Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I think you should simply go ahead and apply for a warrant and execute it. In terms of further damages for distress, I agree that it is a continuing breach but on the other hand you have had damages for distress up until X X date (I can't remember when) so you are now applying for damages for distress from that date. I think probably £200 is a reasonable figure. I certainly agree that the continuation of their breach tends to compound their responsibility but we aren't really trying to get money out of them, we are trying to prove a point. Up to you – but I would have thought that £200 would be reasonable. Don't forget that when we finally get the information we need and they eventually put their hands up to their error, you will be looking at something quite substantially more and there will be the further question of the inaccurate processing of your data which itself is a serious matter in addition to the damage which it has caused.  
    • Well paying nothing would obviously appeal!   Yeah one was definitely 1990' as it was previously the Egg card and other I think was also 90's but could have been 2000's
    • Who says you have to pay anything? When were the cards taken out..very pre 2000 even 1990's i bet!
    • I think now is the time to assemble a list of all the losses which have been incurred as a result of this. So were talking about the wasted money on the lease, the cost of repairs – and any ancillary expenses associated with alternative transport. Of course it would be a prudent thing to just double check the terms and conditions so that we don't end up with egg on our faces. But if everything pans out then the chances of success, if you decide to make a County Court claim, are extremely high
    • For future reference, I think I would have simply made the car available to them for collection on the due date.  If it was undrivable because the clutch was shot after 32k miles I'd have let them sort it out and if they wanted to claim the repair costs back from me I'd have said "See you in court".  [EDIT:  Cross-posted with dx - he's right...]   Also for future reference, if you had somebody advising you to lease an Evoque without covering service charges - when you could have done -  I'd think twice before using them again, and if I did decide to use them again I'd think a third time.   Also you said you've not had use of the car for 14 - 15 weeks but have continued to pay for it.  Why pay for a car when the lease has ended and it's undrivable anyway?  Is this because you made the mistake of not ensuring they had it back at the start of October?
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

fraudulent JD Williams account - ID theft - Lack of Due Diligence Checks?

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 902 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have recently found out that someone has applied for a credit account with JD Williams on my behalf.


They had filled in the online application form with my Name, Date of Birth, a random London address and claimed I had just moved there from an address 4 years ago.


Now, with every credit application I have ever made, from a Loan or Credit Card to a mobile phone contract, there has always been a process of verification to confirm I am infact living at the address given and who I say I am.


These searches show on my credit report as soft searches as they were used to confirm my identity. If I apply for any credit accounts soon after moving, I struggle myself as the verification processes fail until my existing accounts feed the updated info back to the credit reference agencies.


My concern with JD Williams and the 12+ other sub sites they operate is that there is no identity check performed and from a search online, a lot of people are having the same issue as me, many more finding out when a debt is passed to a collection agency and the victim is found.


I am 100% confident that JD Williams do no due diligence checks prior to processing the Hard Credit Search which adds the new linked address to your report. If they did attempt to check my identity electronically before processing the credit application, it would have failed as I was not known at the address supplied.


The concern I have is that a fraudster can easily manipulate someones credit report without needing to verify anything, not even your email address. The company generally offers very high APR rates of 50%+ so I would assume this is targeted at those with bad credit histories and its likely most people are granted credit.


I have reported to the FSA & ICO but they suggest that action would only be taken if they receive enough reports.


I just feel not enough people are aware of why they were victims of fraud so easily because anyone that knows you personally and where you live, can easily order products on credit under your name and they dont even need to have any communication sent to your actual address.

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to CAG Chump


Lets roll this back - Have you complained direct to JD Williams? If so - Have you referred it to the FOS?

This will allow you do to do something about your case.


JD Willaims ID+V process will use a risk assessment application / protocol to assess credit applications. Just to add that when applying for credit after you have just moved - Its not a dead cert that it will fail - Due to the length of time that it takes to for that info to filter through to all 3 CRAs...

However each company has different verification processes. Sometimes when applying for credit - They will ask for a debit card to verify ID. They do this because there are products from all 3 CRAs and others that run various security checks including matching payment details to your address through bank records etc.


It is really fascinating how they do it - However each company is strictly regulated by the FCA but it is up to them what verification checks they do. The FCA do not have a "Standard Framework" for this. Lets say you update your address with the bank. instantly that means that if you suddenly apply for credit and they do this method to verify you - It wont fail


Check out https://www.callcredit.co.uk/products-and-services/fraud-and-id/callvalidate

This is one of those products.


I could go on for hours about this. Think of it this way. The barrier of entry to higher APR products is much lower.

The Acceptance level for Higher APR products can be so lax that Fraud is rife... Irresponsible Lending is also a side effect of this.


Im am very interested in how JDW defended themselves... So please do spill :)


We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group



Receptaculum Ignis


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titled updated and moved to CAT forum

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have complained to JD Williams and they have advised they are fully GDPR Compliant and registered with the FCA so of course they do the relevant checks. The problem is, they dont perform any identity check at all. Their GDPR team members told me and I quote "We are trying our best to become GDPR compliant". Like that became a requirement 2 months ago now and a financial company really should be up to scratch.


I understand the verification of addresses that can be done with a Bank Card, again this would rely on the correct address being given in the 1st instance and would protect individuals from having their credit reports updated by just anyone on a website. All other financial companies do some sort of check that the information supplied is genuine and would require at least the correct address to be known by the account holder. If they had done any form of identity check to ensure the data supplied is true then it would have failed as the applicant would surely know where they had lived over the past 4 years and there was no trace of the new london address on my credit report.


Im just shocked that with all other credit providers I have always needed to prove who I am before they let me apply rather than rely on a website tick box to verify its not fraudulent info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GDPR has been a headache for every company... It is a genuine struggle and JDW struggling wouldnt surprise me.


Its very difficult to get 100% compliance of ID Checks. You unfortunately were one of the unlucky ones. Online fraud is becoming so prevalent these days its so ard to be 100% successful in preventing fraud.

Some companies can do more to lower their ID Fraud rates by adding in these extra methods as you say, but even then no system is foolproof.


Now have JDW put you back in the position you were before they touched your credit file, etc?


We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group



Receptaculum Ignis


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do get its been a headache but its a large company, they should have some idea. How many years have businesses been requiring you to confirm your email address? The reason is that once you have verified your email its confirmation it belongs to you. Makes it a little safer to send over account details such as password resets, order confirmations or credit application data. A simple typo and all those emails go off elsewhere to someone else. Its just basic security. With JDW, you dont need to verify anything and the whole process of applications could be automated to be done in bulk. From a security point of view, its crazy


And I do get that not all identity checks are 100% and that fraud will always happen but I do expect fraudsters to have to work a little harder than this. There is no chance with the information supplied by a fraudster that it could possibly have been checked to be valid and thats my whole point. They are required to do due diligence and its fair to say if they did, they would have prevented this instance of fraud and many similar ones. Come on, how obvious is it when a new catalog account comes through at a completely new unverified address.


JDW are in the process of putting things right in terms of my credit report but I feel that they are putting everyone at risk of financial fraud because they don't bother with any security checks. Maybe its just me but I feel opening a financial account should require more security than a simple tick box or am I really just too untrusting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...