SCAM!! Over £8000 Taken from account

Uxb1

Part of the reason is for example where a employee in a large organizations phones out from a private unlisted direct number within the organization but for various legit reasons (including regulatory/legal ones) do not want the number they are calling from to be displayed to the user - so instead the system automatically mask the true CLI by substituting in the CLI of the organizations main switchboard.

gazza85

born_again said:

If she made the call from her mobile to the number on the back of the card, that will have been the bank. As a mobile network is not run in the same way as a landline. So the number you dial is the number call goes too.
On a mobile, when either party ends the call that is it. It's cut off. Unlike a landline which can be held open by the caller, not ending the call.

That's good then, she has the outgoing call to the bank that morning listed along with the calls made the next day on her mobile call log.. They have already denied a record / voice recording of this call so will be interesting to see what they do. she also has a call to deliveroo just after to show her call was regarding the fraud on her account.

born_again

gazza85 said:

born_again said:

If she made the call from her mobile to the number on the back of the card, that will have been the bank. As a mobile network is not run in the same way as a landline. So the number you dial is the number call goes too.
On a mobile, when either party ends the call that is it. It's cut off. Unlike a landline which can be held open by the caller, not ending the call.

That's good then, she has the outgoing call to the bank that morning listed along with the calls made the next day on her mobile call log.. They have already denied a record / voice recording of this call so will be interesting to see what they do. she also has a call to deliveroo just after to show her call was regarding the fraud on her account.

Wonder if they mean the rep did not make a note. 
Complaint needs raising on that, as the call will be logged in the call system & as the caller knows the exact time it was made. Then the task of finding it is very easy.
Of course they need to check that the number dialled is the one on the card 1st.

gazza85

Wonder if they mean the rep did not make a note. 

Complaint needs raising on that, as the call will be logged in the call system & as the caller knows the exact time it was made. Then the task of finding it is very easy.
Of course they need to check that the number dialled is the one on the card 1st.

Exact time of call was originally given... claimed no record of it.. time of call listed on phone under the same number as calls they do acknowledge receiving the next day.. So as of 8:36 (Plus the 18mins she was on the call) that morning, she thought The Bank had her back on this one and were taking action and they should have.

Uxb1

About 10+ years ago I had a financial group claim no record of my call - saying  that "only some calls" are recorded.
They rapidly had a change of attitude when I provided my BT phone record showing the number dialled made, the time of it and the call duration.  In this case it was not a vitally important call and they rapidly agreed to make the change I had requested in the call but had not done.
I did resolve after that to start recording critical financial calls myself - though the advent of online accounts and online secure messaging has now taken over from calls for me.

gazza85

Uxb1 said:

About 10+ years ago I had a financial group claim no record of my call - saying  that "only some calls" are recorded.
They rapidly had a change of attitude when I provided my BT phone record showing the number dialled made, the time of it and the call duration.  In this case it was not a vitally important call and they rapidly agreed to make the change I had requested in the call but had not done.
I did resolve after that to start recording critical financial calls myself - though the advent of online accounts and online secure messaging has now taken over from calls for me.

   I will give the fraud team the only two scenarios I can see when we next call up, either their phone lines were compromised by the fraudsters (supposedly not possible) or they had taken a call to report fraudlent activity that morning and no action was taken.. fraudsters then swooped in and took advantage of her belief the bank was looking after her.

dggar

gazza85 said:

Uxb1 said:

About 10+ years ago I had a financial group claim no record of my call - saying  that "only some calls" are recorded.
They rapidly had a change of attitude when I provided my BT phone record showing the number dialled made, the time of it and the call duration.  In this case it was not a vitally important call and they rapidly agreed to make the change I had requested in the call but had not done.
I did resolve after that to start recording critical financial calls myself - though the advent of online accounts and online secure messaging has now taken over from calls for me.

   I will give the fraud team the only two scenarios I can see when we next call up, either their phone lines were compromised by the fraudsters (supposedly not possible) or they had taken a call to report fraudlent activity that morning and no action was taken.. fraudsters then swooped in and took advantage of her belief the bank was looking after her.

This raises the question of how fraudsters would know when to swoop in.

gazza85

Yes...my auntie (the bank manager) has said it's strange and was this some kind of inside job.. Somone leaking people to try.. strong accusation, but one that she put forward! I believe more likely  the initial transaction was to lay the seed and then hope fraud was spotted/reported to then act as the fraud team later on . It's just coincidence the bank didn't act on her initial call. 

Shakin_Steve

I used to use an app called ACR to record all of my calls but google, in it's wisdom, decided that it was probably illegal in some jurisdictions and stopped the number being shown. Also didn't work unless you put hands free on so a waste of time.
I struggle to understand why it's ok for you to be recorded but not to be able to record.

Sandtree

mazzetti said:

Thanks for explaining that it cannot be done by technology but I am a bit of a loss as to understand why

for example if I have a landline or a mobile phone there is a hard coded number in that or at least there is an unchanged number with that so why can I call from my landline and have a different number displayed at the recepient if I wanted to

It may be the way the technology works today but I would have thought the technology could be changed. Certainly the service provider knows my 'real' number because that's how I get billed so why can't the service provider only display the real number and disallow any changes

There are two considerations, your illustration is fine when you are considering a BT customer on a hardwired phone line calling another BT customer also on a hardwired phone line... you have one company controlling the whole thing with a single line.

Firstly, the days of hardwired phones are waning... in big business they are almost gone already as calls go via the internet (aka VOIP) and even in the home VOIP is starting to catch on. So I have VOIP software and hardware that I can use on any device or internet connection anywhere in the world so the physical line or even IP cannot be used to identify me. Also the people I call can also be anywhere in the world and with any telecoms provider, so if I phoned you on your hardwired BT landline my phone provider would have to tell BT what my telephone number is (aka CLI) to display but BT have no way of verifying either that the number is correct and/or if my account has been compromised.

Now consider a multinational outsourcing contact centre company.... they have 15 sites in 6 countries with 1,000 contact centre agents at each site phoning up customers of their 2,000 clients. If a UK bank has outsources its customer satisfaction callbacks to this company then it will want its telephone number to display on the customer's phone be the agent in Belfast, Bratislava or Bangalore. When that agent then makes a call off the same computer to hotel company's customer to confirm their booking then clearly both the bank and hotel would want a different number displayed so you have both multiple people in multiple sites in multiple countries needing to use the same CLI plus the same person on the same hardware needing to use multiple CLI.

In theory you could say to create a global database of every single telephone number and every single phone (software or hardware) that is entitled to use it and that every handoff between telephone providers has to be checked against this database to validate the caller is legitimately using a particular CLI... and then you have the reality of trying to implement and maintain such a system. Who pays for it? How do you police it?

Back when I had my small business the flexibility of the system was great, I had a London, New York, Paris and UK non-geographic telephone number that all rang through to my physical phone in my home office and the software on my iphone. Try getting a person in the US to dial an internationally number is a nighmare... most dont even know how to!  I could call out from my home office, my mobile or my laptop and choose which of those numbers (or my UK mobile) that I wanted to display therefore not confusing those in the USA as to why a +44 number is calling when they called a (212) number. Similarly I can call from anywhere in the world for the same cost as calling from my home office.