Banks: Authorised Push Payment Fraud Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Baroness Altmann

Main Page: Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated - Life peer)

Banks: Authorised Push Payment Fraud

Baroness Altmann Excerpts
Thursday 11th June 2020

(4 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Some banks have not signed up to the code, because they believe that their actions go further than it but take a slightly different approach. However, 90% of the total volume of transactions is covered by banks signed up to the code, and we welcome further banks signing up.

Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, regulations have failed to keep pace with evolving technology, so scammers are always two steps ahead. Does my noble friend agree that banks need a clearer legal and regulatory framework to help customers, such as being able to prevent payment if they suspect fraud, not being required to make payments within two hours, and not being required to have a court order before retrieving money from a fraudulent account?

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

One of the steps being taken to protect consumers further from the risk of fraud is the introduction of confirmation of payee. That is a new service intended to reduce the number of APP scam attempts succeeding. That was due to be rolled out by the end of March. However, due to Covid, the timeframe was extended to the end of June, with the clear understanding that if any customers had been affected by that delay in rollout—should any fraud have taken place during that time—the banks would compensate them.