions carried out using their lost or stolen cards, when they had not acted fraudulently and had informed the banks about the lost or stolen cards as soon as possible.
This protection is given under Clause 13.2 of Bank Negara's Credit Card Guideline ("The cardholder's maximum liability for unauthorised transactions as a consequence of a lost or stolen credit card shall be confined to a limit specified by the issuer of credit cards, which shall not exceed RM250 provided the cardholder has not acted fraudulently or has not failed to inform the issuer of credit cards as soon as reasonably practicable after having found that his credit card is lost or stolen").
Banks know about Clause 13.2 but have chosen to ignore it. Instead they pursue cardholders for the fraudulent transactions.
They will tell cardholders that a clause in the credit card contracts states that all transactions carried out before the loss of the cards are reported to the banks, are deemed to be carried out by the cardholders.
Many cardholders then pay up because they are unaware of the RM250 limited liability.
Bank Negara should rule that:
ˇTHE RM250 maximum liability on fraudulent transactions is highlighted to cardholders in the card agreements as well as in the monthly card statements.
ˇBANKS are not allowed to insert any clause in the card agreement which is contrary to Clause 13.2.
ˇBANKS should refund all money in excess of the RM250 collected from cardholders whose cases clearly come under Clause 13.2.
S.M. MOHAMED IDRIS,
President,
Consumers Association of Penang
Quote
0.0206sec
1.15
7 queries
GZIP Disabled