HSBC fraud prevention

anotherpaul_2

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

what im questionning is the suggestion that a complete 'randomer' would have my phone number and know my full name .

You've never given you full name and phone number to a company who might have given it away (either intentionally or accidental - thrown it away without shreading, had a member of staff steal data, etc)? Or an individual who might have done the same? Are you sure? You've never come across a data protection breach?

Unless you never give out your telephone number to anyone, it would be foolhardy to assume that anyone with the information is definitely legitimate and not corrupt. They might be, but personally I wouldn't trust my financial identidy to it and I'd strongly advise you and anyone else not to either.

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

Fair play to them though, they should start playing the lottery with abilities like that;)

Lotteries are clearly easier to win then my experience had suggested.

[Deleted User]

anotherpaul wrote: »

You've never given you full name and phone number to a company who might have given it away (either intentionally or accidental - thrown it away without shreading, had a member of staff steal data, etc)? Or an individual who might have done the same? Are you sure?

100% thanks, i never get marketing calls and ive had the same mobile and home number for 7 years. Then again i always tick the 'do not contact me with further offers etc' box.

Personally i was just stating an opinion which i think came across wrong. The impression i was getting from majority of posters was because you dont know the number you wont speak to them. And because the number they provided for you to call back on is different to that of which you know, you refuse to call them back because they appear hypocritical

I dont know, it just seems a bit silly, people moan when fraud is committed on a card because they cant use it, then moan when the banks use fraud prevention methods..

Im happy to agree to disagree on this one, obviously we all have different experiences regarding data protection calls.

anotherpaul_2

Yeah, I think we should agree to disagree. We may be misunderstanding each other, but it doesn't look like we're going to resolve that and I'm not looking for a fight or to upset anyone. (I suspect I tend towards more paranoia than necessary :-) )

Personally, I'm happy for the CCCo to stop my card if it gets used for fraud (it's not happened to me yet) or even if they think it been used that way and it hasn't. But I know where your coming from on that one.

mynx

So are you saying that peoples names and numbers cannot be obtained from either the 192.com or via a search engine? Seriously?

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

Knowing your name and telephone number is enough surely? how would anyone else get these details, all you need to confirm is DOB.

mynx

I'm afraid you are wrong here. I can name at least 3 banks through personal experience that call if they are querying fraudulent activity. Those being HSBC, Natwest and Barclays.

In HSBC's case, they ring to say there *has* been fraudulent activity, rather than "potential" fraudulent activity on the account. When it has been confirmed that in fact the transactios are correct and you remind them that you have already informed them you will be out of the country and to expect foreign transactions, that is when they say they have cancelled your card because it has been compromised. They then come up with a story of it being a seperate issue.

In fact when pressed they had not cancelled the card at all. They had put some restrictions on the account.

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

My suggestion about banks though is that they rarely call you unless you have an outstanding debt with you, apologies to you if they call you on a regular basis to try and sell you a loan, they must be desperate:rolleyes:

mynx

I don't think anyone is undermining fraud prevention measures at all. But in the case of potential fraud, then Natwest seem to have the best policy. Contact the client, leave a message, when the client rings back confirm the transactions are accurate, if there is a length of time between the message being left and the client contact then they can put a hold on the card.

But it seems to me, that, cancelling the card of someone for a *potential* fraud especially when they happen to be out of the country and actually its more of a risk them sending another card whilst they are away is just totally the WRONG way.

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

I dont know, it just seems a bit silly, people moan when fraud is committed on a card because they cant use it, then moan when the banks use fraud prevention methods..

Im happy to agree to disagree on this one, obviously we all have different experiences regarding data protection calls.