Scam alert: Beware fake Thomas Cook refund websites
Willing2Learn
Posts: 6,294 Forumite
I wasn't sure if this had already been posted somewhere...And I'm not sure that this is the right board either...
Source: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/10/scam-alert-beware-fake-thomas-cook-refunds-websites/
Source: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/10/scam-alert-beware-fake-thomas-cook-refunds-websites/
Travellers affected by the Thomas Cook collapse should avoid handing over personal details to websites claiming to be Thomas Cook refund services.
One website ThomasCookrefunds.com is using the Thomas Cook logo and claims to be helping travellers to get their money back.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the official body in charge of processing Thomas Cook refund claims, has confirmed the site is a fake.
The fake site encourages Thomas Cook customers to share their contact details and booking reference in return for help with their refund.
Be cautious giving out your bank details
We strongly advise against sharing your personal or bank details with organisations you don’t know.
Your details could be used to target you with scams that might ask you to send money or bank details.
There is also a chance your details could be used by scammers pretending to be you, in an attempt to claim your refund.
I work within the voluntary sector, supporting vulnerable people to rebuild their lives.
I love my job
I love my job
0
Comments
-
Something really needs to be done to force ISP's to block this type of site.
I am assuming that the site is not hosted in the UK and those behind it are safely elsewhere.0 -
On what grounds?Something really needs to be done to force ISP's to block this type of site.
Trouble is, it may be unethical or immoral but it's not illegal, or at least not demonstrably so at this point.
Which? have rightly pointed out that the site isn't the official one (although, oddly, most of the links on the site point to the official one), but there's no evidence I can see that there's anything obviously unlawful being conducted, other than perhaps data protection technicalities about registration to process personal details, and maybe some trademark infringements. Hence the very careful wording that only goes as far as saying the site is fake, not that it's actually a scam as such.
Yes, it's shoddily assembled and the motives of the creator must be questionable, but that isn't enough to eliminate sites like this from accessibility via an inherently open and libertarian environment.
The Which? piece states that they've "reported the website to the Civil Aviation Authority. We’ve also asked the company hosting the website to take it down" but, four days later, it's still there - unfortunately there's a significant difference between disapproving of something and actually having grounds to remove it....0 -
I note what you have said but what is the purpose of the website if not a scam?
Are they charging their 'clients' to process their claims for them? Possibly as you have to send your details and wait to be contacted so who knows what you are told when you are contacted.
So I guess its a bit like paying a PPI claims company to process a PPI claim if that is the case and they really do actually get you the refund, probably by forwarding details that you could have entered yourself on the real website.
That is assuming they actually do that and don't get your personal details and do something else with them.0 -
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the site and believe it to be cynical and exploitative, but even if it is proved (rather than suspected) to be a scam, that term is broad enough to encompass a range of meanings, both legal and illegal.
So, from an ISP's perspective (or the host's or the CAA's), specifically what grounds are there to remove or block it?0 -
[FONT="]This is nothing 'un-similar' to numerous government copycat websites that sprung up 5-6 years ago to dupe customers clicking through private adverts appearing at the top of search engine results page in haste. [/FONT]
[FONT="]As you said, their existence is not illegal. However, there was strong intervention from Trading standards and government authorities to protect consumer interests and rights. [/FONT]
[FONT="]These business practices were condemned strongly for 'offering' (and hence unwary consumers endup purchasing ) services that the consumer do not need. The proprietors of those websites were jailed for years operating and cashing in on scams. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The result is, such services are being monitored and removed swiftly by google. [/FONT]Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the site and believe it to be cynical and exploitative, but even if it is proved (rather than suspected) to be a scam, that term is broad enough to encompass a range of meanings, both legal and illegal.
So, from an ISP's perspective (or the host's or the CAA's), specifically what grounds are there to remove or block it?0 -
When I visited https://thomascookrefunds.com yesterday, they were using the Thomas Cook logo. This would be illegal, so I think that the site definitely broke the law. Interestingly, now I try to revisit the site again today, my browser is unable to connect...Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the site and believe it to be cynical and exploitative, but even if it is proved (rather than suspected) to be a scam, that term is broad enough to encompass a range of meanings, both legal and illegal.
So, from an ISP's perspective (or the host's or the CAA's), specifically what grounds are there to remove or block it?I work within the voluntary sector, supporting vulnerable people to rebuild their lives.
I love my job0 -
This is nothing 'un-similar' to numerous government copycat websites that sprung up 5-6 years ago to dupe customers clicking through private adverts appearing at the top of search engine results page in haste.
As you said, their existence is not illegal. However, there was strong intervention from Trading standards and government authorities to protect consumer interests and rights.
These business practices were condemned strongly for 'offering' (and hence unwary consumers endup purchasing ) services that the consumer do not need. The proprietors of those websites were jailed for years operating and cashing in on scams. The result is, such services are being monitored and removed swiftly by google.
Not sure that using the logo of a defunct company is actually illegal or that in itself this would be sufficient grounds to actually close/block a site (I believe normal protocol would be to issue some form of 'cease and desist' notification to the site's registered owner), but yes, it's probably all a moot point in that the site is no longer accessible, although still (at time of posting!) prominently sited on Google search results....Willing2Learn wrote: »When I visited https://thomascookrefunds.com yesterday, they were using the Thomas Cook logo. This would be illegal, so I think that the site definitely broke the law. Interestingly, now I try to revisit the site again today, my browser is unable to connect...0 -
I don't think using the Thomas Cook logo would, in itself, be illegal as in criminal. Breach of copyright certainly but as the legal entity which owned the copyright no longer exists, who would go to the trouble and expense of taking civil legal action for this breach?
I am glad to see that apparently this site is no longer accessible.0 -
The only banking information you should ever need to give for a Section 75/Chargeback is the 16 digit card number. No expiry, no CVV2. Stick to that and you’re good.0
-
I think this was blown out of proportion a bit tbh.
Clear scam but not heard of anyone affected in our customer base of millions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards