A new study reveals that many are still not prepared to voluntarily publish data to ensure customers are treated fairly and consistently.

The UK’s major banks and building societies were contacted urging them to commit to publishing their reimbursement rates by Friday 28 May, which marked two years since the introduction of an industry code that many banks have signed up to, which pledges to reimburse losses to victims who are not at fault.

However, almost all banks failed to do so - including the Edinburgh-based Tesco Bank, RBS owners Nat West Group and Bank of Scotland owners Lloyds Banking Group.

The research by consumer organisation Which? who said that Barclays was the only firm to say they were ready to publish “periodically” and last month provided reimbursement figures for the first two months of the year.

This left it as the only organisation apart from Edinburgh-based TSB, which is not a member of the code but does have a ‘Fraud Refund Guarantee’, to provide any information on the amount of money it returns to customers who have fallen victim to this type of scam.

Which is now urging the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) to push through with its proposals to require firms to publish the data.

Currently, information about the levels of reimbursement individual banks provide to customers under the scams code is published anonymously - with reimbursement rates across firms last year ranging from from a low of 18 per cent to a high of 64 per cent, according to the PSR.

In contrast, TSB says it reimburses 99 per cent of customers. Barclays said its figure was 74 per cent for the first two months of 2021.

Which said that banks that are not part of the voluntary code "face even less scrutiny, and there is no clarity about how much money is being returned to customers by firms, even on an anonymous basis".

"We believe the complete lack of transparency in how individual banks are treating customers is leading to unfair and inconsistent decisions, meaning that firms can easily wriggle out of their responsibility to reimburse victims, and is a contributing factor to low levels of reimbursement under the scams code," it said.

The Herald: Money

It says the response from industry shows that the regulator has "no choice" but to act on its proposals to improve transparency from firms on how they deal with bank transfer scams, including reimbursement.

"Stronger consumer protections, that all firms must follow, are also needed to fix an unfair and inconsistent industry approach to reimbursement for blameless victims," it said.

"Banks should be publishing data beyond reimbursement rates if that is needed to evidence what they are doing to prevent and manage cases of bank transfer scams. We also say that publishing data does not pose a significant fraud risk to firms, and could actually help to drive improvements that reduce scams.

"While the regulator says there is a 'possibility' that there is a connection between high levels of fraud prevention and low reimbursement rates, Which? believes firms' interpretation of “customer error” is often flawed.

"This has been highlighted by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) , which says it continues to uphold a “high proportion” of bank transfer scam cases. Decisions published by the FOS have shown examples of firms placing unrealistic expectations on customers to spot they are being scammed, or that the warnings put in place are not sufficient.

"And rather than detracting from a focus on crime, TSB has found that since introducing its guarantee, victims are willing to provide much more detailed information relating to their cases, which helps to inform the bank’s fraud preventative measures."

Among those which are not planning to publish its reimbursement rates is Edinburgh-based Tesco Bank which has said it believes that in isolation it presents a one-dimensional view of the problem, does not help consumers understand the effectiveness of a banks capability in preventing authorised push payment (APP) fraud in the first place, and is a limited measure of a banks effectiveness at dealing with the problem.

It said it would prefer to see at least equal focus on APP prevention metrics as well as reimbursement rates, and believes it is essential that all bank’s report against the same principles in order to provide consumers with an unambiguous comparison of performance.

It said it agrees with UK Finance’s response to the PSR consultation on behalf of the industry, where they recommend publishing statistics on where scams originate, as it would give consumers a broader and more helpful set of measures regarding APP fraud.

RBS owners, the Nat West Group said: “We will continue to publish our data at an industry level through UK Finance.”

Bank of Scotland owners, Lloyds Banking Group added: “We have submitted a response to the PSR 'Call for Views' on this topic and look forward to the outcome of the industry-wide consultation.

"We are fully committed to reimbursing victims of scams in line with the voluntary code, and have returned significant amounts of money to victims of fraud since it came into effect.

"Winning the fight against fraudsters is a team effort and obligations for prevention should be extended to all banks as well as online platforms and telecoms companies where the majority of scams typically start.”