Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Beware all.....


You're walking along, minding your own business, when someone coming in the opposite direction suddenly finds a large gold wedding band on the pavement between you. They look at it and then hold it out towards you, indicating the stamps on the inside of the band that have the appearance of hallmarks, as if seeking your engagement (no pun intended...). Because you are a caring and responsible person, you are naturally perturbed at the thought that some poor person has lost their wedding ring. Maybe you suggest they take it to the police. They indicate that they will keep the ring but that if you want to hand it in, you must give them money in order to secure it.


What do you do?


My partner, concerned that if he didn't secure the ring it would find its way to a pawnshop, handed over ?10 to a man who had "found" such a ring. And then, discovered it was a bit of plumbing brass, shined up to look the part until he got a closer look. That was a few months ago, on Grove Vale.


This morning, to my surprise, a woman walking along Grove Vale towards me found an identical wedding ring on the pavement. What are the odds?! Anyway, she wasn't very happy when I pointed out that it was a bit of brass and suggested that she was working a number. She pocketed the ring, stamped off muttering, crossed the road to the bus shelter outside the Blackbird and phoned up her oppo, with whom she had a lengthy conversation before breaking off and shouting and gesticulating at me because I had the temerity to observe her movements. She then walked off towards the Lane before suddenly dashing across the road and legging it up Oglander/Copleston Road.


The police tell me that this is a very well known scam, mostly practiced in the West End by Romanian/Albanians working in pairs. Well, it's in East Dulwich now and I'm the second mark in one household. I bet there will be a few more people targeted out there before the end of the day. Just make sure it's not you or anyone you know.

"They indicate that they will keep the ring but that if you want to hand it in, you must give them money in order to secure it.


What do you do?"


xxxxxxx


Tell them you are not stupid and that if they don't f- off you will call the police?


And then report them to the police anyway?


ETA: Well, that's what I'd do :))

I'm so surprised, how silly some people can be. Why would you want to pay and secure something being held by someone who it obviously doesn't belong to them. I think britain and the dulwich area need so stop being so nieve as to what is going on in the world with scams.

Easy to be so certain you'd never fall for anything like this while you're reading about it on line .


Perhaps you wouldn't - I bet I would ,I fall for everything .


So I'm grateful for the warning .


No need for people to be so scathing when someone has publicly outed themselves as being less knowing than you .

I seem to remember this happening to me... Cannot rememeber where it was. May of been Lordship Lane.


Asian guy appeared to pick up something from the pavement in front of me.


I thought it was just a joke.


It did not get to the stage of them asking me for money as I walked off.


The ring was large, No Decoration , I beleive it was a 22mm brass plumbing Olive which had been buffed up.


Seems to be quite common from what people are saying.


Foxy.

It's very widespread and not always so subtle.


It happened to us in Paris a couple of months ago, accompanied by the most animated 'Ooh la la! Qu'est-ce que c'est?' I'd heard since 'Inky' Fenton found the cartoon penis we'd drawn in his 'Longman's Audio-Visual French' teachers' edition.

no actually they don't deserve to lose their money. If someone is daft enough to part with money in trying to be helpful, then shame on the scammers. Yes of course one never should part with money after some cock and bull story, but there is the element of trying to be helpful and not having the chance to rationally think what is going on. It seems to me that for the most part, people try to be kind and helpful, and just because someone makes a daft mistake, being taken for a ride by some dodgy person is not ok to excuse or commend the behaviour of said 'scammer'


How often have we read the thanks from people who's relative fell in the snow, was knocked off the bike/hit by a car etc and lots of people rushed to help offer help, a cup of tea, a place of refuge, not for a moment thinking that the 'victim' might actually be looking for a way to fleece these helpers? Yes I know there are dodgy types out there, but please let's not squash the natural instinct to help where we can.

Yesterday when i was in the west end the same thing happened to me. A guy appeared to pick up something from the pavement and then proceeded to walk over to me to show me what he had found. It appeared to be a large mans wedding ring and he asked me if i wanted it. I told him no.........and then he shrugged his shoulders and walked off!
This happened to an older relative of mine when she was looking after my toddler in a park (in the Ladywell area). Seems like they are endemic throughout London. She did hand over some money - not because she is stupid, as some have suggested, but because she was confused and felt somewhat threatened. Let's blame the scammers, not the people they are scamming. Turn your contempt on the people who are intimidating pensioners and children, not those who are being intimidated.
Agree with Bouncy. What's the point of making fun of / hurling contempt at the OP? Just take it for what it is- someone reporting a scam in an attempt to be helpful. If people feel they'll be the target of derision if they come on here and admit that they were conned, people might stop alerting the community about these crimes.

I don't agree with the liberal single mindedness as stated in the previous posts - there is no comtempt from those who mock (me for one) as bouncy suggested.


I agree with the idea of feeling threatened, especially amoung the voulnerable, but in the same guise if people allow themselevs to be indtimidated, in that it is a manifestiation within their own minds, these scams will perpitrate, and yes when (if) I end up old and infirm I will remain this way - arrogantly so ; ) not through "bravado" but shear bloody mindedness.

Is it really liberal to suggest its rude to respond to someone who is telling you that their partner fell for a scam by saying that only and idiot would fall for it and they deserved to be ripped off? No one would do that in real life. Its only the anonymity of the internet that allows people to behave this way.
Yes, not quite understanding what 'liberal single mindedness' is in this context! Also at a loss as to how calling someone 'a fool' is not contemptuous... Perhaps, to extrapolate from LondonMix's suggestion, it's all just internet-enabled nastiness purely for the sake of nastiness...

If the OP stops even one person from being taken in by this con (and let's face it, the scammers wouldn't keep doing it if it didn't work sometimes) then it's a worthwhile post.


It's easy to ridicule anyone being taken in by this but how many of us have been taken in by beggars, giving some untrue story about needing bus fare etc? I think many of us have all fallen victim to that one. Asking for money from strangers in the street (whatever the story or rouse) most of the time is just a scam.

I'm not being nasty. Its quite simple - Don't give anyone money (not withstanding in exchange for a product or service), if you do and you get conned its your fault and no-one else's. As for anonymity - I'm always like this, even before the internet was invented.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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