[flagged]
Nope, not "any", but "Most".
> blank refund
Nope, they can charge an excess, and there is a cap.
> any payments consumers claim are scam
Nope, only actual scams. The consumers have to provide all suitable details and help the bank report the scam to the police if appropriate. They can't just say "I was scammed", provide no other details, and expect a refund.
Here's a source that's not behind a paywall:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/12/banks-scam-fr...
> Banks will be required to refund most victims of bank transfer scams – known as "authorised push payment (APP)" fraud – from 7 October 2024, under new rules confirmed today (Tuesday 19 December). But you'll still need to be cautious when making a payment, as banks will be able to refuse refunds where you haven't been "sufficiently careful" – and they can charge an excess on claims.
> You WON'T be eligible for a refund if your bank decides you were "grossly negligent". According to the regulator, this is a "very high bar" and involves acting with a "significant degree of carelessness". So you'll still need to take care when making payments.
> Vulnerable customers will get extra protections. This is defined as "someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm – particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care". Banks will have to assess this on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the facts around any claim.
What you conveniently left out in that cost calculation are the thousands of elderly and mentally ill people falling victims of such scammers. And who are these "stupid" people you mention anyway? Everybody knows social engineering is getting harder and harder to identify, considering how technology advances (spoofing SMS/caller ID, deepfakes, AI etc)
But if you want to make the society to pay for vulnerable people, victims and friendly fraud, if we want to protect the eldery and others, these people can take an insurance against scams if they feel they are a vulnerable group. This is not a health issue, this is not a physical threat. This is not an epidemic. There is a cost of giving free insurance to these people, and a lot of them won't be eldery but the abusers fo the system. This was discussed in the article of Financial Times, and based on the news link, there is also a massive indirect cost for people by creating the unbalanced system of fraud reimbursement.
1 out of 8 UK people commit fraud, so banks can now prepare feel the cost of this new form of friendly fraud:
I would say it's an insurance scheme. It should be billed separately as such and people should be allowed to opt out as we let them for option trading.