Someone else signed up to ClearScore using my credentials

forgotmyname

I wonder if everyone thats had an alternate account opened in their name have been an equifax user previously?

Not fraud just an account issue with someone signing up twice with different usernames?

elle_may

Signed up to clear score, noticed some information not as good as noodle. But i was more worried that according to them i was not on the electoral role. Give them their due i used their complaint to equifax and a few days later and they had given me a reply.

Only trouble the link to their page to a set up account, to keep track of my complaint and give details of when i gone onto the E role would not let me in no matter what i did. So i will have to see if my monthly report has been updated with this, if not i will complain again and have to make sure i am on the main one. Never had credit declined so i hope this is clearscore's mistake.

Stalkwalkers

Well. It seems as though this is still an issue.

Clearscore allowed a fraudster to set up an account under my name in June 2017.

I was subsequently a victim of id fraud. Someone purchasing equipment through Currys with nothing more than a bank statement. Could have been a fake one for all I know.

We also just found out my wife also had an account set up.

They were very quick to resolve and lock the account, but from their defensive reply trying to convince of their security measures, it sounds as though this is a stock response, and a common one.

ID fraud seems to be very easy for criminals in the UK at the moment. Cifas registration is great, but it still relies on lenders to take notice of it. And those lenders are often fronted as salesman wanting to make a sale.

Sad thing is that lenders don’t even seem to bother to chase those who commit ID fraud and have fleeced them, as they outsource the finance, who have pre-budgeted for a certain loss to this.

eddddy

Stalkwalkers wrote: »

Sad thing is that lenders don’t even seem to bother to chase those who commit ID fraud and have fleeced them, as they outsource the finance, who have pre-budgeted for a certain loss to this.

As you suggest, it's a business decision.

If a finance company estimates that it would cost £150k to improve their anti-fraud measures which would reduce fraud by £100k, they prefer to save £50k by just letting the £100k of fraud happen.

That's also why the police don't take too much interest. Their view is that if finance companies choose to save money by not cracking down on fraud, they shouldn't expect the police to investigate the resulting fraud for free.