Or frail and elderly, or has had 3 heart attacks already and does not want the strees of going to court, or at the other end of the scale, someone might decide that £100 may not be worth his time pursuing through the courts because even if he won, he would not get compensated for his time and lost earnings.
There has been a shift in liability. Previously, I would not have been liable for any retail transaction authorized by someone typing four digits into some gadget.
"Gordon" wrote
Simple solution!...
"Gordon" wrote
... get a "cash machine" (only) card - not Debit Card.
"Gordon" wrote
Which store will open a card a/c with just your name and address, and no other ID?
Anyway, the easy solution there is to go ex-directory...
... and you still aren't (assuming it wasn't you, and they weren't doing it with your permission).
*No* "liability shift".
wrote
Then don't go to court - take it to the Ombudsman instead.
wrote
That's his choice.
wrote
Why not?
Tim wrote
That would be a downgrade, AFAIAC!
Kendals, in Manchester, and Debenhams.
Neither the stores 'security' people, nor the under-writing bank fraud department would say what I/D had been used, in either case. They even used the incorrect initial. ;-)
I have been burning or shredding my utility bills, receipts etc, since long before it became standard advice.
At 15:56:45 on 09/06/2006, Gordon delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Indeed. However, I just walk a few yards to the cashpoint outside the supermarket which has the added bonus of not restricting me to £50.
"Gordon" wrote
No, it would be an *additional* card, for extra flexibility!
"Gordon" wrote
You sound like you are talking from the experience of an actual case...
"Gordon" wrote
So that wouldn't be "ID theft" at all, they simply defrauded the store by making-up a non-existent ID. [Presumably the "person" with that initial did not exist?]
Surely you are not trying to suggest that they wanted
*you* to pay the bill in someone else's name?If they tried with a different initial, do you think they would have tried if it was a different surname?! :-(
Tim wrote
Yes!
The bills came here! The first one, I mistook for an unsolicited attempt to persuade me to take their store card, as a card was attached to the letter, and I almost scrapped it. Then 10 days later another card arrived from the second store, and, - in the same post - the statement for the first card account. The underwriting bank was the same for both, and after I spoke to their fraud dept and forwarded the paperwork to them, they eventually accepted that it was fraud, and it cost me nothing. Except that they put extra security on my CC for a year, which meant I could not use it for immediate 'collect' purchases.
Good question, What would you have done about similar cards/bills arriving at your address? Could you (we) afford to just throw them away? ;-)
"Gordon" wrote
Just because they were sent to your address, doesn't mean that they are for *you*!
Different initial = different name = *not* you.
"Gordon" wrote
Your CC with whom?
Why did you let them mess up *your* credit, when the fraud wasn't even in your name?
"Gordon" wrote
I'd return them, saying "person not at this address". [And probably phone them up to discuss it beforehand.]
It is fault of the system that puts him in a lose-lose situation.
I am now liable if I am negligent with my PIN. Previously, I could be as negligent as I liked with my PIN and not be liable for retail transaction authorised by 4 digits instead of my signature. This is a definite shift in liability.
At 17:53:57 on 12/06/2006, s snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com delighted uk.finance by announcing:
You always were.
But liable for any cash withdrawals which is actually the greater risk.
Are you planning to be negligent with your PIN?
Tim wrote
Ok, if it happens again, maybe I'll try that ploy.
Meanwhile, let's hear from someone who did..... ;-)
ITN last night:
Prof. Ross Anderson (Cambridge Univ)
When oh when are the card industry going to come clean and say anyone can have a Chip & Signature card if they want one!
snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk wrote
I've got one, but it also functions as a Chip and Pin card. ;-)
At 23:09:33 on 13/06/2006, snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:
When are the researchers going to stop exaggerating their claims? They haven't cloned anything. Their 'cloned' cards will not work if the transaction goes online.
wrote
Why would you want to waste your time signing bits of paper for every transaction, when you could instead simply be tapping a few buttons? - much easier!!
You're making a subjective prejudgement. *You* may find it easier to remember which buttons to tap and quicker to do so than to render a written signature, but that certainly doesn't apply to everybody. Speaking for myself, I find signing quicker and easier, though there's not much in it. And if it avoids the risk, though slight, of a huge amount of hassle to sort out a possible case of fraud by PIN harvesting, then even if it *did* take significantly longer, it's a price worth paying for security.
Because claimants never do. Look it up.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.