£2500 stolen by online company, bank doesnt care and charged me about £600 charges

cyberbob

toffe wrote: »

how do you know?

if what the op says is true and the "product" or service as the case may be, was advertised as a lifetime membership for a one off £25 fee and then the company fraudulently charged a further £2,500 to the op's card then the funds were most certainly stolen.

fraudulently charging someones card is theft. FACT!

Your jumping to a lot of conclusions here. All the OP has told us is £2500 was debited and they got bank charges. They have also said they signed up to a website. We know nothing of the details of the contract. The OP does not even wish to tell us the name of the website. So I'll jump to a conclusion that there is far more to this than what the OP has said.

Without the OP actually giving us some details we do not know if it was fraud, a mistake or the OP not reading the small print correctly.

Freddie_Snowbits

Do not worry Bob, the Kids are back at school today

cyberbob

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Do not worry Bob, the Kids are back at school today

They've been back for weeks here (Scotland):D

garth549

If it is just a case of charging you £2500 for something that should have been £25 it should be relatively straight forward to get back as you can dispute the charge as an "incorrect amount billed" (provided it is a visa debit card, not sure if maestro or others offer the same protection). This happened to me in a restaurant once - the girl behind the desk had just accidently typed the wrong amount in to charge to the card.

Im suprised the bank hasnt been more helpful. Ive had my card details stolen twice before and used on the internet for "dodgy sounding" websites and the bank took care of it really quickly both times. Refunded my charges as well. I know yours hasnt been stolen, but it surely comes under the obtaining money by deception/fraud umbrella. Unless theres more your not telling us. Any overseas internet transaction the banks are usually very wary of except for maybe ones from the USA

Toe-Jam

joeyboy wrote: »

not !!!!!! or something else embarrassing is it? Just thought you might name and shame otherwise..

That was exactly my diagnosis lol, although for that amount i'd have expected the Thai Bride to have arrived by now.

toffe

cyberbob wrote: »

Your jumping to a lot of conclusions here. All the OP has told us is £2500 was debited and they got bank charges. They have also said they signed up to a website. We know nothing of the details of the contract. The OP does not even wish to tell us the name of the website. So I'll jump to a conclusion that there is far more to this than what the OP has said.

Without the OP actually giving us some details we do not know if it was fraud, a mistake or the OP not reading the small print correctly.

the op actually sated that the product was advertised as a £25 lifetime membership and then £2500 was debited, thats not jumping to conclusions it's working with what little information has been provided.

mynameisdave

They also say the bank won't do anything because they authorised repeat payments. Therefore we can also assume the possibility 100 items were billed before OP got the bank to stop the charges (presumably only stopped one the OP ran out of money).

joeyboy

mynameisdave wrote: »

They also say the bank won't do anything because they authorised repeat payments. Therefore we can also assume the possibility 100 items were billed before OP got the bank to stop the charges (presumably only stopped one the OP ran out of money).

£25 per hr, web page was left on while OP was away for a long weekend?



But seriously a little more information on what the product/service was would help, seems to me if the amount is EXACTLY £2,500, it is a clear case of the decimal point being removed on their system. So I'd have thought it wouldn't be too hard to sort it out as even online companies generally email some sort of invoice? I'll admit, I'm not sure if sites catering to certain services give any sort of documentation..I suppose the point is they don't actually.

toffe

mynameisdave wrote: »

They also say the bank won't do anything because they authorised repeat payments. Therefore we can also assume the possibility 100 items were billed before OP got the bank to stop the charges (presumably only stopped one the OP ran out of money).

i don't think thats exactly what the op said, i don't see anything about the bank saying the payments were authourised, how would they know if the op authourised them or not?

mynameisdave

They [OP] said the bank won't do anything because they {op] authoriseed repeat payments...

I think this is pretty much what OP said when they stated that "Bank refuse to help as they say I authorised the right to continous payment"

Either way, its a moot point. Until OP comes back and sheds more light on the matter we can only speculate.