Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Chip & PIN FRAUD - Check your statements


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6113 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

sorry I added an off topic, but the article stated that the fingerprint for an application was something that fraudsters would not want to give. I thought it was a good idea and I am sure it was a cheap as chips idea. It is not whether there is a database but that he was saying that if any processing of data was made without that fingerprint, then it would not be him doing it. I have skim read the previous posters so apologies if this has been said before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have heard from a police officer that this system is open to abuse from crooks and the banks could make it more secure but they cant be bothered. It is mainly eastern europeans and asians perpetuating this crime

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the fingerprint system is that the lenders are open to ignore it. They will take about as much notice of it as any other NoC on your record (i.e. none). The penalties that the banks will realistically incur for doing so will be roughly the same as the penalties they face for their other numerous breaches of the law (i.e. none).

 

Even then, if some fraudster manages to get hold of information that suggests that all applications must carry a fingerprint, they'll just make the fraudulent applications with their own prints, knowing they will never be compared to any other application (let alone any police database which will hold their prints already). It is also trivially easy for the fraudsters to obtain the print of an innocent third party and endorse the applications with the print.

 

The banks have no incentive to comply with the print requirement, and if you still suffer fraud you lose the benefit of the doubt.

 

I think I'll stick to merely signing my applications, leaving the bank to prove me guilty, rather than having to prove myself innocent.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenders ignoring it do it at their peril. The penalty they will receive is full liability for the cost of fraud.

 

You have a fraudsters print on file, recorded in the National Fingerprint Database. If the fraudster has a criminal record at least you can put a name, face etc to the crime. If they've no criminal record then the next time they get pulled - their fingered for fraud.

 

On th contrary banks have a terrific incentive to comply and thus tighten their procedures.

 

Anyone using this system have done just what you aim to do - They can't prove you guilty if it's not your print!

 

If it's for you - go for it. It's like saying to burglars, yeah, go on, break into my house, but you're not allowed to wear gloves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy- can you post the article on here so that everyone is aware as to where the discussion is going. I know it was the Sun but the article was never posted on the CAG

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is mainly eastern europeans and asians perpetuating this crime
Thanks for that tip, I'll make sure I am doubly careful if I see or hear an Asian or an Eastern European behind me at the CHIPnPIN machine :confused:

Lloyds TSB, Total Charges £900, Claim Filed for £1379 - Settled

 

Sainsbury's Bank Credit Card, Total Charges £90 - Settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that tip, I'll make sure I am doubly careful if I see or hear an Asian or an Eastern European behind me at the CHIPnPIN machine :-o

 

Crooks come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

 

More places to add to your list: Check you statements if you live in

Poole or Bournemouth.

 

ATM users in Poole and Bournemouth are being urged to remain vigilant after a worrying wave of card skimming incidents.

 

Stamford.

 

"Unfortunately all the transactions were carried out using chip and pin, so we have no finger prints or signatures."

 

 

 

 

Would have put a link into the Sun article if it were available. You can get the same thing from Home - Scamsdirect.com click on to Binspector Bully (page 1) and then click on to the underlined links at the bottom of the page. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never trusted Chip and Pin since I (male~) gave my cousin (Female) my credit card.

 

She managed to use it all day without difficulty.

 

Also, has anyone encountered double charges in their statement and when you queried your credit card company, they said that it was an error from the merchant?

 

It happened last year in my old workplace.

 

It turned out that a card company, managed to double charge thousands of cards without anyone finding out about it.

 

Since we worked with a company that accepted credit cards, we figured it out.

 

That was fun and scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a fraudsters print on file, recorded in the National Fingerprint Database.

 

There is not database of prints.

 

This is now twice you have contradicted yourself on this topic (last time you decided that comparisons between lenders and retailers were simultaneously relevant and not relevant). Can you make up your mind and decide which you're going for?

 

Two lines I'm going to pick out that you have put forward repeatedly, yet failed to actually put forward any supporting argument. Proof by assertion ad nauseum cuts no ice with me.

 

Lenders ignoring it do it at their peril.

 

On th contrary banks have a terrific incentive to comply and thus tighten their procedures.

 

Given that the simple facts of the matter don't support either of these statements, put up or shut up - come up with something to support your point, or stop advising people to use a system that clearly cannot work in the long term.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsurprisingly, Equifax come out in support of it, which is basically the same as a turkey coming out in support of banning Christmas.

 

This still doesn't change the fact that the banks have no incentive to comply.

 

This scheme counteracts a very specific form of fraud, one which has its main impact on the consumer, not the bank. Card fraud is perpetrated in vast amounts each year, and the banks lose a good deal of money from it, whereas the consumer is usually at worst inconvenienced while the issue is rectified. With fraudulent applications, the bank hand out the money, which is a drop in the ocean compared to their existing bad debts, whereas the customer may spend years having to rebuild their lives.

 

As a result, from the point of view of the banks, complying with this is something which costs them a lot of time and money for very little reduction in losses and no potential profit. Not complying with this (bearing in mind a Notice of Correction is not, as incorrectly stated in the article, a legally-binding document) has no additional staffing cost to the bank, and they will probably pursue the debt anyway as they would any other bad debt in the hope that people will cave in before getting to court.

 

So, it's high-cost low-gain vs. low-cost low-gain. Since there is no financial gain for the lender, and it has only limited potential to reduce their losses from fraud, not to mention no real boost to their image (snazzy advertising campaigns can do that for less), they have no financial incentive to invest in it.

 

It would not surprise me if this brought about a new line of fraud - people deliberately applying for credit and running up debt without a print in the knowledge that they can void the agreement later.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

meagain- I brought this one up and I think I said at the beginning that I was going off topic so it was not related to CHIP and PIN, but the discussion went down this route which is why the links are there. Right I think Jimmy and you need to continue the topic of CHIP and PIN, ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic.

 

Live in Little Abington Cambridgeshire, or visited there recently:

 

Check your statement;

 

She said: "It is clear that this problem is much more widespread than we realised, and it makes me feel very unsafe using debit and credit cards.

 

Anything similar appeared in your local press? If it has, please warn fellow consumers by posting here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich update - Keep checking your statements if you've used your plastic in Norwich:

 

I was ripped off 44 times. (Extract):-

 

People who used a city petrol station at the centre of a card cloning [problem] have today been urged to keep checking their accounts after one man told how cash was taken just three days ago.

 

Hundreds of people are believed to have lost money as a result of the suspected fraud at the BP service station in Martineau Lane, near County Hall

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone out there stil trust the PIN part of Chip and PIN?

 

Feel your card is safe?

 

Read this Hot from the Press.

 

 

John Scott-Hubbard and Brian Warburton doctored the devices so they would record customers' secret pin numbers.

Only one of the 41 chip and pin machines they doctored has been found, meaning hundreds of people could have had their details stolen in the [problem],

 

 

Full story click here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Used your plastic in Fareham, Gosport, or Porsmouth area?

 

Then check you statements:

 

POLICE have admitted they don't yet know how many incidents of card-skimming or cloning have taken place across the region as it has been hit by a spate of thefts by international gangs.

 

Full article click here.

 

Bolton too:

 

The British police raided a Shell Service station in Bolton in connection with an investigation into debit and credit card fraud.

Full article click here.

 

Mean while in Scotland:

 

Shops report soaring fraud with Chip & PIN.

 

We were shocked at the staggering rise in card fraud despite the introduction of chip and PIN, which was supposed to stamp out credit and debit care misuse."

 

Take Watchdog advice and get yourself Chip & Signature Credit Cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Latest revalation:

 

Bury St. Edmunds:

 

POLICE believe card-cloning fraudsters have stolen cash from more than 400 people in west Suffolk.

 

“I cancelled my card straight away and my bank told me there had been lots of these cases. Chip and pin cards were meant to be fraud-proof but it seems to be worse than when you used to sign receipts.”

 

But how the PIN number was copied remains a mystery

 

Story here.

 

If you've used a Petrol Station in Bury St Edmunds.

 

Consider BINning your PIN with your credit card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...