/ Money

Scam warning: fake Clarks Shoes websites

We’ve been made aware of fake adverts for Clarks Shoes circulating on Facebook. Here’s what you need to keep an eye out for to avoid being scammed.

Update: 15/06/2020

Despite our warnings, these fake Clarks adverts keep popping up on Facebook.

We continue to report them and, fortunately, we’ve been able to get Facebook to block another scam site from its platform. A spokesperson told us:

“Fraudulent activity is not tolerated on our platforms and we have blocked this website. We urge people to continue to report any suspicious posts or ads to us.

To help with this, we have created a dedicated Facebook scam ads reporting tool in the UK so people can directly report scams as soon as they see them. We have also donated £3 million to Citizens’ Advice to help consumers avoid scams”

We’ll continue to monitor fake adverts appearing on Facebook, and report them as soon as we spot them.

Fake Clarks adverts: 04/03/2020

Thanks to a previous Which? Conversation regarding fake adverts for luxury shoe shop Russell & Bromley, we’ve been made aware of similar Facebook adverts for Clarks Shoes that have unfortunately found a number of victims.

Concerned by the reports we were seeing here on Which? Conversation, we put the word out on Facebook itself to gather further evidence:

Help wanted: we've been made aware of fake adverts for Clarks Shoes appearing on Facebook. Have you seen this scam? Do you have a screenshot? If so, get in touch in the comments.

Posted by Which? on Wednesday, February 12, 2020


In the comments we found others familiar with Anthea’s experience – they’d bizarrely received a fake scarf instead:

We made Clarks aware of these dodgy adverts and websites. A Clarks spokesperson said:

At Clarks, we take the reliability of our online presence and the safeguarding of our customers extremely seriously. We were made aware of several fake sites by our brand protection partner Safenames at the end of January and acted immediately to get them taken down.

Any customers with concerns relating to any of these sites should get in touch with our customer care team for support.

When choosing to shop online, we recommend always checking for the official domain authority before completing your purchase, which is clarks.co.uk for all our UK-based customers”

We’re pleased that Clarks has taken action to get these sites removed.

Facebook has previously told us that it takes action to stop fraud ‘wherever it appears’ and is investing in new tools for reporting scam ads.

Last year, we called on it to do more as fradulent ads continued to appear.

Social media advertising

The scammers know that people will have grown accustomed to seeing genuine adverts on social media platforms – they look to exploit that credibility by posing as well-known brands and celebrities that may have already gained your trust.

If you see an account you don’t recognise advertising a brand you do – treat it with suspicion.

Research is essential before you make a purchase; check the URL of the page it’s taking you to, Google the names of stores or offers you don’t recognise and, if you’re still not sure, reach out to a brand directly via its official channels to verify any adverts or offers you’ve seen.

If you’re worried you’ve been scammed by adverts like this, let your bank know what’s happened immediately and read our guide to getting your money back.

Have you seen suspicious adverts for brands such as Clarks? If so, let us know who’s being impersonated in the comments so we can help warn others.


These are still doing the rounds – there’s one up on Facebook for Clarks Outlet at the moment. I nearly fell for it and it was only because I checked the returns policy (there wasn’t one) that I hesitated and then found the legit site and realised the URL wasn’t correct.

Asia Maj says:
2 January 2021

BE AWARE SCAM WEB: clarksoutletstore.buzz

I got scammed by similar one on 31st Dec 🙁

Was scammed on the clarksoutletuk/buzz site. They took more money than the amount for shoes and the confirmation email looked very dodgy. I contacted the customer services number on the email which didn’t exist. Cannot load this website or see my order. Absolutely gutted!! I have let my bank know.

patrick taylor says:
2 January 2021

It is beginning to look like the situation some years ago of a walled garden of legitimate sites should be set-up as this current mess is bad for online consumers and of course lucrative to Google.

All people can be gullible at times, and some people willalways be fooled by technological tricks. If Google and Amazon, and others will not protect consumers then a marketplace for legitimate traders needs to be arranged on a national bais. I had hoped 5 years ago Which? would see this as an a useful aim and make it more relevant to subscribers.

Bonne Annee ; Vive France : )

Happy New Year Patrick. Vive le Royaume Uni.

An email has just arrived from Canada Goose Outlet (worzy@pangquexf.wang) offering bargain clothing “60% off” when the actual prices are 6.5% of the marked price. Free delivery. A real address is given in Maryland followed by a long biblical extract.

Val - Durham says:
19 January 2021

Yes it happened to me on the 31.12.20
I got a pair of “RayBan” sunglasses! I ordered 2 pair of shoes from “clarksonlinebuzz” they charged me £62.01. I have reported to my bank

Lynda Milbourne says:
27 April 2021

Yes just had this happen to me too! £92 pounds lost.

Sorry to hear about this Lynda, have you reported it to your bank?. There is some guidance here you can follow which might be of use – https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-get-your-money-back-after-a-scam-amyJW6f0D2TJ

colin renton says:
15 January 2021

My wife ordered shoes on a website Clarkclearance. com. Received a fake pair of sunglasses from China.

Same happened to me, I called my bank to report the incident and got my money returned immediately.

I have bought 2 pairs of boots for 60£ from http://www.clarkclearence.buzz site which had pop up on the facebook. Two weeks later I receive fake cheap Ray Ban sun glasses. I went googling the thing and realized I’ve been scammed. I phoned my bank and reported this and got my money back instantly. Make sure you report it to your bank, at least here in UK, you will get your money returned.

[Moderator: this website appears to be a scam website. We’ve retained the URL to help you identify it, but we’ve redirected the link to our guidance on how to spot fraudulent website. ]

I bought a pair of trainers on https://clarkclerance.buzz and wa sent a pair of Raybands! Going to the bank today to block any other withdrawals but can’t remember the date of purchase? Does anyone know the billing name on bank statement for clarkclerance.buzz?

On my transaction, the billing name on the credit card statement was KEPAJOY (they’re apparently based in France. (You can see my story – posted on Feb 13 2021)

its facealauteur and they have done the same to me

yep, i bought a couple of pairs of boots but received fake ray ban sunglasses

While it’s good to hear that consumers got their money back from their bank’s customers, it would be better if people avoided buying from dodgy outfits in far away places marketing upmarket goods at ridiculously low prices. I don’t suppose the banks ever get their money back from the Far East.

Easy to say John, however the pages that appeared on Facebook Marketplace were misrepresenting their business as “Clarks Outlet” ie. their pages were seemingly-genuine graphically-matching pages as seen on the official Clarks Shoes website. And a Google check at that time seemed to confirm that ClarksOutlet.co.uk was a genuine business. It was never made clear – even at time of order – that the money would be taken by a French based company, and the name of the Chinese trading business has never been revealed. And sadly Facebook don’t appear to offer any route for conned customers like me to be able to report these criminals.

That is the way scammers work, Derek. They are not amateurs. It is buyer beware. Buying “blind” online is always a risk, but checking for genuine outlets on a browser is a good precaution. I don’t know why people rely on Facebook with its poor reputation.

I’ve been scammed for pair boots.they kept replying to me in Chinese,now they have blocked me ,after sending a pair of broken fake ray bans.

I am sorry to hear that Margaret, but such merchants are virtually untouchable. How much did you pay for the boots and how was the money transferred?

Back in November I ordered two pairs of boots using the Clarks UK website. What arrived was two pairs of boots and no sunglasses. If they prove faulty I can contact Clarks in the UK and hopefully we can sort out a solution in accordance with the Consumer Right Act. One pair of boots was about £60 and the other over £100. I might have been ripped off but I have not been scammed.

I don’t think those prices are excessive. A pair of good boots should last many years, provide good support, and keep your feet dry. Expecting to pay much less is unrealistic. That does not condone scamming but consumers have to think carefully before succumbing to a tempting offer from outside the UK.

Decent footwear is not cheap. I was given a pair of Timberland boots for Christmas and I think the cost was around £100. They are smart and well made; judging by others in the family they will last for years in good shape.
wavechange, sunglasses can cost a lot more than your boots so you may have missed out there 🙁

I received the package today
I ordered 5 boots
I can do something
I got this
it cost more than £ 94 a plastic glasses

I have been scammed to. I ordered in good faith 3 pairs of Shoes and a pair of shoes. When the email came back I realized because of the miss spelling it wasn’t Clarks, I phoned the bank but they said as the transaction was pending they couldn’t do anything. I did get a parcel of a cheap imitations pair of ray ban sun glasses worth £11.00. I have been sending emails to them and they have said the glasses are worth £59.00, they said to send them back and they will give me a refund, however they say it will take a month. I am scared that if I send them back they will not refund my money. Can you help as what’s best to do

Hi Meg,

Sorry to hear you’ve been scammed in this way. Judging by this Conversation, many others have been too.

If the retailer you are buying from is outside the UK, then I doubt that you usual rights as a UK consumer will be of much use here.

But, if you paid by card, you may be able to request a chargeback (see:-https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/ ) after exhausting all other options with the retailer.

So you may have to send the sunglasses back and then see what happens.

How much did you pay for the shoes, Meg?

Matt says:
8 February 2021

These guys do a nice job and make it very difficult to argue the charge. No confirmation email, parcel of much lower value sent so they can provide proof of postage. Having a battle with my bank now but suspect I’ll end up with the ombudsman.

I wonder if Facebook is a significant common factor in all these scam adverts?

If so, then could Facebook users be persuaded to share posts warning about these scams?

I think it’s almost certain that these “too good to be true” offers are reaching people via social media. You wouldn’t find these sellers by a normal browser search. Social media has engendered a sense of loyalty and trust among its users which is now being used to exploit them.

Sometimes rogue sites have very similar addresses to genuine ones and that can catch out the unwary. It’s not just social media that is the problem. As Derek has suggested it’s worth encouraging people to alert other users of social media to scams. I presume that it’s easy to report suspected scams.

Of course, it would be even better if the favourite social media sites took it upon themselves to protect their multitude of users by issuing warnings, or even blocking the false advertising of desirable goods at unrealistic prices.

I tried to caution Facebook users by posting the authentic Clark’s site. I made the comment that there are many shoe scams on Facebook. Do your homework! Facebook blocked my post and said I had violated their “community standards.” At the same time, entry of any comments was no longer possible on “clarksshops.”

Although I was scammed by another FB shoe business (pristyles.com), I feel it is my moral duty to do what I can to hopefully protect other hard-working folks from the scammers. I will not purchase anything from FB ads. Henceforth, I will go directly to the reputable merchant’s website.

I too got conned into buying shoes from the advertised on Facebook Marketplace “Clarks Outlet” clarksoutletstore.buzz . This was on Dec 31, 2020. As “Outlet” stores have been famous in the USA for many years for disposing of good quality branded end-of-season products at heavily discounted prices, some even below cost price, I fell for this one. I spent £29 on my mastercard on a pair of Clarks shoes. The web-based order was eventually acknowledged after five days wait, and it came from a company calling itself KEPAJOY (apparently in France); it told me that the amount charged might vary from my £29 purchase instruction (“due to currency conversion”).
My Sainsburys Bank credit shows a charge of £29.93 as a USD currency conversion – It took a while before I got a tracking reference, but the tracking system they were using was actually genuine and is commonly used for shipments from China (T.17track.net).
And now – like many others – I eventually received a tiny carton carrying the tracking reference I’d been given for my shoe order, but containing an unwanted pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses, courtesy of Royal Mail – apparently sent from: GMAODOUZ, No. 7, Shanhe Hengxiang, Jingxi Village, meihuayuan, baiyunqu, GZ, GD 528000 CHINA Phone: 8615622326174
I have asked Sainsbury’s Bank’s fraud team to investigate and recover my £29.93 but my I have limited faith in this bank’s energy & ability to do the right thing for me.

Derek’s story demonstrates the vast gulf in the shopping experience that exists between a physical retail store and buying on-line where you cannot see or touch the goods, speak to any staff, know who is operating the outlet and what other intermediaries there might be, take exactly what you purchased home with you, and pay a certain price.

There have been reputable outlet shops in the UK for many years ranging from market stalls to large stores, and periodic sales events have been a traditional way of clearing stocks at bargain prices. One of the popular outlets today is T K Maxx where you can see what they have, note the price, check it over, see if it fits or suits your style, compare it with others, take it to the till, pay for it however you like, and take it with you immediately. Unless something has gone dreadfully wrong in your brain you won’t be walking out with a pair of fake Ray-Bans instead. Why have we given all this up for the present sordid form of commerce?

There’s probably no going back now; the solid shops have been abandoned, vacated and demolished, because of the penetration and power of the internet. Traditional high-street retail companies have been taken over but the new owners don’t want their stores or most of their staff. We are paying for it all in the end, though, because there are thousands of stories like Derek’s where people have lost money, wasted their time, and not got what they ordered. There is also a big national economic loss in terms of empty premises, unpaid rents and rates, unemployment costs, and large sums flowing out of the country. One has to ask whether the lower price – promised but not fulfilled, and a piece of junk supplied instead – is worth it in the long run. Because the manufacturing has been exported along with the selling function, this is the future.

Quick tip for anyone looking to dispute the charge with your bank. I’ve been looking for a way to prove that the site is fraudulent as my bank are bit being as helpful as I would expect. I found when navigating to the .buzz web address that it had changed to be headed ‘Fashion’ and in USD. However, looking through google at the site I managed to locate parts of the site that are still branded as Clarks (with their branding) and with prices in GBP. I’ve provided information to the bank and hope they find it persuasive and sharing in the hope it helps someone else.

Hi everyone. Got another one to above collection: https://www.uksaleboots.cc/
Exactly same scenario… My wife spotted this on FB advertising discounted Hunter wellies. Anyway despite the fact that I was sceptical about that… but under my wife’s influence I’ve ordered pair of wellies for her beginning of February. Of course after receiving weird confirmation email about foreign currency exchange etc, I new it’s probably fake. So just yesterday received ridiculous Chinese laughable fake “Cartier” ring of value few dollars instead of wellies! There was same Chinese address on envelope as mentioned above and obviously tracking number matched the one supposed to be for wellies. It’s obviously same scammers network using many different websites to catch victims… and FB helps them really well! Glad I’ve lost only £29… After checking that payment it went indeed to some French account.

[Moderator: this website appears to be a scam website. We’ve retained the URL to help you identify it, but we’ve redirected the link to our guidance on how to spot fraudulent website. ]

Mick – As a matter of interest did the advertisement for the Hunter Wellington boots give any indication that the product would be shipped from China or even anywhere outside the UK?

For a pair of Hunter wellies to be supplied for only £29 [including post and packaging] would be impossible from a UK address let alone from abroad so as an offer it was patently too good to be true.

Hunter Boot Ltd are an old Scottish company headquartered in Edinburgh with a prestigious reputation that they do attempt to protect from counterfeits and miss-selling, but you have not even received a pair of counterfeit boots but a low-grade piece of jewellery. While there has been no counterfeiting, the seller has been guilty of deception, misrepresentation and fraud. If you contact them for a refund they will probably ask you to return the ring before they will deal with it. I expect you would then be even more out of pocket and you still wouldn’t get your money back.

Unfortunately I don’t think there is anything you can do to get any satisfaction. If you paid with a credit card the amount at stake is below the £100 threshold for a claim to the card issuer under s.75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Hunter won’t be interested as there is nothing they can do, your local trading standards service are unlikely to act, and taking it up with the Chinese authorities would probably be a waste of time and as like as not impossible. Whether it would be worth complaining to Facebook I don’t know – I suspect they cannot keep up with these repeating problems and would deny any responsibility anyway; the advertisement has probably been taken down by now and replaced with different details. I guess the perpetrators are now untraceable.

It is also possible to make a chargeback claim if the amount is below £100 or paid for by debit card. Here is a template letter from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-to-make-a-chargeback-claim

The fact that the financial industry is providing scammers with banking and card services is fuelling fraud and until they put their house in order we will all suffer and so will genuine businesses. Perhaps if more people claimed against their banks and card providers the need for action would be recognised.

It would not occur to me to buy anything from an advert on Facebook but it looks as if Hunter uses Facebook to advertise its wares. 🙁

I should be interested to know how successful chargeback claims are. I can’t recall anyone here telling us that they got their money back through chargeback. It is not underpinned by legislation, it is not operated by all card issuers, and there are no universal terms and conditions or consistency of determination. Each claim is dealt with on its own merits at the discretion of the card issuer, of which there are hundreds. I expect each card issuer has a limit below which no claim will be entertained, possibly £30.

With shops forced to remain closed due to the coronavirus epidemic, companies are having to fall back on channels like Facebook to market their products and there certainly does seem to be a partnership between Hunter and Facebook whereby the site is an official outlet. It is a pity, therefore, that Facebook will not keep other advertisers of Hunter products off the site. It is not as though the false promotions will be difficult to spot.

It would be useful if Which? asked an expert to discuss how traders that are fraudulent in overseas countries can be detected before they trade, and thus prevented from having an account. We must remember they operate from countries with much poorer scrutiny than ours.

One way it seems is to provide convincing, but fake, documents, set up a low risk webstore then, when they have started trading, switch to fakery and then exit before they are caught.

Something we can all do is to use a bit of common sense, look at what we are buying – check elsewhere, can the bargain price possibly be right – check if the webstore has verifiable credentials and then turn away if it does not look right. I don’t want to compensate people who do not take elementary precautions otherwise they will never learn if they are always baled out by the rest of us.

John – I don’t know how many claims are successful, John, but here is another site that indicates that chargeback claims can be made in cases of fraud: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

Not many contributors have mentioned success or failure with Section 75 or chargeback claims but I can recall seeing a few examples. So far I have not had the need to make a claim but I would if I had been the victim of fraud.

Thanks, Wavechange. The Money Saving Expert’s guidance is useful for trade within the UK but it was silent on cross-border transactions. The card issuer pursuing a chargeback request would seek to claw back the disputed payment from the trader’s bank. Whether that works reliably in China could be the problem, and a UK card issuer might stop the process at that point.

John – I doubt that the banks would be keen to provide information about how much they refund customers and under what circumstances.

A chargeback claim is against the customer’s bank and I am not aware that recovery from the trader’s bank is a prerequisite for a successful claim, although I am well aware that there is no legal protection as in the case of S75 claims.

I hope the banks will work together to tackle the problem of fraudsters being provided with accounts and card services. I am not optimistic, having seen how long it has taken them to introduce Confirmation of Payee to tackle the problem of misdirected payments.

I have looked on Fakebook a few times now for what might look like a fake product sale but can’t see anything obvious. There appears to be even less history than ebay to check into.

Adverts are a bit like what you (used to?) see for sale in your local paper when you would have to phone up to get more details and turn up in person to pay for and collect the item.

Now you have to send a message to the seller for further details. Presumably an arrangement is made for payment and the sale is conducted almost anonymously just getting details of the buyer with an address to send the item to.

I wouldn’t trust buying anything through Fakebook. The only safety net is to buy items near home, conduct the purchase in person and only hand over money when the item has been inspected.

The continued criticism of the banks for not introducing confirmation of payee sooner is in the absence of information as to why it may not be as straightforward as some assume. I repeatedly asked if Which? would get an expert to explain, so we can criticise, or not, from a firm foundation. I do remember reading that to get the majority of banks operating a scheme that included interchanging customer data and using common protocols (if I remember correctly) required more than just an agreement.

There always was the simple precaution anyone could take, of course. Transfer £1 to a new payee then check it was received by the expected person. I used that a number of times with private and business transactions and never had a problem.

I trust that most people took this precaution but in some circumstances such as opening an account with a single payment or taking out an ISA it was not possible and money could have gone astray. Thankfully Confirmation of Payee seems to work so hopefully we can forget this precaution.

As far as I know you can open (many) ISAs with a small amount and add to it up to the limit?

I recall giving you an example, Malcolm. I recall that Alfa correctly guessed the company. Anyway, this is now history.

Wavechange – You wrote that a “chargeback claim is against the customer’s bank and I am not aware that recovery from the trader’s bank is a prerequisite for a successful claim”. That seems to be at variance to what is stated in the Money Saving Expert’s guidance: “To start a claim, call your bank card provider and ask to dispute the transaction. It can then start the procedure of claiming the money back from the supplier’s bank.” I suggested that that might not work in China. To clarify, the cardholder must submit a claim to their card issuer [which might also be their bank], not against their bank. The cardholder must also have exhausted all other avenues for getting a refund or fulfilment of their order before they can make a chargeback claim.

Alfa – The Facebook problem is that there might not be any advertisements for fake products on the site; the dodgy sellers are advertising genuine articles [Clark’s shoes, Hunter boots] so Facebook probably cannot trap and block them. The scam is that cheap rubbish is sent instead of the goods ordered. If people don’t report that to Facebook when it occurs the platform is technically ignorant and can easily say “Well, we had no idea”.

John – I had assumed that banks can exercise discretion in deciding whether or not to compensate their customers. We are both well aware of how manufacturers often help owners of faulty goods even though they have no legal responsibility to do so. My credit card company refunded my interest charges when I had failed to pay my monthly bill because it had been lost in the post. If there is no chance of recovering money from an overseas fraudster then we deserve to be told.

Please don’t think that I want to see careless people compensated. I don’t. However, when fraudsters can cheat people and there are established ways making claims to recover the money I believe that victims should be aware that these exist.

The website does exist though John.

There is no information about the company on their website that can be checked into – names, address, phone numbers, email, delivery times, etc. That in itself should shout ‘DON’T TOUCH WITH A BARGEPOLE’.

The giveaway is the bad English:
Free shipping For Order Over £70.

We’ve always been trying our best to provide our customers with pleasing online shopping experience. We know that qualities, prices, shipping time, customer service are what you concern about most. Thus, we attach great significance to all these four factors in order to make us a customer-friendly online shopping website.

After we receive your payment, we would ship the package from warehouse within Twenty four hours and send the tracking number into the e-mail.

Once your get is shipped out, you’ll receive an email from us. In this electronic mail, there should be the checking information for your bundles as well as the website where you can trace your purchase.

In the unlikely celebration of manufacturing faults . . .

It is always wise to read T&C’s and in this case the location of the company is determined:
Where the parties fail to settle dispute within 30 days after such dispute occurs, they agree to submit such dispute to Hong Kong International Arbitration Center

Scam Detector gives the site 3.4 out of 100:

Scam Doc 2%

But the real warning should be the prices on the website – original price £150, get them for £27. If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Mick I put together this Shopping Checklist that might help you avoid getting scammed in the future.

I am quite happy if a bank can help a cheated customer, who has suffered using their debit card, by making a reasonable attempt to recover money from the fraudster’s account. I presume the bank will make some effort to ascertain that the loss is genuine, a difficult area like establishing who is to blame in APP scams. But if they are not successful then, unless there is negligence on the banks part, I see no reason why we should expect compensation, paid by the rest of us who do, generally, act responsibly. By all means use whatever methods are available but we should not be entitled to be baled out.

I am not happy that my money is being used to refund cheated customers, but since there is a provision for making chargeback requests consumers should be made aware of of it. Like appealing against a parking ticket, it’s worth giving it a go. Perhaps banks should require customers to have insurance against fraud.

Thanks, Alfa . . . so Facebook could have been more vigilant and not posted the advert.

No newspaper or other media, or even the community noticeboard in a supermarket, would allow an anonymous advert to be displayed. The name and address might not be shown but they would be identifiable to the publisher [or noticeboard provider] through a box number or other reference.

Of course, the social media moguls will not accept that they are publishers, just ‘platforms’ on which, in return for lots of money, they allow all manner of rogues, quacks, charlatans and mountebanks to set up their stalls.

The flowery language, brimming over with platitudinous superlatives and patronising waffle, is the noticeable feature of so many product promotions from the Orient. It’s what makes looking for things on Amazon so irritating, although it illuminates what to avoid.

I agree with Malcolm that unless there is negligence by the card issuer there is no justification for a refund at the expense of other customers. Since the chargeback scheme is entirely voluntary and discretionary I feel the obligation to publicise it, and to state the terms and conditions of use, lies with the card issuer in information provided to their card-holders,

Whereas banks could in special cases [good, loyal or most favoured customers perhaps] exercise discretion and compensate a customer who has been defrauded without recovery of the amount involved, in my experience the Benevolent and Charitable Banking Corporation does not exist. I suspect that Chargeback is window dressing with the intention that it rarely be administered. It would not surprise me if a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality clause had to be signed in return for repayment.

” Perhaps banks should require customers to have insurance against fraud.” I expect insurers would require the claimant to show they were not in anyway negligent or irresponsible before a claim would be entertained. In many examples given in Convos that might be a little tricky. I suspect we would be having a new Convo about insurers not paying out and how the aggrieved client should then be compensated………. and so it would go on.

The opportunity to make a chargeback claim is well advertised, for example: https://www.visa.co.uk/chargeback.html Your bank and mine mention chargeback on their websites.

The existence of chargeback provides banks’ customers with some confidence in case something goes wrong. It would be helpful to provide general information about how chargeback cases are decided. It has been alleged that customers are automatically being refunded when they have been careless, but I have not seen evidence of this.

Fraud is a growing problem worldwide and the banks need to work together to protect customers.

We all need to think about fraud when we make transactions, take sensible precautions, and not expect someone else to bale us out when a bad decision we make goes wrong.

Fraud does not just involve bank transactions.

I hope that most of us already do that, Malcolm. Fraudsters are becoming very clever and sooner or later we could all become victims. As I have said on numerous occasions I don’t want to subsidise people who are careless but when services such as chargeback and Section 75 protection exist, is it not fair to publicise their existence?

The reports from many in these Convos suggest that they do not already do that. Fraudster (confidence tricksters) have been around for ever. They are clever – you wonder what they would achieve in real jobs or government…… perhaps we do know as they are there as well ……. They simply adapt their methods as new opportunities arise.

I was wary about using online banking and what encouraged me to use it was learning that a friend was reimbursed promptly after money was taken from his account. It is reassuring.

Earlier your wrote: “…but we should not be entitled to be baled out.” I have never suggested we should and I don’t think anyone else has.

I hoped the meaning of my comment was apparent. There is often, it seems to me, a presumption that whenever someone loses money to a fraudulent transaction someone else should make good their loss. That someone else, in my view, should be shown to have played a negligent part in the loss. Nothing wrong, of course, with that someone trying to help to get the money back for the victim. But in the end, we all pay out of our own pockets.

My assumption remains that cases are decided on their merits and this Which? article outlines the chargeback process: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/05/chargeback-the-card-protection-banks-dont-tell-you-about/

Are banks really routinely paying out where their customers are entirely to blame for losses? I hope not.

I did order the Clark shoes off of the Facebook website, which I should have known better. I received three pairs of shoes and they look like Clark’s but when you look at them you can tell that they are a pair of cheaply made shoes, total crap. I contacted the company about a refund and I was told I could get a refund after I paid for return shipping that would cost more than what I paid for the shoes to begin with.

The real problem with Facebook and its adverts is that there is absolutely no way a Facebook user can report a fraudulent advertiser to them. Facebook is simply “not interested”.

Users pay nothing to access Facebook, advertisers keep them afloat and rolling in it. Who are they going to support?

Possibly scammed just this afternoon on http://www.clarksenligne.fr which is offering Clarks shoes at good but not ludicrously low prices. A text from the bank gave the people taking the money as liuyaoeverythin in China. I probably made a mistake on the address part so bank alerted me. Spoke to the bank and they have blocked the card and don’t think any money was taken. We found this site on line in France. It was not otherwise advertised. It is perhaps time Clarks made a noise about this.

lindsay morley says:
9 May 2021

i wouldn’t buy anything from Facebook ever…my sister has been scammed numerous times by these criminal adverts. Shoes that don’t match the pictures with straps that are too wide to go through the cheap lightweight buckles, cheap material, very bad stitching not fit for purpose…cannot complain to company because advert gone, no email address provided. When will it ever end!!!!

I got scammed 3 weeks ago. Went to my bank to dispute it! Bunch of rip off artists!!!! Shoes are garbage!!!

Yea…I JUST got scammed… just received my 2 pair of ‘Clarks of England’ clogs I ordered off FACEBOOK link. Neither pair says Clark’s…. live and LEARN 😡

These websites all seem to have one thing in common – recently set up and no company or contact information.

Next time you might want to try checking out who you are dealing with before you place an order: