Victim of romance fraud

eskbanker

born_again said:

I doubt you will get copies of call recordings, but might get transcripts of them.

Does your employer refuse to provide recordings when responding to SARs requesting these, and if so, on what grounds?  My understanding is that they're in scope for DPA and transcription, even if capturing all words accurately, obviously can't convey tone, which could be significant in the context of OP's mother and how confident, hesitant or vulnerable she sounded....

Brie

Deleted User said:

Brie said:

If at any point you get proof of your mother saying she "met" (in person or online) this person and they had both suffered bereavements that in itself should signal potential fraud.  I know that people do genuinely meet in this way but it is such a common thing for fraudsters.  Consolation is a common and well know fraudster tactic.

A lonely person meeting another person for friendship, romance or 'companionship' signals potential fraud? Are you serious?! Lonely people will do lots of 'odd' things including staying in mismatched and abusive relationships.

Precisely.  Nothing the matter with meeting like situated individuals but if there's that and then there's the money being moved about then that's a warning sign.

I did wonder what the relationship the OP's mother was like with her husband.  If he was the dominant partner (as was common for the husband in previous generations) or was dominating or worst of all financially or emotionally abusive to her then she is more likely to go into another similar relationship - that's human nature.  

Check out page 13
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/central/advice/thames-valley/fraud/little-book-big-scams.pdf

born_again

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

I doubt you will get copies of call recordings, but might get transcripts of them.

Does your employer refuse to provide recordings when responding to SARs requesting these, and if so, on what grounds?  My understanding is that they're in scope for DPA and transcription, even if capturing all words accurately, obviously can't convey tone, which could be significant in the context of OP's mother and how confident, hesitant or vulnerable she sounded....

Don't know on SAR requests. But on complaints it is a transcript. As too many times in the past people have then complained that the format used is not good for them, when recordings are sent out...

colsten

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

I doubt you will get copies of call recordings, but might get transcripts of them.

Does your employer refuse to provide recordings when responding to SARs requesting these, and if so, on what grounds?  My understanding is that they're in scope for DPA and transcription, even if capturing all words accurately, obviously can't convey tone, which could be significant in the context of OP's mother and how confident, hesitant or vulnerable she sounded....

Surely it's a lot cheaper and faste for the bank to just provide the recording, anyway, rather than having to create a transcript, and a demonstrably accurate transcript at that?

born_again

Cardriver45 said:

Unfortunately, she also gave them all the bank and card details which she's told the bank, she says.

Although she bought the gift cards herself, the suspect also purchased other items using her card.

As far as what she told the bank I'm not sure on that one as I would need to hear the recordings or see the transcripts. She says she told them it was a group of his friends when they asked who they were. But I don't know if she told them any more than that.

Sorry if I've not made everything clear or understood some things. I was diagnosed as Asperger's so sometimes my understanding isn't always clear. 

Story is changing too much here.

Cardriver45

born_again said:

Cardriver45 said:

Unfortunately, she also gave them all the bank and card details which she's told the bank, she says.

Although she bought the gift cards herself, the suspect also purchased other items using her card.

As far as what she told the bank I'm not sure on that one as I would need to hear the recordings or see the transcripts. She says she told them it was a group of his friends when they asked who they were. But I don't know if she told them any more than that.

Sorry if I've not made everything clear or understood some things. I was diagnosed as Asperger's so sometimes my understanding isn't always clear. 

Story is changing too much here.

I'm sorry if it appears that way but this is a massive complex scam that he pulled on my mother. I'm totally out of my depth and trying to explain it as best I can.

There was over 4000 screen shots of all the whatsapp converstations and then I'm trying to get the story and picture from my mum who is in a state about it all and hates having to even think about it. 

Zanderman

Cardriver45 said:

Unfortunately, she also gave them all the bank and card details which she's told the bank, she says.

born_again said:

Story is changing too much here.

OP stated in the opening post that:

The suspect also used my Mum's card to buy items of clothing and convinced my mother into sending them to him that he claimed he was buying for his lawyer to thank him for helping out in sorting out the tax he owed on the supposedly inherited house.

I'm not sure what you think has changed?

Cardriver45

The bank have paid back £750 of the £1500 that my mother paid into the scammers UK account and paid back the £2000 that she paid to a foreign account. They said they felt they could have given more advice.

They said they are paying back 50% for the first one because my mother paid it to someone she had known only a few weeks but felt they should have given more advice.

They are paying back 100% of the second one because they felt if they should have given better advice the first time.

I guess they must have listened to the tapes after my SAR request.

Cardriver45

CurryGuy said:

Cardriver45 said:

The bank have paid back £750 of the £1500 that my mother paid into the scammers UK account and paid back the £2000 that she paid to a foreign account. They said they felt they could have given more advice.

They said they are paying back 50% for the first one because my mother paid it to someone she had known only a few weeks but felt they should have given more advice.

They are paying back 100% of the second one because they felt if they should have given better advice the first time.

I guess they must have listened to the tapes after my SAR request.

I really don't like the sound of this. Why should banks be giving advice on what people do with their money when they are choosing to transfer money themselves.

It's already annoying enough to have to choose a reason why I'm making a transfer with some banks and i really don't think the bank should be doing any checks beyond is it genuinely the customer do this transfer. If they are silly enough to fall for a scam it's not the banks fault and they certainly shouldn't be paying back any of the money.

Also I've read this whole thread and you didn't answer when someone asked if your mother told you about any of this when it was happening? This was ongoing for 11 months and she didn't mention anything about this person even though she sent them pictures of you and told them about your birthdays etc.?. 

If your mum kept all this secret from everyone for 11 months then she knew what she was doing wasn't right so she isn't completely innocent. 

It's solved to our satisfaction now and thanks to everyone who helped.

The bank made their decesion.

If you are not happy with that and want to judge us then that is fine. It is not my problem as that is up to you as you are going from your own biased view without knowing all the facts.

I don't need to justify myself or my families actions anymore or answer anymore questions as it is all solved.

Please feel free to close this thread if you wish admins as I no longer need to or engage with anyone other than to again say thanks to everyone who helped.

eskbanker

CurryGuy said:

Cardriver45 said:

The bank have paid back £750 of the £1500 that my mother paid into the scammers UK account and paid back the £2000 that she paid to a foreign account. They said they felt they could have given more advice.

They said they are paying back 50% for the first one because my mother paid it to someone she had known only a few weeks but felt they should have given more advice.

They are paying back 100% of the second one because they felt if they should have given better advice the first time.

I guess they must have listened to the tapes after my SAR request.

I really don't like the sound of this. Why should banks be giving advice on what people do with their money when they are choosing to transfer money themselves.

It's already annoying enough to have to choose a reason why I'm making a transfer with some banks and i really don't think the bank should be doing any checks beyond is it genuinely the customer do this transfer. If they are silly enough to fall for a scam it's not the banks fault and they certainly shouldn't be paying back any of the money.

In 2019, the main banks signed up to the voluntary Authorised Push Payment code, under which they accept responsibility for reimbursing (many) customers who fall for such scams, so unsurprisingly the flip side of that responsibility is that they take preventive measures to avoid the losses in the first place, or at least enough to put the responsibility back on the customer if they elect to ignore warnings. 

If you want to circumvent such checks, there's nothing stopping you from choosing one of the smaller banks with fewer responsibilities and correspondingly fewer checks....