Do the police do anything about credit card fraud?

chattychappy

I'm surprised by some of the posts.

The OP is clearly upset by what was a criminal act. The OP's post was interefered with and stuff stolen. Of course the OP is a victim.

In the very specific case of the card, the authorities have decided that the lender, not the cardholder is the true victim. This is because the cardholder is not liable for fraudulent transactions. Personally I think this is wrong - both parties are "victims" because of the upset and inconvenience caused. The decision as to victimhood was taken for efficiency reasons - in the case of CC fraud, it would be easier for lenders to collate data and work with the police at a higher level. That might be true of scams - eg rogue merchants, card skimming etc., but doesn't really apply in the case of "burglary with benefits" such as this.

It seems to me that the police have different priorities and this won't go any further.

muhandis

Ben8282 wrote: »

How do you imagine the police are going to find out who removed the post from your post box?

If you had bothered to read my initial post before jumping in to blame me, it will tell you exactly how I imagine the police will find the thief.

Ben8282 wrote: »

Also the victim here is Barclaycard. Not you. You have suffered no financial loss only minor inconvenience.

Read my post above. Of course I'm a victim as well. They stole my post and have my personal details. It might be a 'minor inconvenience' for you, definitely not so for me.

muhandis

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to write this.

I myself was starting to get confused as to why people seem to be blaming me or trivialising the whole incident.

chattychappy wrote: »

I'm surprised by some of the posts.

The OP is clearly upset by what was a criminal act. The OP's post was interfered with and stuff stolen. Of course the OP is a victim.

The very specific case of the card, the authorities have decided that the lender, not the cardholder is the true victim. This is because the cardholder is not liable for fraudulent transactions. Personally I think this is wrong - both parties are "victims" because of the upset and inconvenience caused. The decision as to victimhood was taken for efficiency reasons - in the case of CC fraud, it would be easier for lenders to collate data and work with the police at a higher level. That might be true of scams - eg rogue merchants, card skimming etc., but really in the case of "burglary with benefits" such as this.

It seems to me that the police have different priorities and this won't go any further.

PeacefulWaters

Of course I'm a victim as well. They stole my post and have my personal details.

If I'm not mistaken, any theft is from the senders of any stolen mail.

It might be a 'minor inconvenience' for you, definitely not so for me

It's very much how I'd feel. But not how the law necessarily views it.

I certainly wouldn't blame you for the situation.

Enterprise_1701C

I have to admit I am surprised by the lax security of some of the mailboxes that are bolted to the wall. Some of them you can actually lift the top and get full access to the contents.

And no, I did not "take advantage", I never would, but I was delivering leaflets and it just struck me that it would be way too easy to do.

Can I suggest to the OP that the simplest thing would be to have a letter box installed in the front door if you can? Or change your post box to a more secure one? They are now going to know yours is easily accessed.

muhandis

I think you are mistaken. Even the police acknowledge me as a victim of crime in the email giving me the crime referencefor my report - "As a victim below are details for various organisations that may be able to assist you....."

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, any theft is from the senders of any stolen mail.

It's very much how I'd feel. But not how the law necessarily views it.

I certainly wouldn't blame you for the situation.

chattychappy

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, any theft is from the senders of any stolen mail.

There are specific offences that deal with mail in transit. Once delivered to the correct address then it's in the legal possession of the recepient. In some cases the sender or a third party might still retain ownership claims - eg I post you my pen on the basis you are borrowing it. It's still my pen, but you have legal posession once delivered to your address.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

It's very much how I'd feel. But not how the law necessarily views it.

The law doesn't have much to say about victims. Crimes are generally viewed as crimes against society. Eg if I steal your pen, then you have a civil claim against me. But the state considers it bad for society if pens are taken away from their owners, so we have the theft acts. Hence you can have victimless crimes or victims without crimes. There have been some nods in the direction of victims, eg impact statements, compensation in some circumstances, penalties that consider victims, bail conditions etc.

jevoudrais

Bob Monkhouse years ago told a story about a man who's wife had her handbag stolen. The handbag contained a number of credit and debit cards. The man didn't report the cards stolen for 2 years . When asked why he said the thief was spending less than his wife

jevoudrais

Beenie wrote: »

I had my card details lifted when someone took a peek in my unattended bag. With that info, they spent a lot of money on a Sainsbury home delivery. Ha ha thought I, we have their address, but Sainsbury would not cooperate with me due to Data Protection (that old chestnut) and the police weren't interested as it was a house in multiple occupation so not possible to pinpoint the thief. The bank refunded my money but the system is so lax that there isn't much to discourage the thiefs and antisocial types amongst us.

How much did they spend on the card please ?

Did you get your money back under section 75 claim please ?

eddddy

Regarding the Barclaycard fraud (rather than the theft of mail), if Barclaycard persue this they will do it directly with the police.

TBH, they probably won't tell you much about it, just in case you were involved in the fraud, and they probably don't want to disclose too much about if/how they investigate such frauds.


Also, the police seem to be increasingly taking the view that if CC companies, shops, petrol stations etc choose to have lax security (to reduce costs and improve customer experience), it's not the police's job to 'pick up the pieces' when they are defrauded.

i.e.

• If CC companies choose to send cards and PINs by ordinary post, the CC companies have to live with the consequential fraud.

• If shops choose to have inadequate security for their goods, the shops have to live with the consequential theft.

Because it's unreasonable that businesses should save money by having lax security, and then expecting the police to deal with the consequences.