Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I registered for tickets, as did my partner, when they were first advertised on the proper Olympic website. We only managed to get Hockey (I bought those on my account) and Paralympics (he bought those on his account he set up). You have to set up an account on the site to be able to purchase tickets. In the last few days there has been all this news about extra seats so last night we both logged on separately on two different laptops and with two different password/accounts to see if we could get any tickets. No luck at all and so we logged off.


This morning he receives a call from his bank (Santander) about some strange transactions that happened around midnight last night - two for 50p and then one for ?107 for clothes - all purchased on line. Anyhow he confirmed that were not his purchases and his card was stopped.


Within half an hour of his call, I receive a phone call from Barclaycard asking about four transactions again made around midnight last night. The first 3 for ?10 were put through but the bigger one for almost ?1000 was thankfully declined. They haven now stopped the card.


This is so odd because we have no joint accounts whatsoever so apart from this website there is nothing to connect us.


I hardly ever use my BC and this year have only used it for the olympic tickets and Amazon. My partner does not use his card much either. What I cannot understand is how did they not only have our complete card number, but the expiration dates and the security number on the back. All the transactions were done over the internet. I have searched today to see if this has happened to anyone else but cannot find anything.


It does seem odd that the only site we were on last night was the official 2012 olympic site and now this has happened. Incidentally the transactions were done from the UK.


Anyone got any thoughts on how this could have happened. We have checked our PC's for virus but none are showing and we have firewalls etc.


Thanks

I asume you were using two computers on a single local network. If it was wireless, I assume it's secure? The first thing I'd check would be that you'd accessed a real official website, with a domain name ending london2012.com, rather than one masquerading as it. Did you each click a link (if so, obtained how?) or enter the URL by hand? A check of your browsers' histories or caches should get you identity of the URL(s) you accessed.

It's worth highlighting that we had similar threads in the past throwing blame on any manner of culprits, and it turned out it was all the Texaco garage from the previous 9 months.


The fact that they cashed them on a particular date was irrelevant.


Everybody was saying 'last week this' or that. Nowt to do with it.

  • 3 weeks later...
An elderly friend had a call from her bank saying something similar but it turned out it was a scam and not the bank. They told her to call the police which she did but they didn't hang up and then they pretended to be the police and took her name and address. I expect this may not have happened to you but thought I would mention the scam here just in case it happens to someone else.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...