When I contact Amazon to query a misplaced bluray, or to return an unwanted item invariably the same thing happens.
My money is refunded instantly, and they worry about the rest later. (the rest being me returning the item in question by mail) even whne the item is a tent, which I have used once and leaked, the same applied even tho I had bought the tent well over 90 days previously.
This philosophy, I have always felt came from an understanding that by behaving in this way Amazon is not only defending their own reputation, but that of ecommerce in general. Were any difficulties encountered in returning or purchasing an item the cry would go out "Ah! But that's the problem with buying online, isn't itâ€¦?" Consumers are still getting used to the fact that buying online doesn't mean they are going to get ripped off by a situation in which they have no come-back.
I am aware that Amazon have economies of scale of titanic proportions. But it does strike me that with the Get Cash story, Natwest are in a similar position.
Every bank wants the convergence of "mobile phone" and "bank" to work, and just because Get Cash isn't literally a mobile payment tool doesn't matter to the average consumer. It's "the phone" and "the bank" and when the two are put together, the end result better not be fraud, the consumer being out of pocket or anything else that makes the consumer wish for the halcyon days of queueing at a branch during my lunch hour.
So when a customer gets in touch and yells "fraud" the immedaite response probabaly shouldn't be "Well, you got caught in a phishing scam, sorry." Especially when the sudden climb-down once the BBC got involved does tend to suggest there was no proof of that idea in the first place.
What does everyone think? Am I completely wrong to draw this parallel?