BY LIM WEI CHEAN

HER credit cards, stolen without her knowledge, funded somebody's shopping spree comprising three Rolex watches worth $5,700 each.

The goods and thieves are gone. All cardholder Tan Shock Ling, 39, is left with is a $17,100 bill.

The banks are insisting she must pay up, because the transactions took place before she reported the loss of the cards.

But the human resource administration manager asked: 'How can I be liable when this is an obvious case of theft?'

It is unknown how often such disputes come up each year, and no bank will share these numbers, but the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) told The Straits Times that it has received four complaints of this nature this year.

In the preceding two years, the consumer watchdog received 16 complaints.

The Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre did not respond to queries.

One point consumers may forget is that they are legally liable for charges made using their cards before they are reported lost or stolen.

Ms Tan, for instance, received a call from the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) on the afternoon of June 12, asking her whether she had bought a Rolex just 10 minutes before.

The mother of two was taken aback.

She was moving house that day, and buying high-end watches was not on her 'to-do' list.

She told The Straits Times that she had not known then that her wallet had gone missing. She had handed her handbag, with her wallet, to her husband, who is thought to have left the bag in the car while running errands that busy day.

Within half an hour of that call from RBS, Ms Tan called up her banks to report the loss of seven credit cards.

She found out then that two more cards - issued by United Overseas Bank (UOB) and Citibank - had been used to buy a Rolex each. All three watches were bought at around the same time from a shop in People's Park Complex.

She told the banks that these transactions were unauthorised and had been made using stolen plastic. She also made a police report.

She said UOB and Citibank told her the next day that they had viewed footage from the shop's closed-circuit television camera, which showed two men and a woman in their early 20s in the shop at the time of the fraudulent transactions.

But despite this evidence of fraud and theft, the banks have pressed her to pay the outstanding amounts run up on her cards. They explained that the card holder is liable for the transactions made before the loss of a card is reported.

RBS' head of retail banking Ajay Mathur added that this rule is stated clearly in the contract and is consistent with industry practices.

If Ms Tan does not pay up, she will incur late-payment charges and interest.

Banks, however, do review disputes on a case-by-case basis.

Citibank's cards marketing director Alice Fok said that the only time the bank will relent is if 'the bank is satisfied that the loss of the card is not due to the customer's negligence'.

However, Case's executive director Seah Seng Choon asked whether the retailer had scrutinised the signatures on the card and the transaction slip.

Ms Lilian Ng, a sales partner at the shop in question, said her employee did so, and the signatures in both places tallied.

Case's Mr Seah reminded consumers to be aware of their liability in cases of loss or theft when they sign up for cards.

It may also be wise to buy insurance as protection against such incidents, he said.

For now, Ms Tan is hoping against hope that the thieves will be caught.

Meanwhile, she is appealing to the banks to waive the interest and late-payment charges.

She said: 'If not, I'd have no choice but to pay up even though it's not my fault.'

This article was first published in The Straits Times.