Why do UK victims of ID fraud have few rights?

Irratus_Rusticus

Finally a victim of ID fraud at 70. Spent years paranoid about identity security. Shredding everything with identifiers. Not on social media. Not on public electoral role. No-one has any physical access to my papers. Paranoid about PC security. Never use wifi for banking. Never use same passwords anywhere.

I find it astonishing how little fraudsters need to steal your identity: name, address and DOB. And in my case a false bank account at a bank I don't use.

Mobile phone seller searched my credit file and never noticed I didn't use that bank. When I got letter about a direct debit mandate I googled the sort code and rang the bank. They assured me no account was opened in my name and the account number didn't show up either.

I've done everything advised: action fraud crime number, CIFAS protective registration, signed up to Clearscore and MSE credit club, and in the end opted for CheckMyFile to get access to all three records as and when. Added passwords to my credit files. Luckily I'm an old git who doesn't need new credit, leastways not forseeably.
But I have no right to know/see what happened! Unlike the USA.

The phone seller would tell me nothing. Wanted me to give my DOB and my email address to 'validate' an application I didn't make. I refused. Seller said they couldn't respond to my dispute/complaint without my email address. I said it was a shame they didn't take that approach when letting me be defrauded. Said I sent recorded delivery dispute/complaint letter to seller and copied in the bank in question and expected them to pay for a stamp each to reply in kind.

Irony is, to get on CheckMyFile I was asked to use my mobile to photograph a government photo ID and take a selfie. Took less than a few minutes to get verified.

Why doesn't the law require online or phone-in credit applicants do the same or at least something more than name, address and DOB? I think the 'man' is happy for us to be victims of fraud to make selling stuff painless. As long as they have an address and a name, they have a patsy to harass. And backup insurance for their loss.

Am now checking my three credit records every hour.

MEM62

Irratus_Rusticus said:

The phone seller would tell me nothing. Wanted me to give my DOB and my email address to 'validate' an application I didn't make. I refused. Seller said they couldn't respond to my dispute/complaint without my email address. I said it was a shame they didn't take that approach when letting me be defrauded. 

The basis of your complaint is that an account was setup in your name without proper checks - yet you expect the company to communicate with you and deal with your complaint and communicate with you without establishing who you are.  You can't have it both ways. 

Irratus_Rusticus said:
But I have no right to know/see what happened! Unlike the USA.

If you think you are better protected in the USA think again.  
    

booneruk

Were you actually a victim of fraud? You got a letter from a mobile provider about a direct debit set up on a bank account that didn't exist?

pushpull

The mobile phone company would have no idea which bank you used, who you have accounts with is not visible on a lenders version of a credit report.

Irratus_Rusticus

MEM62 said:

The basis of your complaint is that an account was setup in your name without proper checks - yet you expect the company to communicate with you and deal with your complaint and communicate with you without establishing who you are.  You can't have it both ways.
.... 
If you think you are better protected in the USA think again.  
    

Thank you MEM62 for taking time to respond. You make interesting observations. Unfortunately I disagree with your first one. You interpret my OP not as I wrote it. Perhaops that was my poor articulation. I had already resolved to complain by recorded delivery and phoned merely to inform, not have them 'deal' with my complaint on that call alone. I also asked the credit agency to raise a dispute.

Regards the USA, I merely refer to the apparant federal law that allows those informed that they have ordered goods and services to receive all records held on the matter, including phone numbers and email addresses used and method of approach. This I assume would require a written procedure, not one phone call. I was not expecting full disclosure on the first contact. UK has no such right? 

Irratus_Rusticus

booneruk said:

Were you actually a victim of fraud? You got a letter from a mobile provider about a direct debit set up on a bank account that didn't exist?

Thank you for taking time to respond. Was I actually a victim of fraud? Without my knowledge or consent a third party acted in my name to order and receive goods.

The letter about a direct debit is not the fraud. It is stage one to a process where I would be held liable for a defaulted debt if the direct debit failed. If what you mean to emphasis is, have I actually suffered loss at this stage if the bank account was false, I would agree no. It's like someone trying to shoot me but missing on the first shot. I need the sheriff to disarm the gunman so I can go about my day in peace. 

Irratus_Rusticus

pushpull said:

The mobile phone company would have no idea which bank you used, who you have accounts with is not visible on a lenders version of a credit report.

Thank you pushpull for this useful information. I did not know lenders could not see accounts in place. I suppose they are listed for a reason but credit files are not my area of expertise. Learning a great deal fast. Holes everywere, seems to me.

pushpull

Irratus_Rusticus said:

pushpull said:

The mobile phone company would have no idea which bank you used, who you have accounts with is not visible on a lenders version of a credit report.

Thank you pushpull for this useful information. I did not know lenders could not see accounts in place. I suppose they are listed for a reason but credit files are not my area of expertise. Learning a great deal fast. Holes everywere, seems to me.

I wouldn't call it a hole.

Lenders don't need to know who you have accounts with, they only need to know how you've handled those accounts.

I'd argue that showing who the accounts are with, along with the account numbers, is a far bigger hole than anonymising the data.