My Switch card's been cloned/copied/swiped

[spymum]

(Hauling this back sorta on topic); Mark - truth is an absolute defence in defamation (libel/slander). So if it is the truth, (and you can prove it - receipts etc) yah boo sucks to *whatever vendor we may/may not be discussing located in lower ED*. LOL!

spymum

(Blog: Posh Mum)

[Jo]

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. I just had to have my cards replaced becasue I'd been scammed through the internet so it would have been a complete nightmare to go through it all again.

(Incidentally, my bank gave me my money back the same day - no waiting at all.)

[Keef]

Bloody Hell, what bank are you with?!?!?

[bawdy-nan]

Well - goodness me. You're providing great resources for my revision. I'm about to sit a media law exam and your discussions on defamation are timely and useful.

First of all, I certainly wasn't trying to bully anyone. I simply thought you'd want to know. If I was standing in the road and a car was about to hit me I'd like to be told by a passer-by who might be able to see it coming. You all seemed very concerned about losing money and, frankly, the sums at stake if you were to deal with a libel case would be far more than any Egyptian skimming scam.

Whilst truth is indeed a defence (or rather justification) you'd have to be absolutely sure that you could prove it. The onus would be on you to prove it and not the person bringing the case against you to prove their innocence. A few receipts and a hunch isn't going to do it.

In any case, I assume that you aren't implying that everyone in the employ of the establishment is involved in the crime? In that case there is a defamation being committed against any of the employees. They are a small enough group of people that any on of them could safely argue that your accusations besmirched their reputation (defamation is the publication to a third party of a matter which, in all the circumstances, would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally).

A trading body or company may also sue. As you're also damaging a commercial reputation there's another possible.

As for who could be sued. I'm sure you're all pretty identifiable. You're mostly registered users for a start.

But aside from you as individuals whoever "owns" the site would be classed as the being responsible for publication, as could the web-hosting company. As a forum thats moderated only after posting you may have recourse to a "live defence" - ie you couldn't have predicted the libel would take place. But you've only got a short window of time to address that.

There's a case on record in which Demon were successfully sued in similar circumstances.

I'd also be a bit careful about the way you are currently refering to the company concerned. There aren't many of them in East Dulwich (to mmy knowledge) so its not hard for a "reasonable person" to guess to what you're refering. Innuendo and implication are enough - you don't have to spell it out for it to be libellous.

I'd be delighted to skim through McNae's Essential Law for Journalists if you require further information or examples of case law - it would certainly help my revision no end.

[shambles]

well bawdy-nan - that would be most helpful. perhaps you could start skimming now and get back to us at the end of your final year. we do like to help each other out on this forum and if we can all pull together and support your revision i'm sure we should all jump for joy. yay! yet another over-paid money-grabbing lawyer - (allegedly).

or if indeed you're studying to be a journalist - pretty impressed that you would never consider letting the facts get in the way of a good story :-) well done for such thorough research!

[bawdy-nan]

Not a lawyer actually. I'm doing a post-graduate diploma in broadcast journalism. Media law's an element. I did my first degree years ago. Over the course of the year I've come across loads of instances where people (not just media organisations) have unwittingly landed themselves in trouble (and often big, lawyer-subsidising trouble at that). Its generally the legal fees that are the most eye-watering part of the whole thing as far as I can see, especially as now, claimants can sue on a no-win no fee basis (ie you don't have do be loaded to go to law).

[Huguenot]

Lol! Clever use of important references! I would imagine that someone with your sense of social responsibility would have offered himself to adimn as an advisor before threatening the members of the forum? But then you wouldn't sound so smart perhaps?

Well Bawdy old feller, you won't pass your post-graduate with this one. My orginal observations remain accurate.

Your challenges and speculative position owe more to Poirot than Kavanagh, and draw more from the former in presentation than the latter. I note that your insight reflects the educated position of 'Dr' Gillian Keith, as does your PR twittishness.

If you manage to sustain your current skill set and ego, I wish only that you do not fuddle in the cadaver of your putative career.

Were that TV could provide a postgrad. Mind you, given my experience of media degrees, it may do yet.

In what peculiar backwater did you imagine that your continued baseless threat to the administrator would support your cause (whatever that may be?). Please give us an insight into your mature motivation?

[SimonM]

<<

A few desultory observations.

(1) "You don't have to be loaded to go to law" - or, indeed, as a famous judge ironically observed many years ago "The Law, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to rich and poor alike".

(2)"No win no fee" will only be taken on by lawyers who reckon they have a pretty good chance of winning the case. If you look through all the messages in the thread you'll find it pretty hard to pin down any clear-cut libellous/defamatory statement by anyone.

(3) At the moment a certain local business may no longer be selling its goods to maybe half a dozen or so motorists reading this thread. If said business goes public with any libel action however it can expect to go bust almost immediately, the general public being a somewhat suspicious, "no smoke without fire" body of citizens and all....

(4) I am sure that, were there any major company in any way connected to this hypothetical local business, it would be only too aware of how you can lose a case you have technically won......Think "McLibel". However it seems that any such company has already taken some care to distance itself from the (hupothetical) local business anyway

None of the above is in no way meant to contradict the excellent advice given to the effect that one should not name names in here - there's other ways of getting the word about which will not put the site owners at risk ;-)

[capt_birdseye]

Just don't mention Gina Ford.

Eek! I mentioned her! ::o

[bawdy-nan]

Ah - the measured responses of media-sales moguls. Hope you had a good night and your sorry head isn't too swimmy this morning.

Its a shame you feel it necessary to make personal attacks. You make assumptions, but you know very little about me.

Whatever you think, I'm convinced I'm correct in this.

[Huguenot]

Concern appreciated - come find the love on March 16th!

[lilly123]

hey did we use the same petrol garage because i know that my card was diffently cloned there as that week i never used my card except for fuel

[katgod]

hello, just to add more to it - our credit card was used for Norwegian transactions, our credit card company spotted the out of character transactions and phoned to check before it got too expensive. I had not been out of SE21/SE22 during the week in question. Got the cash back, new cards etc, and then they spotted a very dubious transaction, me shopping at Decathlon Surrey Quays, and phoned hubby to query that transaction too. There is no escape. Shopping will be uncovered by the bank friud squad and no secrets are left!! To be honest I am a bit suspicious of the same brand of garage but in SE21/Herne Hill area. Maybe run by same people?

[lilly123]

oh yes i believe they are all related somewhere along the line these people should be shown that they can no longer take us for idiots not only cloning cards but also internt scams to which i have had a few of, of course i dont give them the pleasure in replying to their email, from winning the lottery oh gosh if it was only true i would be richer than the beckhams or poorer than a vagrant, stop internet cafes as i belive they are using them to scam as well i know we get the odd gullable person here but dont they think now they have tried to far trying to rob us of our money so give up scammers we know all about you any thing to get money well scmmers get a job and get a life leave britain alone for once

[Domitianus]

Apparently, Lilly, up to 6 percent of targets do fall victim to Internet 'phishing' scams!

[shambles]

thought this was interesting - hope it's not copyrighted!?!

Press release from APACS:

This Sunday 1 April 2007, new procedures come into effect in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which means that banks and financial institutions become the first point of contact for cheque, plastic card and online fraud offences. In most cases consumers will be required to report instances of this type of fraud straight to their bank or building society and not to the police. It will be up to the financial institution involved, and not the account holder, to pass details of the relevant crime on to the police.

This change in the way fraud is reported has come about after the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006 and follows discussions between the Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the financial sector. The aim is to reduce the level of bureaucracy involved in fraud recording and to streamline the reporting, recording and investigation of such frauds.

APACS statistics show that there were just over 700,000 cases of card fraud in 2006, with the average loss per case amounting to ?608. One of the advantages for consumers unfortunate enough to be a victim of these types of fraud from 1 April onwards is that they will only have to report the details to their bank or the financial organisation involved. Previously they would have reported the matter first to their bank, then to the police, and then back to their bank to pass on relevant details given to them by the police.

Sandra Quinn, director of communications at APACS, says:

"This change simply removes an additional level of reporting and will provide greater consistency for the reporting of fraud losses in the UK. APACS will provide the Home Office with the industry's fraud figures for cheque, plastic and online banking fraud losses - these losses will then be published as part of the government's annual crime figures, thereby giving a more realistic picture of the scale of this type of crime."

New rules for reporting card, cheque and online banking fraud

Where an additional crime has been committed with the fraud, for example, the victim has had their wallet stolen or the card used fraudulently was stolen as a result of a burglary, then this should still be reported to the police. Fraud other than card, cheque and online banking fraud will be dealt with by the police in the same way as it is currently, using the Fraud Act legislation that came into force on 15 January this year.

Earlier this month, APACS released its full UK card fraud figures for 2006 showing that total losses have fallen by three per cent in the past year to ?428.0 million - a decrease of ?80 million over the past two years. Cheque fraud losses fell by 24% from ?40.3 million in 2005 to ?30.6 million in 2006. However, online banking fraud losses increased by 44%, up from ?23.2 million in 2005 to ?33.5 million last year.

Sandra Quinn continues:

"The threat of fraud is, unfortunately, a part of our daily lives. Although card fraud losses have decreased for the past two years, the industry remains committed to a multi-layered approach to tackling card fraud.

"Part of this approach is educating consumers on what they can do to protect themselves from being a victim. APACS has produced a Personal Security Plan to offer advice and guidance on this topic. By following some common sense precautions (as detailed in the Personal Security Plan) people can significantly minimise their chances of becoming a victim."

The Personal Security Plan includes advice on preventing card fraud, online fraud, cheque fraud and cash machine fraud. Copies can be downloaded free-of-charge from www.apacs.org.uk and www.cardwatch.org.uk

The payments industry continues to commit and invest funds in programmes and initiatives to fight fraud. Over the past five years, the industry has:

Invested ?1.1 billion in the rollout of chip and PIN

Established the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) - the special police unit that specifically tackles plastic card and cheque fraud - a funding commitment of ?3m per year by the banking industry

Promoted retailer take-up of the Industry Hot Card File (IHCF) - an electronic database that enables retailers to check whether a card is being used fraudulently. Over 335,000 cases of attempted fraud were prevented by this system in 2006.

ENDS

For further information contact the APACS Information Office:

T: 0870 420 3208 E: [email protected]

[Domitianus]

If I was a card-cloner or Internet fraudster I would be laughing all the way to the bloody bank! We are now being told that criminal offences are not to be the preserve of the police! The recent experience with a local retailer that seemed to be the hub of a card-scam may be a case in point! How many people were reporting card-fraud to the local HSBC with absolutely no certainty that the matter was being passed any further - ie. to the police. One has to wonder whether banks etc, who might wish to protect themselves from bad publicity, are really going to be vigorous in bringing the scale of fraud to official attention.

It is interesting to note that, as far as I can see, no official representative of any bank, police or official body has made any contribution to this discussion. Am I right about that? Is any such person monitoring this discussion able to comment?

[Keef]

Perhaps it's the banks that are doing it, in an attempt to get back the money they're having to give to people claiming back unfair bank charges.... d'ya think? :-S

[Domitianus]

That can work both ways Keef. I used to bank in Belfast with the Northern Bank, a prominent local bank in Northern Ireland. They were notorious for ridiculous charges - if you farted in one of their branches you expected to be hit with a charge. They actually tried to charge me ?40 for printing off 20 pages of statements on plain A4 paper!!! A few years ago, you may recall, the IRA robbed their Head Office and nicked about ?26 million in used notes! How the population laughed at this poetic justice!

[snorky]

"Earlier this month, APACS released its full UK card fraud figures for 2006 showing that total losses have fallen by three per cent in the past year to ?428.0 million - a decrease of ?80 million over the past two years. Cheque fraud losses fell by 24% from ?40.3 million in 2005 to ?30.6 million in 2006. However, online banking fraud losses increased by 44%, up from ?23.2 million in 2005 to ?33.5 million last year"

Interesting use of language - they fail to tell you that no-one uses cheques these days, hence the amount of fraud had dropped, they do however show a 44% rise in online fraud.

As I mentioned before, the Banks cant admit that their much heralded Chip n Pin approach has been beaten within a few months of being introduced - Expect to see Banks start to reject fraud claims for the most spurious reasons and leave cardholders in the poo - they will also market further fraud insurance to the scared customers in an affort to offestt their snowballing losses.

Theyse desperatley trying to dump the losses elsewhere - and that could mean problems for us plastic holders.

When reporting my card cloned a few weeks ago, I was asked if I wanted insurance added to my account for the new card. I obviously refused. Thye asked why and I did flippantly stated that its not my money that being taken , its yours, so why should I pay for your losses by taking out insurance ?

they didnt like it unsurprisingly - theres changes afoot, mark my words

[Domitianus]

Nice on Snorky. Also bear in mind the person trying to flog the insurance may well be getting a commission for the sale!

[Tom]

Our neighbours (not on this forum and they have recently left ED) have also had their card cloned - a company card very rarely used, and by chance - that month in only one place. It was a garage and it was a black one....

Actually - I need more petrol I'll ask the garage about it tonight.

[Domitianus]

Could I suggest that an individual who has been scammed and who has reported it to their bank ask the bank directly and specifically whether the matter has been reported to the police? If so, what station? WHen? What was the name of the officer dealing with it? ANd what was the crime number allocated? If no such information provided one would be entitled to ask whether the bank is attempting to hush the matter up. These are direct steps that could be taken instead of us all talking ourselves sill on here and doing nothing. If I had had the misfortune of having been scammed I would be asking these very questions.

[karter]

Domitianus..READ BACK...The cops dont want to know. When you do eventually get cloned report it straight to your bank.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Todays lead story on You and Yours on Radio 4 on the card scam in petrol stations. Seems that the story is that they swipe your card in a reader behind the counter and use a ceiling camera to identify the pin.

There is one theory that it is Sri Lankan criminal gangs that target Sri Lankan owned petrol stations - but no Sri Lankans have been charged as yet and the Police are at pains to stress that this kind of organised crime is not specific to Sri Lankans.

The petrol stations are employing people without having their full details and so they are untraceable.

The problem is country wide and the cards are then used either in this country (if they have the pin) or overseas (if they only have the magnetic strip details).