You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
The article discusses a case of fraud where a woman's mother had over 14,000 pounds stolen from her through direct debit fraud. The daughter, Sue, was outraged and contacted her mother's bank, Lloyds, and the company that the direct debits were being paid to, Vodafone. Both Lloyds and Vodafone told her that there was nothing they could do and that the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. Sue then contacted her local police force and Action Fraud, but was told that it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds eventually agreed to refund the money stolen from Margaret's account, plus interest and compensation, after being contacted by the BBC. Vodafone said that it was also looking into the case and would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police.

# Output (a):
After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

The article discusses a case of fraud where a woman's mother had over 14,000 pounds stolen from her through direct debit fraud. The daughter, Sue, was outraged and contacted her mother's bank, Lloyds, and the company that the direct debits were being paid to, Vodafone. Both Lloyds and Vodafone told her that there was nothing they could do and that the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. Sue then contacted her local police force and Action Fraud, but was told that it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds eventually agreed to refund the money stolen from Margaret's account, plus interest and compensation, after being contacted by the BBC. Vodafone said that it was also looking into the case and would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

# Output (a):
Lloyds Bank has refunded more than £14,000 stolen from the account of a dementia sufferer after direct debits were fraudulently set up. The bank initially refused to refund the money, claiming the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. The victim's daughter, Sue, contacted the police and Action Fraud, but was told it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds has now apologised and refunded the money, plus interest and £600 compensation. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen money, said it was looking again at the case and would provide details of an individual who may have used the account to the police.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Lloyds Bank has refunded more than £14,000 stolen from the account of a dementia sufferer after direct debits were fraudulently set up. The bank initially refused to refund the money, claiming the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. The victim's daughter, Sue, contacted the police and Action Fraud, but was told it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds has now apologised and refunded the money, plus interest and £600 compensation. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen money, said it was looking again at the case and would provide details of an individual who may have used the account to the police.

After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

# Output (a):
Lloyds Bank has apologized and refunded over £14,000, plus interest and £600 in compensation, to a woman whose late mother's account was targeted by direct debit fraud. The bank initially claimed the direct debits were legitimately set up and refused to refund the money. After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds conducted a new investigation and admitted its initial response was wrong. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen funds, is also reviewing the case and will provide details of a possible suspect to the police.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Lloyds Bank has apologized and refunded over £14,000, plus interest and £600 in compensation, to a woman whose late mother's account was targeted by direct debit fraud. The bank initially claimed the direct debits were legitimately set up and refused to refund the money. After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds conducted a new investigation and admitted its initial response was wrong. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen funds, is also reviewing the case and will provide details of a possible suspect to the police.

After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

# Output (a):
Lloyds Bank has refunded more than £14,000 stolen from the account of a dementia sufferer after direct debits were fraudulently set up. The bank initially refused to refund the money, claiming the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. The victim's daughter, Sue, contacted the police and Action Fraud, but was told it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds has now apologised and refunded the money, plus interest and £600 compensation. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen money, said it was looking again at the case and would provide details of an individual who may have used the account to the police.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Lloyds Bank has refunded more than £14,000 stolen from the account of a dementia sufferer after direct debits were fraudulently set up. The bank initially refused to refund the money, claiming the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up. The victim's daughter, Sue, contacted the police and Action Fraud, but was told it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Lloyds has now apologised and refunded the money, plus interest and £600 compensation. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen money, said it was looking again at the case and would provide details of an individual who may have used the account to the police.

After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.

# Output (a):
Lloyds Bank has apologized and refunded over £14,000, plus interest and £600 in compensation, to a woman whose late mother's account was targeted by direct debit fraud. The bank initially claimed the direct debits were legitimately set up and refused to refund the money. After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds conducted a new investigation and admitted its initial response was wrong. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen funds, is also reviewing the case and will provide details of a possible suspect to the police.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"I was shaking with rage and stress, I couldn't believe this had happened." By Dan WhitworthMoney Box reporter Sue is describing the moment she discovered that her late mother, Margaret (not their real names), who'd spent the last years of her life battling dementia, had had more than £14,000 stolen through direct debit fraud. "To be told that that amount of money had been taken... I was outraged that someone could steal off my mother," Sue says. And she is not alone in her concern. The charity Action on Elder Abuse is warning about the dangers of direct debits being fraudulently set up in the name of vulnerable victims. The charity says it's concerned about loopholes and a lack of transparency within the current system. But the Direct Debit scheme says its guarantee means companies that use it to take payments directly from customers' bank accounts are carefully vetted. 'Legitimately' set up After being diagnosed with dementia in 2010, Margaret moved into a nursing home. Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details. Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died in 2017 that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened. Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money. Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules. Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken. Sue described the reaction from her bank as "disgusting". "The whole thing was taking over my life. I didn't know where to go for help, I couldn't sleep. All day long I was on the internet trying to find out who else I could go to for help but there was nothing." "I wrote and explained that my mum couldn't have set up these direct debits. "I explained she couldn't feed herself, she couldn't go to the bathroom on her own, she was monitored all the time. "She didn't have the capacity in her mind to think about setting up a direct debit and nobody listened. It was like [I] was being ignored and I had the feeling that because my mum was dead they [Lloyds] couldn't care less." Direct Debit offers a guarantee which explains that companies wishing to use it to take payments directly from people's bank accounts have to go through a careful vetting process. A spokesperson for the Direct Debit scheme said: "The billers [companies] are required to carry out payer verification checks when a Direct Debit Instruction is set up - details of the verification checks used by billers cannot be shared for obvious reasons." The safeguards supposedly in place to protect vulnerable people, as well as the loopholes in the system, is something that Veronica Gray from Action on Elder Abuse says need tackling. "This particular case highlights a lack of transparency in how the system operates. This level of passing the buck when elderly or vulnerable people fall between the gaps is just not good enough. "The Financial Abuse Code of Practice, which is a voluntary code but which many banks have signed up to, is very clear about how financial institutions should treat vulnerable customers. Clearly this has not been used in this case. "[Bank] staff are struggling to know what signs to look for and clearly don't have the skills to and expertise to identify patterns of abuse when they see them." When it was contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation which concluded that its initial response was wrong and it would be refunding all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. A Lloyds spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced by Sue when dealing with her late mother's account. While we were not informed back in 2010 that Margaret had moved into a nursing home, it should have been clear when her daughter contacted us in 2017 - following her mother's death - that Margaret would not have been in a position to arrange these Direct Debits. "We would like to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by our handling of this case and have now arranged for a full refund of all the payments." Warning signs Vodafone said in a statement that it was also looking again at the case and would be providing the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. It added there were a "wide range of security verification and fraud checks when opening a new account", but that people can subsequently change the direct debit details. It also said it would welcome any initiative that further strengthened the direct debit system. Whilst Sue is grateful that Lloyds have decided to refund the money stolen from her mother's account she just wants to make sure this can't happen to someone else. "I really would like someone to be accountable for doing this. You know, for the police or somebody to find out who did this - in case they're doing this to somebody else. "Lloyds should have looked into the fact that this account had laid dormant for years and then all of a sudden this money is coming out of it - surely that would ring a bell, that something's wrong there? "And once you say someone's in a home with dementia and these things have happened surely that should mean something?" You can hear more on BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme on Saturday at 12pm or listen again here. Follow Money Box and Dan on twitter.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the conclusion of the fraud case.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Lloyds Bank has apologized and refunded over £14,000, plus interest and £600 in compensation, to a woman whose late mother's account was targeted by direct debit fraud. The bank initially claimed the direct debits were legitimately set up and refused to refund the money. After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds conducted a new investigation and admitted its initial response was wrong. Vodafone, which received most of the stolen funds, is also reviewing the case and will provide details of a possible suspect to the police.

After being contacted by BBC Money Box, Lloyds started a new investigation and concluded that its initial response was wrong. They agreed to refund all of Margaret's money, plus interest and £600 by way of compensation. Vodafone also said they would provide the details of an individual who may have used Margaret's account to the police. Sue is grateful for the refund but hopes that someone will be held accountable for the fraud.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
"Marcos Galperin? Where does he work?" says the confused security guard at the entrance to the headquarters of MercadoLibre, Latin America's version of eBay. By Irene CaselliBusiness reporter, Buenos Aires, Argentina The answer to the official's question is that Mr Galperin is not only employed by MercadoLibre, he is actually the founder and boss - and worth an estimated $400m (£267m). In defence of the guard with a blank look on his face, 42-year-old Mr Galperin maintains a very low profile. "I see many entrepreneurs who use their company as a platform to be famous," says Mr Galperin. "For us it's exactly the opposite, we want the company to be famous. The lower our personal profile, the better." And so Mr Galperin goes to work at MercadoLibre's main base in Buenos Aires wearing jeans and trainers. And he most certainly doesn't arrive in a chauffeur-driven limousine. Deal with eBay MercadoLibre, which means "free market" in English, was founded in 1999 in Argentina, as an online marketplace and auction house. Mr Galperin, a native of Buenos Aires, had been inspired by US-based eBay while studying for an MBA, or master of business administration, at Stanford University in California. Today MercadoLibre is a household name across Latin America, where it is the most visited ecommerce website. It operates in 12 countries across the region, from Mexico in the north, down to the bottom tip of Chile in the south. And for the past four years it has also had its first European website, in Portugal. MercadoLibre has 109.6 million registered users, and last year enjoyed annual revenues of $473m. While this annual revenue figure is dwarfed by eBay's $16bn, MercadoLibre's turnover is growing twice as fast, as more and more people in Latin America gain access to the internet. And back in 2001, eBay itself was impressed enough by MercadoLibre to buy a 19.5% stake. As a key part of the deal, eBay also pledged not to enter Latin America for at least five years. Without competition from the global giant, MercadoLibre was free to go on and dominate in its region. Key car journey Born in Buenos Aires to a wealthy family in 1972, after finishing secondary school Mr Galperin was selected to play for Argentina's junior national rugby team. Instead he abandoned his dream of becoming a professional rugby player, and moved to the US to study finance at the University of Pennsylvania. Upon graduating, Mr Galperin returned to Argentina and spent three years working for YPF, one of the country's largest oil and gas companies. But wanting to instead do something more in the field of technology, in 1997 he successfully applied to Stanford University in California's Silicon Valley. After studying eBay, the idea of creating a Spanish (and then also Portuguese) language version for Latin America was born. Mr Galperin was quickly able to secure his first investor for MercadoLibre - thanks to a very important car journey. A private equity boss called John Muse had been invited to speak to the MBA students at Stanford, and Mr Galperin volunteered to drive Mr Muse back to his private plane. Mr Galperin used the journey to pitch his idea, and by the time they got to the airport where Mr Muse's jet was parked, the private equity boss had agreed to come on board. A number of multi-million dollar investments have followed, but Mr Galperin retains one of the largest shareholdings in MercadoLibre. Mr Galperin launched MercadoLibre when he returned to Argentina, with a number of his friends coming on board, including Pedro Arnt, who is today the company's chief finance officer. Tough economic conditions MercadoLibre had to immediately weather some stormy economic condtitions, which have continued to this day. In 2000 it had to battle through the bursting of the-then global dot.com bubble, and then a year later Argentina defaulted on its international debt, something that happened for a second time earlier this year. Yet MercadoLibre just kept on growing. On 9 August 2007 it floated shares on New York's Nasdaq exchange, on exactly the same day which many commentators say marked the start of the global financial crisis. For while MercadoLibre's shares were rising nicely on their debut, central banks around the world were having to inject billions of dollars in the financial markets to calm jittery investors. Mr Galperin says there is a simple reason why the company has been able to withstand weak economic conditions. "Volatile economies haven't hurt us thus far because we are much more dependent on the growth of broadband and mobile phones," he says. "Internet adoption has been growing very fast in every country in Latin America." Even the company's Venezuelan operation is said to be performing well, despite inflation in that country now running at more than 60%. Workaholic To get to MercadoLibre's headquarters, Mr Galperin commutes to Buenos Aires from Montevideo, the capital of neighbouring Uruguay, to where he and his wife and children moved to have a quieter family life. The flight is just a 45-minute hop across the River Plate estuary, but Mr Galperin also often works from either home, or the firm's office in Montevideo. A self-confessed workaholic, he says he "never detaches" himself from the business. "For me it is not a job really." The company now has 2,000 employees, and while Mr Galperin says he demands hard work, he also wants staff to enjoy themselves. "I like to work with people that I think are as smart, or smarter than me, but also that are fun," he says. "We work hard, but we also have a good time."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the founding story of MercadoLibre and its initial growth.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Marcos Galperin founded MercadoLibre in 1999 as an online marketplace and auction house, inspired by US-based eBay. Today, MercadoLibre is a household name across Latin America, where it is the most visited ecommerce website. It operates in 12 countries across the region, with 109.6 million registered users. Last year, it enjoyed annual revenues of $473m.

Galperin came up with the idea for MercadoLibre while studying for an MBA at Stanford University. He pitched the idea to a private equity boss he was driving to the airport, and the boss agreed to invest. MercadoLibre floated shares on the Nasdaq exchange in 2007.

Despite tough economic conditions in the countries it operates in, MercadoLibre has continued to grow. Galperin attributes this to the increasing adoption of broadband and mobile phones.

# Output (a):
MercadoLibre, Latin America's version of eBay, was founded in 1999 by Marcos Galperin, who was inspired by eBay while studying for an MBA at Stanford University in California. The online marketplace and auction house quickly gained popularity and now operates in 12 countries across Latin America and has its first European website in Portugal. In 2001, eBay bought a 19.5% stake in MercadoLibre and pledged not to enter Latin America for at least five years, allowing MercadoLibre to dominate the region. Despite facing economic challenges, the company continued to grow, and in 2007, it floated shares on New York's Nasdaq exchange.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
"Marcos Galperin? Where does he work?" says the confused security guard at the entrance to the headquarters of MercadoLibre, Latin America's version of eBay. By Irene CaselliBusiness reporter, Buenos Aires, Argentina The answer to the official's question is that Mr Galperin is not only employed by MercadoLibre, he is actually the founder and boss - and worth an estimated $400m (£267m). In defence of the guard with a blank look on his face, 42-year-old Mr Galperin maintains a very low profile. "I see many entrepreneurs who use their company as a platform to be famous," says Mr Galperin. "For us it's exactly the opposite, we want the company to be famous. The lower our personal profile, the better." And so Mr Galperin goes to work at MercadoLibre's main base in Buenos Aires wearing jeans and trainers. And he most certainly doesn't arrive in a chauffeur-driven limousine. Deal with eBay MercadoLibre, which means "free market" in English, was founded in 1999 in Argentina, as an online marketplace and auction house. Mr Galperin, a native of Buenos Aires, had been inspired by US-based eBay while studying for an MBA, or master of business administration, at Stanford University in California. Today MercadoLibre is a household name across Latin America, where it is the most visited ecommerce website. It operates in 12 countries across the region, from Mexico in the north, down to the bottom tip of Chile in the south. And for the past four years it has also had its first European website, in Portugal. MercadoLibre has 109.6 million registered users, and last year enjoyed annual revenues of $473m. While this annual revenue figure is dwarfed by eBay's $16bn, MercadoLibre's turnover is growing twice as fast, as more and more people in Latin America gain access to the internet. And back in 2001, eBay itself was impressed enough by MercadoLibre to buy a 19.5% stake. As a key part of the deal, eBay also pledged not to enter Latin America for at least five years. Without competition from the global giant, MercadoLibre was free to go on and dominate in its region. Key car journey Born in Buenos Aires to a wealthy family in 1972, after finishing secondary school Mr Galperin was selected to play for Argentina's junior national rugby team. Instead he abandoned his dream of becoming a professional rugby player, and moved to the US to study finance at the University of Pennsylvania. Upon graduating, Mr Galperin returned to Argentina and spent three years working for YPF, one of the country's largest oil and gas companies. But wanting to instead do something more in the field of technology, in 1997 he successfully applied to Stanford University in California's Silicon Valley. After studying eBay, the idea of creating a Spanish (and then also Portuguese) language version for Latin America was born. Mr Galperin was quickly able to secure his first investor for MercadoLibre - thanks to a very important car journey. A private equity boss called John Muse had been invited to speak to the MBA students at Stanford, and Mr Galperin volunteered to drive Mr Muse back to his private plane. Mr Galperin used the journey to pitch his idea, and by the time they got to the airport where Mr Muse's jet was parked, the private equity boss had agreed to come on board. A number of multi-million dollar investments have followed, but Mr Galperin retains one of the largest shareholdings in MercadoLibre. Mr Galperin launched MercadoLibre when he returned to Argentina, with a number of his friends coming on board, including Pedro Arnt, who is today the company's chief finance officer. Tough economic conditions MercadoLibre had to immediately weather some stormy economic condtitions, which have continued to this day. In 2000 it had to battle through the bursting of the-then global dot.com bubble, and then a year later Argentina defaulted on its international debt, something that happened for a second time earlier this year. Yet MercadoLibre just kept on growing. On 9 August 2007 it floated shares on New York's Nasdaq exchange, on exactly the same day which many commentators say marked the start of the global financial crisis. For while MercadoLibre's shares were rising nicely on their debut, central banks around the world were having to inject billions of dollars in the financial markets to calm jittery investors. Mr Galperin says there is a simple reason why the company has been able to withstand weak economic conditions. "Volatile economies haven't hurt us thus far because we are much more dependent on the growth of broadband and mobile phones," he says. "Internet adoption has been growing very fast in every country in Latin America." Even the company's Venezuelan operation is said to be performing well, despite inflation in that country now running at more than 60%. Workaholic To get to MercadoLibre's headquarters, Mr Galperin commutes to Buenos Aires from Montevideo, the capital of neighbouring Uruguay, to where he and his wife and children moved to have a quieter family life. The flight is just a 45-minute hop across the River Plate estuary, but Mr Galperin also often works from either home, or the firm's office in Montevideo. A self-confessed workaholic, he says he "never detaches" himself from the business. "For me it is not a job really." The company now has 2,000 employees, and while Mr Galperin says he demands hard work, he also wants staff to enjoy themselves. "I like to work with people that I think are as smart, or smarter than me, but also that are fun," he says. "We work hard, but we also have a good time."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the founding story of MercadoLibre and its initial growth.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

MercadoLibre, Latin America's version of eBay, was founded in 1999 by Marcos Galperin, who was inspired by eBay while studying for an MBA at Stanford University in California. The online marketplace and auction house quickly gained popularity and now operates in 12 countries across Latin America and has its first European website in Portugal. In 2001, eBay bought a 19.5% stake in MercadoLibre and pledged not to enter Latin America for at least five years, allowing MercadoLibre to dominate the region. Despite facing economic challenges, the company continued to grow, and in 2007, it floated shares on New York's Nasdaq exchange.

Marcos Galperin founded MercadoLibre in 1999 as an online marketplace and auction house, inspired by US-based eBay. Today, MercadoLibre is a household name across Latin America, where it is the most visited ecommerce website. It operates in 12 countries across the region, with 109.6 million registered users. Last year, it enjoyed annual revenues of $473m.

Galperin came up with the idea for MercadoLibre while studying for an MBA at Stanford University. He pitched the idea to a private equity boss he was driving to the airport, and the boss agreed to invest. MercadoLibre floated shares on the Nasdaq exchange in 2007.

Despite tough economic conditions in the countries it operates in, MercadoLibre has continued to grow. Galperin attributes this to the increasing adoption of broadband and mobile phones.