identity fraud - Natwest acc in my name - NW does not want to know!

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

May I ask what law it is?

Of course you may. It isn't a single law, but a whole lot that could apply:

• Bribery Act 2010
• Computer Misuse Act 1990
• Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996
• Data Protection Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Money Laundering Regulations 2007
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
• Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
• Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
• Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
• Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

I have probably forgotten some......

Aside from the legal obligations, you need to also take plain common sense into consideration. If you are investigating fraud, the last thing that helps is to tell people about it so they can quickly post about it on the internet.

usignuolo

In my defence I would say that the only details of mine they have used appear to be name address and DOB. And if you read some of the other links I have supplied same is true there.

And as Nick above demonstrates it is possible to place an order and raise a DD with p4u and Orange using a valid sort code from one bank and a valid account number from a completely different bank to create a fake account. Then the bills start arriving at the address of the scammed person and it is up to them to prove it was not their debt.

I can't see how it is not in the bank's interest to tighten up on this. OK you may not have account holders name but surely the account number and branch code should match?

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

Of course you may. It isn't a single law, but a whole lot that could apply:

• Bribery Act 2010
• Computer Misuse Act 1990
• Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996
• Data Protection Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Money Laundering Regulations 2007
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
• Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
• Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
• Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
• Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

I have probably forgotten some......

Aside from the legal obligations, you need to also take plain common sense into consideration. If you are investigating fraud, the last thing that helps is to tell people about it so they can quickly post about it on the internet.

I have no problems with the common sense, but Bribery, Computers, Human Rights, ML obviously have nothing to do with this case. I guess the same applies to the rest as otherwise you would have been more specific.

Also, the OP just expected to hear from them that they were dealing with the case, not to get a report on what exactly "actions they were taking against fraud".

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

I have no problems with the common sense, but Bribery, Computers, Human Rights, ML obviously have nothing to do with this case. I guess the same applies to the rest as otherwise you would have been more specific.

May be you should become a Fraud Investigator since you would then know why the listed laws apply generically to all investigations, particularly when an investigation first starts.

I am not here to teach Fraud Investigation, and an open internet forum seems the wrong place for it anyway, so you need to address further questions to elsewhere.

Archi_Bald

usignuolo wrote: »

I can't see how it is not in the bank's interest to tighten up on this. OK you may not have account holders name but surely the account number and branch code should match?

If account number and sort code don't match, it's not a problem for the bank, or the account holder (not least because there isn't one). It's a problem for P4U because they won't ever see a penny for the phone (assuming Orange would pay them a cut of the contract fees).

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

....I am not here to teach Fraud Investigation, ...

We are lucky then.
Let's take, say, "Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984".

An Act to make further provision in relation to the powers and duties of the police, persons in police detention, criminal evidence, police discipline and complaints against the police

Are your seriously saying that private companies conducting their internal investigations have to comply with it?

AML regulations do apply to banks, but this particular case has nothing to do with ML.

System

nwc389 wrote: »

I think that the nat west account has not been opened in your name , they have used a combination of sort code and nat west acct no that they know would go through an initial screening but by the time further checks are made they have the phone.

From my casual trial of the Phones4U website, I think this is right (though I could be wrong!). It looks to me as though the scammers just give to Phones4U an account number which passes the modulus check, and a valid sort code, in this case one used by NatWest. If so, Natwest will not know anything about it, until Orange tries to set up a direct debit from a non-existent account. Even then, I guess that Orange will simply get sent some AUDDIS code meaning "no such account", and NatWest will take no action.
I think that the Phones4U website also asked for a credit (or debit?) card number. My guess (though again I could be wrong) is that Phones4U just do a test authorisation of 1p (or whatever) against this. I don't know if this also tests that the address matches the credit card company's records. Maybe all the scammers need is any valid credit card details?
Presumably Phones4U also did a credit check on the OP at the OP's address? If so, that would show up in one or more of the credit reference agency's records, and the OP is entitled to have any such entry/ies removed.

usignuolo

It seems that Nat West do not advise customers when a new DD is set up ontheir account ...."a NatWest spokesman said: “ …. It’s not our practice to advise customers when a new direct debit is set up ….” . So I do need to know if NatWest thinks it has an account in mine with a DD against it.

And even if it is an invalid account used, in some cases the phone supplier pursues the victim at their address anyway. The Guardian link above quotes Andy Firth and his partner, Jayne, "who both had phone contracts taken out by an impersonator who walked into a Tesco store – again handing over their real personal details but with bank details that were not theirs. Andy Firth faced a lengthy battle to get Tesco to deal with the matter, while Jayne was chased by debt collectors. "

So the problem seems to be that once the phone company has your name and address it is the victim who is pursued not the scammers regardless if a fake bank account was used.

One heartening story, I found, someone in Chesire got the mobile phone scam treatment and was able to detain the fake courier long enough to get him arrested by local police. He had 2 already collected phones in his possession and the address for another 2 to collect in his pocket. All told over £2000 phones. Sadly there would be zero chance of the Met Police coming over to arrest my fake courier, just not interested, they have more violent and serious crime to pursue.

In several cases last year three phone were delivered to the same address. I wonder if the phone companies have started to get wise to multiple deliveries hence my getting one phone and headphones.

Someone also said because my OH signed for the parcel, had we handed it back to the fake courier, we would have been legally liable. Any comments on that?

usignuolo

Nick I did speak to P4u and Orange. P4u said the original order was made in my name using a NatWest Account and they then passed the plan element onto Orange, (their contractor) I suspect automatically. The P4u guy said I would shortly get a confirmation/welcome letter from Orange which I should ignore as they would take care of closing it down. So far so good.

I then spoke to Orange, where I already have an account and they confirmed that yesterday morning early, a second account was set up in my name for the NatWest account and activated with phone number and plan.

This was despite the NatWest account being fake, it seems to have gone through on the nod. The Orange confirmation letter enclosed in with the phone was, as I described before, completely lacking in any information about me except name address DOB.

So both P4u were happy to sell phone and Orange to set up an unlimited plan with no information about me at all beyond something you could lift off the ER and a fake bank account which would not pass the simplest scrutiny...

System

usignuolo wrote: »

Someone also said because my OH signed for the parcel, had we handed it back to the fake courier, we would have been legally liable.

No. But you were 120% correct to contact Phones4U.

If you receive a demand for payment for unsolicited goods or services, you can ignore it. If the trader does this, they may have committed a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. You should report the matter to your trading standards department through Citizens Advice.

See
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/consumer_ni/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_problems_with_delivery_e/consumer_unsolicited_goods_e/youve_received_goods_or_services_you_didnt_ask_for_distance_sales.htm