When your bank sends you a message that it is reissuing your card “for security reasons“, do you understand that you can no longer pay with it?
“We inform you that your card has been reissued for security reasons. Your new card will be sent to your service office […] You will receive your new card within 5 business days.“
This is a message that a client of a banking institution receives on Friday, half an hour before the end of the working day of the bank's branches and hours before leaving for a week in a country outside the European Union. It does not contain an explicit warning that the old card has been blocked and can no longer be used for payments. This case is reported by the online platform “We, the users”.
Now imagine the following: you are traveling abroad, you do not have enough cash, you rely on your bank card. You have to pay for transportation to get to the place where you have booked an overnight stay, or to move to the next location, but you cannot use your usual means of payment. Or you sit down in a restaurant, order and only when the time comes to pay, you realize that your card is invalid.
What do you do when your funds are in a bank account, but your access to them via the card is interrupted, and the bank does not offer you a working solution? And this is not a hypothetical problem at all!
From a reissue message to an inability to pay
At 4:31 p.m. on August 21, the customer receives an SMS that his card has been reissued for security reasons and that the new card will be received within five business days. Upon a subsequent payment attempt, it becomes clear that the old card has been blocked.
The customer visits a bank office in a shopping mall to find out what happened and how he can access his funds. There is no cash register in the office from which he can withdraw money. Alternatives such as Google Wallet and Revolut are proposed, which in the specific situation do not solve the immediate problem. No other working solution, tailored to the upcoming trip, is proposed.
After requesting a conversation with a manager, no clear protocol for action in such a situation is presented. The suggestions include issuing a second card, using alternative payment services or borrowing money from friends - each of which requires either additional financial resources or at least time resources.
The customer files a written complaint at the office. The situation is particularly worrying because of the moment in which it occurs: just a few hours before a trip to a country outside the European Union, with no guaranteed opportunity to receive a new card in a timely manner. If the customer had not made an attempt to pay before departure, he could have traveled without knowing that his card no longer works.
The bank considers the notification to be timely
In its official response to the complaint, the bank states that the blocking and reissuance were undertaken to prevent possible unauthorized use of the card and are standard practice for customer protection. The bank also states that the client received timely information via SMS and that the actions taken correspond to the terms of the contract.
In its response, the banking institution apologizes for the inconvenience caused and directs the client to the possibility of digitizing the newly issued card through its electronic channels.
However, this response does not solve the real problem: how can the client understand unequivocally that his card is no longer usable, and what to do when the blocking puts him in immediate difficulty?
Security considerations may require the rapid blocking of a payment instrument. However, this does not negate the need for communication with the client to be clear, and the subsequent reaction of the bank to be adequate to the situation.
Sending a message is not an end in itself. It must inform the customer of the material change that affects them so that they can take the necessary action.
What does “reissued for security reasons“ actually mean?
For the average customer, the reissue of a card does not necessarily mean that the old one is immediately blocked. It is possible to expect that it will continue to function until the new one is received or activated.
That is why the wording of the message is essential. It informs about the reissue, but does not explicitly say:
that the old card is blocked;
that payments with it are no longer possible;
how the customer can access their funds in the period until the new card is received;
who to contact for an immediate practical solution.
In this case, the customer only learns the actual situation when attempting to make a payment and subsequently visiting a bank branch. This raises the question of whether such a practice provides sufficiently clear and timely information and whether the notification methods provided for in the general terms and conditions are appropriate for a situation that may directly affect the customer's ability to make payments.
The question is not whether security is important, but how the customer is protected
The general terms and conditions of the bank itself provide rules for blocking a tool for remote access to an account for security reasons, as well as requirements for notifying the customer. The question arises as to whether these rules are implemented in a manner that provides sufficiently clear and timely information about the fact that the payment card can no longer be used. The message that the card was “reissued for security reasons“ does not contain an explicit warning about its blocking and does not explain the immediate consequences for the customer.
The case raises a broader question: what happens when fraud protection measures create an immediate risk that the customer will be left without practical access to their funds, especially when traveling and unable to obtain a new card in a short period of time? The protection of funds and the protection of the customer should not be seen as mutually exclusive goals.
The banking service should not depend on the availability of an additional third-party service
Of particular concern is the way in which the bank reacts to the customer's attempt to find a solution. The formally proposed options - using Google Wallet or Revolut (services provided by third parties that are not a party to the banking service agreement) - do not effectively solve the problem. In this specific situation, the client needs an immediate and practically applicable way to dispose of his funds, and not a recommendation to organize additional services at the last minute.
Here, a question of broader importance for consumer protection also arises: is it permissible for the practical use of a service for which the client already has a contract with a given company to be made dependent on the availability, activation or payment of another service provided by a third party?
Such a practice should also be assessed from the perspective of the Consumer Protection Act, including the rules against unfair commercial practices, when the legal prerequisites for their application are present.
The client should not be left alone to overcome the consequences of a security measure taken by the bank, by urgently seeking external services, borrowing money or incurring additional costs.
Therefore, it is necessary for the competent authorities to check not only the method of notification, but also whether the solutions offered by the bank provide a real opportunity for access to funds and whether they do not place the consumer at an unjustified disadvantage.
What needs to change?
The case is an occasion to discuss specific measures:
1. Unambiguous notification. When a card is blocked, the message should explicitly state that the card is blocked and cannot be used for payments, when this is actually the case. Information about reissuance should not replace the warning about the immediate loss of functionality.
2. Clear notification rules. The applicable contractual terms and conditions and notification practices should be reviewed and adjusted so that the customer receives information through an appropriate and reliable channel as soon as possible, while respecting legal restrictions.
3. A working protocol for blocking. A clear procedure should be introduced for cases in which blocking leaves the customer without access to their usual payment instrument. It should provide for specific actions, responsible employees and realistic options for ensuring access to funds.
4. Response according to the specific case. In the event of an imminent trip or other emergency, the customer should receive individual consideration of the problem as a priority, and not just general suggestions that may not be applicable in the specific circumstances.
5. Review by competent authorities. An examination of the applicable rules, contractual terms, notification practices and the way in which the bank handles such complaints should be carried out, with a view to determining whether corrective measures are necessary.
Appeal to the bank and supervisory authorities
The case was brought to the attention of the banking institution through a formal complaint, but the response does not provide a concrete solution to the issues of clarity of notification, practical assistance in blocking the card and the consequences for the customer.
Therefore, the call is to the bank to review this practice, and to the competent authorities – to assess whether these actions of its do not violate the current consumer legislation and the rights of consumers and users of payment services.
The goal is not to question security measures, but to prevent a situation in which the client understands that his card is blocked only when he has to pay. A clear sentence in the SMS message and a working protocol for action can save other people serious difficulties. Because no one should learn at the moment of payment that their bank card no longer works – especially when they are far from home and rely on it to move around, eat and meet their daily needs.