SINGAPORE: A dispute between United Overseas Bank (UOB) and its customer over who should foot the bill for S$1,550 in unauthorised withdrawals from a stolen credit card has wound up in the courts.
Ms Annie An Wei, 39, has not made any payments because she feels she should be liable for only S$100, as per the Association of Banks of Singapore (ABS) rules since Nov 1, 2009.
According to court documents, however, UOB has sued her for the full sum advanced from her credit card, bank fees and interest accrued, which amount to S$2,180.
The bank also wants Ms An, a marketing director, to pay S$800 in legal costs and S$300 in disbursements.
In the aftermath of several spa closures in 2009, the ABS capped cardholders' liability at S$100, with certain conditions: That the cardholder has not acted fraudulently or was not grossly negligent, or has not otherwise failed to inform the bank as soon as "reasonably practisable" of the loss or theft of the card.
Ms An told TODAY that her handbag, which contained her UOB Visa credit card and other personal belongings, had been stolen from her hotel while she was in Johannesburg, South Africa for a business trip on Aug 12, 2010.
Within 34 minutes, she had notified UOB of her lost card. But by then, the thief had siphoned off S$1,550 in four transactions at a nearby ATM.
After its investigations, UOB decided that she would have to pay the full sum. Despite a year of negotiations, both parties could not come to an agreement. On July 20 last year, the bank served a writ of summons on Ms An.
According to court documents, UOB said the crook must have known Ms An's personal identification number (PIN) for her credit card because there had been no unsuccessful attempts during the withdrawals.
It added that Ms An had not made any prior transactions at ATMs using the same credit card, so the card data could not have been compromised through skimming, for instance.
Speaking to TODAY, Ms An argued that it was exactly because she had never used her credit cards for cash advances, in her eight years as a UOB customer, that she could not remember what her PIN was.
UOB had earlier applied for a summary judgment but this was dismissed by the court. The bank is appealing the decision.
In response to TODAY's queries, a UOB spokesman said the bank was unable to comment on the specifics of the case because the matter was before the courts.
She added: "Generally, if there is a dispute over a customer account, we investigate thoroughly the facts of the case and thereafter work closely with the customer to resolve the issue.
"Only when there is no other option would we consider legal proceedings." - TODAY
Ms Annie An Wei, 39, has not made any payments because she feels she should be liable for only S$100, as per the Association of Banks of Singapore (ABS) rules since Nov 1, 2009.
According to court documents, however, UOB has sued her for the full sum advanced from her credit card, bank fees and interest accrued, which amount to S$2,180.
The bank also wants Ms An, a marketing director, to pay S$800 in legal costs and S$300 in disbursements.
In the aftermath of several spa closures in 2009, the ABS capped cardholders' liability at S$100, with certain conditions: That the cardholder has not acted fraudulently or was not grossly negligent, or has not otherwise failed to inform the bank as soon as "reasonably practisable" of the loss or theft of the card.
Ms An told TODAY that her handbag, which contained her UOB Visa credit card and other personal belongings, had been stolen from her hotel while she was in Johannesburg, South Africa for a business trip on Aug 12, 2010.
Within 34 minutes, she had notified UOB of her lost card. But by then, the thief had siphoned off S$1,550 in four transactions at a nearby ATM.
After its investigations, UOB decided that she would have to pay the full sum. Despite a year of negotiations, both parties could not come to an agreement. On July 20 last year, the bank served a writ of summons on Ms An.
According to court documents, UOB said the crook must have known Ms An's personal identification number (PIN) for her credit card because there had been no unsuccessful attempts during the withdrawals.
It added that Ms An had not made any prior transactions at ATMs using the same credit card, so the card data could not have been compromised through skimming, for instance.
Speaking to TODAY, Ms An argued that it was exactly because she had never used her credit cards for cash advances, in her eight years as a UOB customer, that she could not remember what her PIN was.
UOB had earlier applied for a summary judgment but this was dismissed by the court. The bank is appealing the decision.
In response to TODAY's queries, a UOB spokesman said the bank was unable to comment on the specifics of the case because the matter was before the courts.
She added: "Generally, if there is a dispute over a customer account, we investigate thoroughly the facts of the case and thereafter work closely with the customer to resolve the issue.
"Only when there is no other option would we consider legal proceedings." - TODAY
