Looks like I've been the victim of an elaborate fraud on Gumtree

Stevie_Palimo

I_have_spoken wrote: »

Also report to Action Fraud - http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/contact-us

An expensive lesson

And why would you do this then ?

Action fraud do nothing at all so is a complete waste of your time and effort that may only get peoples hopes up for a resolution against the issue in hand.

soolin

bxboards wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment but I don't think it would work.

If they ignore the warnings on the site they are trying to purchase from, I think we can assume they would also ignore warnings elsewhere.

I think there is only so much handholding that can be done.

It would help if Action Fraud acutally acted or financial fraud was taken seriously, but sadly it will not be investigated. I would like to see prosecutions, jail sentences, and proceeds of crime confiscations, but it seems nobody has the will to enforce the law in this country anymore, and sadly like pyramid schemes, time share, binary trading and other scams, people will always ignore warnings and think 'it can't happen to me'....

I do accept what you are saying, I suppose I always worry in case people like the OP are vulnerable in some way. I have a couple of Facebook business pages and one of them has a number of people that I would consider vulnerable- just a bit naïve is probably a better description. They often copy me in on the round Robin scams on Facebook telling me how all I have to do is send a text to 'this' number and I can get a free £100 Tesco voucher, or telling e that if I give all my personal details (including my mothers maiden name!) to this site I can have a free holiday. At least once a week I am having to warn someone that there post is in fact a scam, and they are likely to be signed up for an expensive phone text service or have their details harvested by scammers.

On one of the selling sites I warned people about a very obvious scam involving expensive handbags- it was so obviously a scam but all I got for my trouble was a warning from admin that I would be removed from the site for interfering.

Cornucopia

If there is another angle on this, it is that some people do not understand that in an era where virtually everything online is ultimately traceable (certainly within the mainstream), our banking system has a rather older, freer culture in which certain kinds of transactions (most of them, in fact) are largely untraceable in the face of routine fraud and often irreversible.

I think it would be great if one or more of the banks could get together on this and introduce reversible low-value transactions, but I don't think that would have helped the OP, as I cannot see any bank being willing to underwrite a £700 transfer. I suppose the other option is to restrict the maximum value of a one-off bank transfer, and have higher values protected under some kind of verified destination scheme.

The essential message has to be that when using the UK banking system, it is sensible to assume that your transaction is untraceable and irreversible and take other precautions accordingly (the most obvious being the use of a proper trading platform such as eBay, and/or protected funds transfer such as Paypal).

Cornucopia

soolin wrote: »

On one of the selling sites I warned people about a very obvious scam involving expensive handbags- it was so obviously a scam but all I got for my trouble was a warning from admin that I would be removed from the site for interfering.

This is the kind of thing I find so frustrating - when the relevant authority cannot be bothered to do a little bit of investigation into shutting down fraud on their own platform.

soolin

Cornucopia wrote: »

If there is another angle on this, it is that some people do not understand that in an era where virtually everything online is ultimately traceable (certainly within the mainstream), our banking system has a rather older, freer culture in which certain kinds of transactions (most of them, in fact) are largely untraceable in the face of routine fraud and often irreversible.

I think it would be great if one or more of the banks could get together on this and introduce reversible low-value transactions, but I don't think that would have helped the OP, as I cannot see any bank being willing to underwrite a £700 transfer. I suppose the other option is to restrict the maximum value of a one-off bank transfer, and have higher values protected under some kind of verified destination scheme.

).

I don't think we need that at all as it would open a whole new scam- people accepting payment for things legitimately and then having the transaction reversed once services or goods have been supplied. I am happy with the current system, it is just I feel people should be more aware that bank transfers are only to be used when the recipient is known and trustworthy

Cornucopia

The issue is that people clearly either don't know that, or as is kind of the case with the OP, falsely assume on the basis of false evidence that the seller is trustworthy when they are not.

There are two procedural issues here: control over the money and validation of the identity of the seller. In some scenarios, the identity of the buyer might also need to be verified. In the event of an issue with any of that, there also needs to be an escalation point.

All of this works very well with AliExpress, for example, and in my experience most issues are resolved quickly and amicably without the need for intervention by the platform.

There's no getting away from those requirements, and I suppose the real question is: how could a level of protection be provided at a reasonable cost? Or in other words, which orientation for such transactions presents the least likelihood of fraud - control by the Seller or control by the Buyer?

I'm inclined to think that control by the Buyer is better, in that they would be placing cash into escrow, which is a gesture of partial trust in the transaction, potentially involving a secure means of payment.

Cornucopia

Which? have made a super-complaint about this issue...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2016/09/super-complaint-submitted-to-regulator-over-protection-for-victims-of-bank-transfer-scams

lush_walrus

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

And why would you do this then ?

Action fraud do nothing at all so is a complete waste of your time and effort that may only get peoples hopes up for a resolution against the issue in hand.

How do you know they do nothing? I had reason to report something to them and that was dealt with.

bxboards

Cornucopia wrote: »

Which? have made a super-complaint about this issue...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2016/09/super-complaint-submitted-to-regulator-over-protection-for-victims-of-bank-transfer-scams

I do not see how the banks have any responsibility here? There have been no errors or mistakes on their part, and the buyer authorized the payment. Banks ultimatately do need to act on a customer's wishes.

Unless a bank is given a duty to second guess every payment I can't see what they can do. Surely we would not expect the sending bank to reimburse the customer? If I lost a wallet in the street, I would not go running to the bank asking for them to give it back, and I do not see a whole lot of difference with people authorizing transactions in this case. The sender wanted to send the money to the recipient and the bank did as they were told.

This looks to me at going for the wrong target.

ballisticbrian

If you want the bank to reimburse someone for sending money to a stranger and not getting anything in return, I could just send someone I know 10,000 and go to the bank and pretend I've been ripped off.