Credit Card Scam Victim

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

At least they will do something to trace the transfers and to catch the criminals. If nobody complains, they will freely keep stealing

Don't get me wrong, I share the sense of impotence, frustration and anger about this, I'm just not sure it's as simple as the bank will do something (they perhaps could), assuming the fraud is reasonably sophisticated. Remember that, as things stand, they haven't lost out at all and haven't (demonstrably) done anything wrong so it could be argued that they have no motivation to act - I don't know if the Action Fraud route would bring more pressure to bear perhaps?

grumbler wrote: »

Also, their security procedures seem to be not adequate if login details and a password are sufficient for transferring a big amount to a new payee.

OP said "the conmen have spent £16k on her credit card".

agrinnall

At the very least Action Fraud will provide a crime number which may make the bank think a bit harder about investigating.

shortcrust

grumbler wrote: »

It's a news to me that I cannot terminate a call if someone is calling me. What's the point? What if they simply forget/fail to terminate it? Does this mean that if I don't care about the cost of the call I can easily 'kill' anyone's landline simply by dialing their number?

When I was younger my grandparents would often not put their receiver back properly after calling. We'd pick up our phone an hour later and the line would still be open with them chatting happily in the background.:D Frustrating in the days when there was only one phone and no other way to contact friends.

grumbler

shortcrust wrote: »

When I was younger my grandparents would often not put their receiver back properly after calling. We'd pick up our phone an hour later and the line would still be open with them chatting happily in the background.:D Frustrating in the days when there was only one phone and no other way to contact friends.

I still don't understand why it works this way. I see absolutely no reasons whatsoever (including technical) for not enabling call termination by either side. I am pretty sure it is the case for mobile to mobile calls.

FireWyrm

grumbler wrote: »

It's a news to me that I cannot terminate a call if someone is calling me. What's the point? What if they simply forget/fail to terminate it? Does this mean that if I don't care about the cost of the call I can easily 'kill' anyone's landline simply by dialing their number?

It has always been the case with all phones. The caller initiates the call and only the caller can close the line by 'hanging up' their end. Until and unless they do, the line is still 'open' and if the recipient puts the phone down and then picks it up again and dials, they will still be talking to the same person on the line. This is exactly how this scam works and why given this situation, you should always call your bank from an independent line. Even waiting 10 minutes probably would have saved the victim.

As for the behaviour of the bank, this is fraud and she has a reasonable expectation that the bank will deal with it as such. She was tricked into revealing her details although the bank have and still continue to make a big song and dance about telephone security. I suggest she writes to them in the first instance explaining the situation and then take it to the financial ombundsman and upwards from there. She should also report it to ActionFraud and the police for a crime reference number. She should not have to pay for this and indeed, probably cannot anyway.

FireWyrm

grumbler wrote: »

I still don't understand why it works this way. I see absolutely no reasons whatsoever (including technical) for not enabling call termination by either side. I am pretty sure it is the case for mobile to mobile calls.

Well, it does work like that.

grumbler

eskbanker wrote: »

OP said "the conmen have spent £16k on her credit card".

I don't see why the conmen needed the 'internet password'. I assumed that it was online banking password and some balance transfer(s) initiated online.

grumbler

FireWyrm wrote: »

Well, it does work like that.

Well, if it works like this, it doesn't mean that it has to. If it makes no sense and causes problems, this has to be changed at last. It's 21st century and computers, not mechanical or man-operated switchboards.

FireWyrm

grumbler wrote: »

Well, if it works like this, it doesn't mean that it has to. If it makes no sense and causes problems, this has to be changed at last. It's 21st century and computers, not mechanical or man-operated switchboards.

Tell it to BT or Openreach. This is how it works with landlines and apparently, no matter how many times banks say they wont ask for it, there will always be people willing to divvy out their secured information to all and sundry who ask for it. It is called 'social conformity' and is the basis of most scams involving authority figures from the fictional 'gas board' to this newest scam.

JKSandy

BT have advised they will reduce the timeout which makes you wonder why they hadn't done it years ago.