Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I had the same experience today. What is the relevance of the search function? This is a serious matter and if it is brought to individual's attention multiple times, I would consider that to be a very good thing. My transactions on the account in question have been quite limited in recent weeks. I generally use my card in supermarkets, cash for smaller transactions in independent shops.

I keep 2 cards - one with a very small limit for use in shops and so on and one with a larger limit for emergencies


I use the small one most days up and down the Lane and not once ever had a problem - luck seems to be on my side again. PLus I don't buy petrol which seems to figure prominently


The search function by the way is useful - if people see multiple threads on teh same subject they tend not to be read as widely as a single thread with all the information contained on it - so not only is it useful for those reading but it helps people like you who want to raise awareness

grabot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

What is the

> relevance of the search function?


It's to help avoid seeing the same threads over and over and over again* and so get totally disinterested with the whole shebang.


*see also house Prices, yummy mummies, we are thinking of moving to East Dulwich, house prices, yu...

I appreciate that for trivialities the search function is great. But, postings often ramble off into "witticism" or political commentary. My general rule is that as postings grow they become less relevant. In this case I would say that a fresh posting is justified to provide emphasis. In fact, I have just hit this posting with a big fat non-sequitur myself. Sorry about that guys. I am in a bad mood because of the attempted fraud on my card. My colleagues advise me not to use debit cards, not to have internet banking and to always use cash; what use is that?

Grabot - you have a point there - but as a rule of thumb if the Administrator hasn't lounged it I think of it as still being within the pale and normally resurrect it (I just did one for the Inside 72 thread)


of course now that means neither of our last posts have been about CC fraud....

If you own and use a credit or debit card, at some point your card is liable to be cloned.


Whether or not you 'buy petrol locally' or put your card behind the bar at the Docker's Fist or not is meaningless. Not when there's a hundred other things you buy on the internet every year and are happy to supply all your details, including the security code.


Most serial card cloners (with their various sources of collecting card details) are not foolish enough to go on that spending spree in Dubai ten minutes after you sign for your bar bill and retrieve your card.. not if it's a long term operation, which they usually are.

I agree with Bob and I am afraid my colleagues, many of whom have previously worked in fraud prevention. Responding appropriately is tricky though. Unfortunately, many of modern life's financial conveniences also represent vulnerabilities. The best advice seems to be to use a credit card, rather than a debit card where possible; apparently the burden is on the credit card company to prove blame rather than the cardholder.

I had a call on Monday morning to say my card had been cloned -someone tried to take money from a cash machine at about 11.30 Sunday night and as I'm not usually out an about at this time they stopped it. Apparently late Sunday night is the most common time for attempts of this type.


Only spent at Somerfield and Sainsburys over the past couple of weeks (what an exciting life I lead!), never buy petrol either as I don't drive, so I would just assume it was done a while ago.

I once canceled my CC after losing my wallet in Puerto Banus. By coincidence the replacement for the cancelled card (it was about to expire) landed on my door mat a few days later. I used it for over a month before being contacted by the fraud squad and it took quite a bit of explaining that it was a mistake! Stolen cards only triggers alarm bells if the amount go's over the floor limit of a particular retailer. Don't know if that system has changed.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Choosing a good bank is more important than how

> and when you use your (credit) card. One that

> spots dubious transactions quickly and doesn't

> leave you holding the tab whilst they sort it

> out.

>

> I'd recommend First Direct.



I second FD


Had a call from their fraud dept. on Saturday to say as I was in Threshers on LL at 7.30 Friday night they guessed it wasn't me dropping ?60 in Tunis at the same time!

Natwest are stupid. They sent me a letter on Saturday saying they had put a block on my card and I should call them to get it lifted as there was suspicious activity on my account. Someone had withdrawn ?100 from a Sicilian bank but, as I was in Sicily at the time, it was me. WTF didn't they just ring me instead?


Egg are good, I bought a skiing jacket once using my Egg card (which I hardly ever use) and as I did so my phone rang, it was Egg asking (after the usual security questions) if I was using my card in a shop in Covent Garden at that moment.

Got a call yesterday from my bank's fraud team. A clone of my card had been used in South African 10 minutes beforehand. Very quick detection but I think my card had already been flagged for possible fraud as I had an unrecognised cheque on my statement (may be legitimate but I cannot remember writing it). The only shops I have used have been big stores - Sainsburys, Woolworths, Boots etc., but I did have one transaction at Budgens. Anyone else who has had their card cloned used Budgens? Only cash machine used has been the one at Barclays on LL.

My debit card stopped working at cash points a couple of weeks ago, I went into the bank to withdraw some cash and told them the problem, they gave me the cash I wanted and allegedly checked my account and ordered a new card.


No card arrived. Went into the bank a week later, new card hadnt even been ordered, account allegedly checked and new card ordered.


New card arrived Tuesday, tried to use it yesterday, transaction not authorised....... went online today, seems that although my genuine transaction was declined, transactions in Montreal and Johannesburg on the same day were not!!!


My card was cloned early April! Numerous ATM withdrawals have been made up to my daily cash withdrawal limit on numerous days since 2nd April. They are all in South Africa and Canada.


I now have no access to my account / money (internet banking doesnt work when card cancelled) and have to wait a month to get the money back, even though the bank have told me its fraud (NSS) and I will get a full refund! hmmmm


I used my card three times just before this happened, once in an Abbey ATM in Leather Lane, once in WHSmith in Leather Lane and once in a bar in ED.


The international fraud team are investigating...... will let you know how long it takes to sort! Can anyone lend me a tenner ;-)

liquorish...... although I didnt leave the card behind the bar and I am fairly certain my card wasnt out of my sight when I paid using chip and pin - my gut feeling is that it didnt happen there.


The Abbey ATM and WHSmith seem unlikely too though!


Looking further back (two weeks before it happened) there was a card payment to a country pub in Leamington, payments to Vodafone and Diamond insurance both made over the phone, and a card payment to Sadlers Pharmacy LL. I havent given that card as a tab for ages.


I wonder what the average time period is from taking the details and using the cloned card....

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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