Happy and Gloria's

qwert_yuiop

I see Gloria hunniford got swindled by a lookalike con woman in a really remarkable bank fraud job, in the papers today. Santander employee had never heard of portadown's favourite daughter, and the scam even involved photocopying the fraudster's driving licence.
Looking at the pictures, I'd say police should be interviewing Barbara Windsor.

Cherryscone

I seen that ....the woman looked nothing like Gloria they got off with it and Gloria got her money back

butterflymum

From a MSE point of view, of additional concern is that the sum involved was £120,000. Given that the FSCS protection is £75,000 (previously £85,000), a large portion of her money would have been at risk had the bank gone under whilst she had her savings there. Either she wasn't aware of this or was happy to take the risk, but it does surprise me either way.

BOBS

This was absolutely no fault of Gloria Hunniford. Surely the bank are 100% to blame for not doing rigorous enough checks.
Surely FSCS protection wouldnt kick in in this instance. The bank and tellers were at fault.

qwert_yuiop

The bank did cover the losses, but it was interesting that someone in the public eye could be impersonated so easily. That's why the cashier was implicated. Not much hope for the rest of us.

butterflymum

BOBS wrote: »

This was absolutely no fault of Gloria Hunniford. Surely the bank are 100% to blame for not doing rigorous enough checks.
Surely FSCS protection wouldnt kick in in this instance. The bank and tellers were at fault.

Of course FSCS wouldn't apply to the situation reported, that's why I said ' a large portion of her money would have been at risk had the bank gone under whilst she had her savings there'.


I was highlighting the fact that even without someone being able to commit fraud and get at her money, a portion of her money was still at risk. Perhaps she also needs to consider this type of risk and highlight the potential pitfalls on her programme.

saverbuyer

butterflymum wrote: »

Of course FSCS wouldn't apply to the situation reported, that's why I said ' a large portion of her money would have been at risk had the bank gone under whilst she had her savings there'.


I was highlighting the fact that even without someone being able to commit fraud and get at her money, a portion of her money was still at risk. Perhaps she also needs to consider this type of risk and highlight the potential pitfalls on her programme.

I think her money was with Santander? If it ever got to the stage where the FSCS guarantee had to pay out on Santander collapse, I'd be stocking up on tinned goods rather than worrying about paper currency.