Identity Theft

[Tim Lund]

Just sent this secure message to my bank

Dear Sirs

I am pleased that you have now refunded the £2,500 which was fraudulently removed from my account 7th December, but I am baffled that nothing was done about this when I had reported the unexpected appearance of new account when logging in to my accounts 2nd December.

I understand from the conversation I had yesterday that someone had gone into a branch with various of my personal details, such as address, DOB, and phone numbers, which I can understand might be obtainable from the internet, but I cannot understand why you would not have verified the application by calling my mobile, or sending me a message via this system.

I am none the worse for this experience now, but it was somewhat stressful, and could have been far worse if important payments had been prevented.

I would be interested to know what you will be doing to prevent this happening again, with other customers.

Anyone else had a similar experience?

[mosy]

Not quite the same, but Barclays (Edit: Oops, specifically Barclaycard Mastercard credit card) asked me to confirm recent payments, one of which was clearly not mine (being $400 cash drawn on a US bank I've never even heard of) so I have to fill in a fraud document form. The charge amount has gone from my account but with their right to reinstate it, so mine is in limbo for now.

There was a question in the House (PMQs last week I think) where it was asked why Barclays were dragging their feet repaying amounts they clearly accept as fraudulent.

I asked their bank person how it could possibly have happened (having kept card secure and only use it for one particular reputable retailer). Needless to say "Looking into it". IMO clearly the fault was at their end, not mine and they sure will never admit that.

Hey ho - as long a you/we get our money back.

[Sydenham]

Hey ho - as long a you/we get our money back.

Whilst essential that this happens (quote above) this is not the end of the matter. Unfortunately authorities and regulations are setting things up so that "getting your money back" appears to be the only thing that is considered important to the individual. Morality doesn't seem to come into decisions to prosecute any more - prosecution is only considered when sums are large.

That is why the police will not consider any complaint from an individual because 'you haven't lost anything - you have your money back'. This is why banks often don't bother investigating if the sum is under a certain amount - it is cheaper for them just to write the loss off - they are not concerned with the aggravation caused to the individual. I once wanted to pursue a prosecution following unauthorised withdrawal of funds from my account but was told by the police it wasn't anything to do with me and that the police would need to receive a data protection disclosure form from the bank before they would talk to me about the circumstances - because "I wasn't the victim".

The banks could make their systems more secure if they wanted - and improve processes such as doing what Tim suggested ('speak to the customer') but this will cost money / require investment, which they would rather not do. The customer who suffers fraud pays the cost in a lot more than money - none of which is a cost to the institutions.

I wish their was a way to do without them - the banks and electronic transfers. How best can one take control of one's own money with today's systems and need for electronic remote fund transfer? Any ideas??

[Tim Lund]

The banks could make their systems more secure if they wanted - and improve processes such as doing what Tim suggested ('speak to the customer') but this will cost money / require investment, which they would rather not do.

The fraudsters set up an account purporting to be mine - which is how I could see it - but where they apparently could make telephone withdrawals - I think that was what I was told. And they did, to the tune of £500, i.e. two times the daily limit. So that's how much the bank will have lost - and the cost of their fraud investigation team's time. I can't see that they wouldn't have saved money for themselves by phoning or messaging me first.

[Sydenham]

They would have had to build in a process to generate an intervention based on the circumstances to put a request to call you onto someone's workflow. They do this in some circumstances - as potentially fraudulent transactions sometimes initiate a call from someone in the bank's fraud team. However I am certain they only want to do this in a limited amount of circumstances - otherwise they would need to employ more people to be available to make these calls. They calculate a 'limit' that makes sense for them - not the customer - and stick with it.

They might argue that most customers would prefer the 'odd' fraudulent transaction going through that is repaid quickly, than be bothered all the time with calls from the bank asking whether transactions are authorised or not.

My point is that they do not allow the customer a say in when to be bothered - I personally would be happy to receive more calls from my bank if it reduced the possibility of fraudsters getting through. They look at it from their cost effectiveness.

[Tim Lund]

You may be right, but with the increasing amount of personal information out there on the internet, and criminals trading in it, I'd have thought the trade-off for banks will be moving strongly towards making such additional checks

[mosy]

I've no idea how your identity was stolen such that someone else could actually set up an account in your name. The bank probably wishes it knew

I've received several calls in the past from my bank on my mobile but unfortunately they all want to "take me through security" (you've got to be kidding, but no doubt some call-ees panic and agree) so I've always refused especially since I've told them several times to contact me only on my landline (or by letter or email even) and have removed my mobile number via their website and made especial calls through telephone banking to achieve that, yet still their calls come on my mobile... so how can I possibly trust such a call? Hopeless.

Refusing to comply (when they call) does have the downside that they can then refuse to a allow genuine payment (bitter experience), even though they refuse to tell me point blank why they are calling me in the first place (data protection). Gordian knot or what?

Checking transactions more regularly than most of us would think necessary is probably the best advice. I have won an odd battle where a bank was trying to have it both ways but it does mean time and effort trying to push a snowball uphill.

[Tim Lund]

I've received several calls in the past from my bank on my mobile but unfortunately they all want to "take me through security" (you've got to be kidding, but no doubt some call-ees panic and agree) so I've always refused

I've had similar experiences, and am also suspicious, although the last time it was from Visa checking up a transaction which was in fact genuine.

So I'm all the more puzzled that in this case the bank couldn't be bothered to call to confirm. Amusingly, I've just had another call from the bank to ask if I felt their service was good when the fraudster rang them to withdraw money from my account

I think there has to be something with branch staff getting rewarded for selling new products, and not having a proper incentive to check up on fraud.