Scam watch: mystery ‘social score’ payment

No one!! There seems to be an area of ‘legalised fraud’ prevalent in this country which is allowed to continue unchallenged. Government bodies seem completely oblivious to it or too incompetent or lazy to do anything about it. Another by product of the slow dumbing down of the ‘justice’ system here.

I agree, NFH. It would be interesting to pursue this approach to find out how quickly they withdraw card facilities and take legal action against companies that are effectively supporting the fraudsters.

It’s a great idea, but I wonder if the companies keep reinventing themselves to stay ahead of the game?

That seems very likely. Perhaps new companies should be required to deposit funds before being allowed to make use of card services.

It would be useful if Which? asked the card companies to contribute so we see the other side of the picture.

The task of monitoring and investigating alleged malpractice by hundreds of millions (?) of businesses worldwide seems daunting, at the very least, if not impractical. Losses are probably seen as a business expense as the alternative and, providing consumers are fairly dealt with, seems the pragmatic way.

As Ian says, of a rogue business has its payment facility remove it will simply establish another and carry on as normal. Like telephone scam numbers.

Consumers can do something to help by dealing with known businesses rather than taking a chance on someone. It is not foolproof, but I try to buy from UK businesses and for anyone new, check for a real address and landline number. I little online research is usually enough to instill confidence.

On Trustpilot there are numerous accounts of this scam, but the interesting aspect (for me, anyway) is that many banks are now blocking payments to the scammers.

I find online banking very convenient and I have had no safety issues. What we see reported are those cases where someone has had a negative experience. Rarely reported are what I expect are the vast majority who are perfectly satisfied.

Credit card and cheques attracted fraud, before online banking. A sad fact is there are clever people out there who will be ahead of the game in designing ways to part less careful people from their money. Nothing, regrettably, is perfect.

I share Malcolm’s view. On-line banking has been perfectly safe and extremely convenient for me. It has saved money in postage and stationery and avoided delays in the transfer of funds. I can determine with pin-point accuracy on which day a payment will enter the payee’s account and the reliability of that has been exceptional over all the years I have been making payments on-line. On-line banking is not a substitute for using bank branches; whether paying by direct debit, standing order or cheque I did it all from home with no necessity to go to the bank. Sending coupons off with your credit or debit card numbers written on them to buy goods by mail order was a far riskier process in my opinion.

Banks branches were on the slippery slope of declining custom long before on-line banking became commonplace.

For those who are unsure about using on-line banking, many alternatives remain available but exactly the same degree of care is required when entering account details and sending to the right place. With on-line banking, once you have set up a new payee the details are recorded and can be reused time and time again without concerns. It is always advisable to take precautions when setting up a new payee, or receiving ‘new’ payment instructions involving a change of account details, but on-line banking is not unique in that.

Malcolm and John your long standing engagement with Which Conversation has no doubt increased your awareness of most of the pros and cons of banking scams, as it has for myself also. Unfortunately not everyone is so well informed, very apparent from the many postings from people with negative experience. Banks today are well protected from criminal theft which has prompted the thieves to target their most unsuspecting and vulnerable customers instead.

Online banking is very convenient for some. It is also very convenient for the scammers to keep ahead of the game and target those who they think are most likely to easily part with their life savings by a mere click of a key on their mobile, their iPad or their computer.

I agree with you, Beryl – using on-line banking for payment transfers is not for everybody and the banks should make sure that good alternatives are available. But there are benefits in on-line banking for most customers even if they only wish to check their balance, switch money between their own accounts, control their direct debits and standing orders, open a savings account or investment product, or communicate securely with their bank.

In terms of frauds, especially the Authorised Push Payment type, the banks do need to step up their efforts to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place through control procedures, better banking practices to prevent criminals from opening accounts that can be used to receive stolen funds, and customer guidance plus, in certain cases, intervention. Providing refunds to defrauded customers is the easy fix for banks [using other customers’ money] but does nothing to stop the crime. That is why I thought Which?’s recent research report should have broadened out to focus on the prevention of crime as well as the plights of the victims.

On-line banking is not in itself an unsafe channel if used carefully like any other medium which can be misused. The eventual full implementation of the Confirmation of Payee process will significantly reduce the incidence of the Faster Payment Service route being used for the diversion of money to criminal hands. It is extremely regrettable that a number payment service providers will not participate in that scheme and that the Payment Systems Regulator has decided to limit the requirements to implement Confirmation of Payee to six banking groups. Others can participate voluntarily but unless there is full coverage there will be reduced protection if either the sending or the receiving bank for a fraudulent transfer is not obliged to cooperate in the Reimbursement Code.

I worked in IT for 15 years before retiring. I don’t trust on line banking and wild horses wouldn’t persuade to transfer my bank account online. I also thought that banks were legally obliged to provide a service to their customers with branches. With so many having been closed and many destinations left without a bank I do wonder why our politicians don’t come out into the open and take them to task. The idea that cash is not wanted is all part of a campaign to encourage on line use. Given the large number of elderly people in the population this apparent trend is crazy. So many elderly people do not have (or want) a computer or have a smart phone and it is difficult to transact any business these day without the constant request from businesses for one or both. I need cash for the window cleaner, greetings cards, flowers, arcade stall purchases, gifts to grandchildren, tips to all and sundry including postman so who’s to say cash is not needed. It’s about time the banks were brought to account.

????