ID Theft - Do You Owe Money if Someone does this to you?

Identity theft does happen....and in my own case it has happened in this group with someone posting as me and even using my email address, but, and heres the important parts, my computer has a unique identifier so it was easy to prove that the messages weren't mine....however, someone open up an ebay account which was once again easy to prove it wasn't mine, so just be able to prove what you do and tell anyone who wants to take you to Court to FO with reasons.

Are you *sure* it was your bank phoning you?

It might have been someone trying to get information from you in the hope to steal *your* identity!

So what she is saying is that it is very difficult to convince the bank that you are not responsible for a loan, but that it it is easy to convince the insurance department of the bank of precisely the same thing?

Ian

Never, ever, buy anything from an unsolicited caller, whether at the door or by telephone.

Rubbish.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "affected". If banks foolishly lend money to crooks and lose that money, the rest of us pay for it in increased charges from the banks. In that sense, we're all affected.

Of course, most people when told a figure like that will understand that one in four people have had their identity "stolen". That must be rubbish.

One tactic is to ask the caller to substantiate the assertion by reference to published academic studies. That should throw them.

No, of course not. I suggest that the insurance company providing "identity theft insurance" would ask for more evidence (that you didn't take out the loan) before paying out than the bank would need.

You wouldn't need to. The bank needs to prove that you did in order to claim repayment from you.

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well, she would, wouldn't she?" I don't suppose you asked her howher commission rate

If a creditor starts chasing you for money you don't owe, tell them that they're chasing the wrong person. Yes, it can cause some hassle but I can't see that insurance will reduce that hassle.

Care to name and shame the bank that told you this pack of lies?

Mike.

Natwest. (been a business customer with them for 10 years).

Good point!

How much was the premium? If one in 4 people need to spend 10k to defend a case of ID theft, the premium would have to be 2500 just to break even. No, I thought not!

£89.95 a year I think she said.

This is the banks way of recuperating some money they lose via ID theft. Normally they have to pay it back, but as it is big news they are offering "protection" and "insurance" - neither of which you need cos you have it anyway. Worryingly, the bank are preying on this issue and slowly changing the public perception of the issue into something that is their fault and they have to deal with rather than the bank.

Then either they're operating at a huge loss, or else they're refusing to pay out on the vast majority of claims. Either way, the alarm bells should be telling you to give them a wide berth.

Now why doesn't that surprize me.

Read this.

One line in there addresses your questions directly. "For example, policies have sprung up offering people cover against identity theft, but Which? says any proven identity fraud losses are covered by people's banks."

The 1 in 4 claim may well be correct if it refers to things such as the fraudulent use of stolen credit card details happening at least once in the life of 1 in 4 people. I very much doubt that 1 in 4 people suffer ID theft *every year* - but IIRC that was not the claim that was made.

Your calculation therefore makes an unwarranted assumption. £89.95 would break even if ID theft requiring a £10K insurance payout occured to 1 in 4 people on average every 28 years.

Fair comment. But it doesn't change the fact that the bank is trying to sell the customer a type of cover that they already have under the T&C of their bank. Surely that's a clear case of miss-sellig a policy. When I worked at Norwich Union, that was something the FSA were very hot on, and something we had to be very crefull to avoid doing.

I think it was only last week that Which? came out with a list of Insurances You Don't Need, and ID Theft was making it big on the list.

Matti

About the same as Dixons trying to sell you a warranty that gives you nothing extra than you already have from SOGA.

Buyer beware & all that.

-- Cynic

Surely it's not quite the same, since I specifically asked if I was liable should someone take out a loan in my name, and she responded 'yes'. That's analogous to saying that you need this warranty because should the item be unfit for purpose, the manufacturer will not replace or repair it FOC (which is not true).

Yes - that part would amount to obtaining an advantage by deception, and you should complain to the head office. I was commenting only on the fact that such insurance is available at all.

I'm sure that they didn't actually *say* that there was a 1 in 4 chance of having your identity stolen during the policy year - but I'm equally sure that they'd like you to *think* that, so that you'd be more likely to buy their insurance. Do you honestly think that they would say "there is a 25% chance that your identity will stolen some time in the next 28 years" even though that may be closer to the truth?