| Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384903] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 11:53 |
|
Can someone please point me in the direction of resources saying who
(of the bank/lender or the victim) takes responsibility for identity
fraud, e.g. if a loan is taken out in someone's identity without their
knowledge? I am not a victim of such a crime, but was told by a bank
today that it is the victim who has to prove that they did not take out
the loan or they will be responsible for it.
Cheers,
Ross-c
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384908 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 12:31 |
|
RossClement [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Can someone please point me in the direction of resources saying who
> (of the bank/lender or the victim) takes responsibility for identity
> fraud, e.g. if a loan is taken out in someone's identity without their
> knowledge? I am not a victim of such a crime, but was told by a bank
> today that it is the victim who has to prove that they did not take out
> the loan or they will be responsible for it.
The rules and their interpretation might vary from institution to
institution. However I don't think it is unreasonable for the victim to
confirm they did not take out the loan. At its most basic this could
simply be a letter to the institution concerned pointing out the error
and asking them to respond within 14 days.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384911 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 13:10 |
|
Colin Forrester wrote:
> RossClement [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> Can someone please point me in the direction of resources saying who
>> (of the bank/lender or the victim) takes responsibility for identity
>> fraud, e.g. if a loan is taken out in someone's identity without their
>> knowledge? I am not a victim of such a crime, but was told by a bank
>> today that it is the victim who has to prove that they did not take out
>> the loan or they will be responsible for it.
>
> The rules and their interpretation might vary from institution to
> institution.
The rules of the institution are completely irrelevant. If the victim
did not enter into a loan agreement with the lender, then the lender
has absolutely no claim on the victim whatsoever, unless it can show
that the "victim" wasn't really a victim at all but played an active
role in the fraud.
There is absolutely no way the victim has to prove anything.
The lender has to prove that the victim owes them money.
> However I don't think it is unreasonable for the victim to
> confirm they did not take out the loan.
Agreed.
> At its most basic this could
> simply be a letter to the institution concerned pointing out the error
Agreed.
> and asking them to respond within 14 days.
No response necessary. As far as the victim is concerned, the letter
of denial is the end of the matter. It is then up to the lender to
take things further if they dare.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384916 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 14:07 |
|
Thanks. I agree that it is reasonable to expect the victim to cooperate
in a reasonable manner if ID fraud occurs. Certainly asking the victim
to confirm in writing that they did not take out the loan in question
is a reasonable request.
However, the way the situation was presented to me on the phone, by a
bank, was that I would have to prove that it wasn't me that took out
the loan or I would be responsible for it.
Cheers,
Ross-c
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384917 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 14:23 |
|
<RossClement [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146830841.943432.182610 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks. I agree that it is reasonable to expect the victim to cooperate
> in a reasonable manner if ID fraud occurs. Certainly asking the victim
> to confirm in writing that they did not take out the loan in question
> is a reasonable request.
>
> However, the way the situation was presented to me on the phone, by a
> bank, was that I would have to prove that it wasn't me that took out
> the loan or I would be responsible for it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross-c
>
AFAIAA If the bank or any other body or individual claims that another body
or individual owes them money, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate
that the money is owed.
If this was not the case, we could all simply start demanding that others
owe us money and subsequently demand that they prove otherwise or pay up.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384920 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 14:51 |
|
Are there references I could follow where the laws concerning this are
described? I had a look around the FSA site, but couldn't find
anything.
Cheers,
Ross-c
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384923 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:11 |
|
RossClement [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Can someone please point me in the direction of resources saying who
> (of the bank/lender or the victim) takes responsibility for identity
> fraud, e.g. if a loan is taken out in someone's identity without their
> knowledge? I am not a victim of such a crime, but was told by a bank
> today that it is the victim who has to prove that they did not take out
> the loan or they will be responsible for it.
If the bank takes you to court for repayment of the loan, they will have to
prove that you took the loan out.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384924 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:12 |
|
RossClement [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Are there references I could follow where the laws concerning this are
> described? I had a look around the FSA site, but couldn't find
> anything.
It is a very basic fundamental principal of law that if you want to succeed
in a court case, you have to prove your case.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384970 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 21:49 |
|
Banks work by the principe:
"you're guilty, you're guilty, you're guilty"
If you did not keep your 'security information' secret (i.e. that
personal information that is almost universally known) then you can
expect an even
harder time.
In the end the banks will do what is expedient; they are not the
slightest bit interested in the truth.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384971 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 21:53 |
|
Civil action is balance of probabilities. And if somebody had access
to your
personal information you could get hosed.
A good thing is if you are NOT on the electoral role as this is one
thing
the banks are/were supposed to check when giving credit. Not much
help to honest people, of course..!
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384973 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 22:00 |
|
Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384980 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 00:09 |
|
whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
>
> Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
> other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
> money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
Don't be stupid. If they help themselves, you can have them jailed
for theft.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384983 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 00:38 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:F2Q6g.64917$wl.44738 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
>>
>> Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
>> other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
>> money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
>
> Don't be stupid. If they help themselves, you can have them jailed
> for theft.
>
Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the right
to transfer the money from one account to another in extra-ordinary
circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
banking products.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384994 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 10:04 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> The rules and their interpretation might vary from institution to
>> institution.
>
> The rules of the institution are completely irrelevant.
OK re-phrased, the interpretation of those rules might vary from
institution to institution.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384996 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 10:07 |
|
Fred wrote:
>>> Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
>>>
>>> Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
>>> other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
>>> money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
>> Don't be stupid. If they help themselves, you can have them jailed
>> for theft.
>>
>
> Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the right
> to transfer the money from one account to another in extra-ordinary
> circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
> banking products.
Agreed - it makes little sense to have all your money and debts with one
institution for this very reason.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #384997 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 10:09 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
>>
>> Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
>> other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
>> money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
>
> Don't be stupid. If they help themselves, you can have them jailed
> for theft.
Is that before or after you have no money for fuel, food or a lawyer
because your bank has removed it incorrectly?
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385001 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 11:11 |
|
Colin Forrester wrote:
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
>>> The rules and their interpretation might vary from institution to
>>> institution.
>>
>> The rules of the institution are completely irrelevant.
>
> OK re-phrased, the interpretation of those rules might vary from
> institution to institution.
And if they "interpret" them in a way which leads them open to
criminal proceedings?
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385002 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 11:12 |
|
Colin Forrester wrote:
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
>>> Not a chance of that being sufficient, I fear.
>>>
>>> Aside: be careful if the insitution is one you also bank with or have
>>> other savings. In this case they can just help themselves to your
>>> money. For this reason never have a credit card with your own bank...!
>>
>> Don't be stupid. If they help themselves, you can have them jailed
>> for theft.
>
> Is that before or after you have no money for fuel, food or a lawyer
> because your bank has removed it incorrectly?
No problem! Just borrow some more from them. :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385003 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 11:14 |
|
Fred wrote:
> Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the right
> to transfer the money from one account to another in extra-ordinary
> circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
> banking products.
I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
qualifies as such circumstances. You'd be straight in there knocking
on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385006 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 12:17 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> > Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the right
> > to transfer the money from one account to another in extra-ordinary
> > circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
> > banking products.
>
> I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
> qualifies as such circumstances. You'd be straight in there knocking
> on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
> he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
They will still help themselves to the money in your account, and they
claim this as a 'right'. You will also probably find there is a clause
in the credit card contract (buried in the opaque small print). Of
course the fact that a fraudster (not you) signed the agreement will
not stop them acting this way.
All you can do is
(i) guard your personal information. But this is not always so easy as
a lot of it is not exactly 'secret'
(ii) write to your bank telling them you are only interested in using
their free-banking facilities and would never use them for any type of
credit.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385011 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 12:57 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>>> The rules and their interpretation might vary from institution to
>>>> institution.
>>> The rules of the institution are completely irrelevant.
>> OK re-phrased, the interpretation of those rules might vary from
>> institution to institution.
>
> And if they "interpret" them in a way which leads them open to
> criminal proceedings?
That becomes their problem - whether you like it or not different
institutions deal with identity fraud in different ways.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385012 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 13:01 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the right
>> to transfer the money from one account to another in extra-ordinary
>> circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
>> banking products.
>
> I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
> qualifies as such circumstances.
It doesn't, but the bank doesn't know that at the time they start moving
the money around.
> You'd be straight in there knocking
> on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
> he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
I think your last sentence proves that you have no real experience of
these issues. The Police are certainly not going to drag the manager
(or any of the bank staff) out of the branch in handcuffs. The most
likely outcome is that the customer will be dragged out in handcuffs.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385017 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 13:54 |
|
whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>> > Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the
>> > right to transfer the money from one account to another in
>> > extra-ordinary
>> > circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
>> > banking products.
>>
>> I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
>> qualifies as such circumstances. You'd be straight in there knocking
>> on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
>> he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
>
> They will still help themselves to the money in your account, and they
> claim this as a 'right'.
No they won't, not without exposing themselves to the risk of criminal
*and* civil proceedings. They can claim all they want, it doesn't make
it their right.
> You will also probably find there is a clause
> in the credit card contract (buried in the opaque small print).
That's probably fair enough (if it weren't, it would get quashed by the
Unfair Terms Rules) provided it relates to money you really do owe.
> Of
> course the fact that a fraudster (not you) signed the agreement will
> not stop them acting this way.
Oh yes it will. If you tell them it wasn't you, they'll need to be
damned sure you're lying before trying any funny business.
> All you can do is
>
> (i) guard your personal information. But this is not always so easy as
> a lot of it is not exactly 'secret'
It is therefore impossible.
The closest they can get to this is requiring you to keep PINs secret.
> (ii) write to your bank telling them you are only interested in using
> their free-banking facilities and would never use them for any type of
> credit.
Impractical. What if you want to change your mind? What if a fraudster
knows about this and pretends you changed your mind?
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385018 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 13:59 |
|
Colin Forrester wrote:
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
>>> Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the
>>> right to transfer the money from one account to another in
>>> extra-ordinary
>>> circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
>>> banking products.
>>
>> I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
>> qualifies as such circumstances.
>
> It doesn't, but the bank doesn't know that at the time they start moving
> the money around.
They must give you advance warning, which gives you an opportunity to
alert them to the danger they are potentially getting into.
>> You'd be straight in there knocking
>> on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
>> he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
>
> I think your last sentence proves that you have no real experience of
> these issues. The Police are certainly not going to drag the manager
> (or any of the bank staff) out of the branch in handcuffs. The most
> likely outcome is that the customer will be dragged out in handcuffs.
I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. No, I'm glad to say I've had no
personal experience of this, but the law's the law and if you make a
theft complaint to the police and show reasonable grounds, they are
obliged to act upon it.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385024 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 15:18 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:Ac07g.65142$wl.23165 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>
>>>> Most banks have a clause in their conditions which say they have the
>>>> right to transfer the money from one account to another in
>>>> extra-ordinary
>>>> circumstances. Mine does which is why I don't have any other of their
>>>> banking products.
>>>
>>> I hardly think that recovering debts which you don't in fact owe
>>> qualifies as such circumstances.
>>
>> It doesn't, but the bank doesn't know that at the time they start moving
>> the money around.
>
> They must give you advance warning, which gives you an opportunity to
> alert them to the danger they are potentially getting into.
>
>>> You'd be straight in there knocking
>>> on the manager's door and demanding immediate return, failing which
>>> he *will* be dragged out in handcuffs by the polis.
>>
>> I think your last sentence proves that you have no real experience of
>> these issues. The Police are certainly not going to drag the manager
>> (or any of the bank staff) out of the branch in handcuffs. The most
>> likely outcome is that the customer will be dragged out in handcuffs.
>
> I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. No, I'm glad to say I've had no
> personal experience of this, but the law's the law and if you make a
> theft complaint to the police and show reasonable grounds, they are
> obliged to act upon it.
>
AFAIK Thieving is the act of knowingly taking something that does not belong
to you.
A bank seizing your savings because they claim you owe them money is not
theft and the police would not interested. Especially as there will be a
clause in their T&T to allow them to do this.
Adrian
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385025 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 15:32 |
|
Adrian Smith wrote:
> AFAIK Thieving is the act of knowingly taking something that does not
> belong to you.
That's exactly what the bank would be doing in the scenario I envisage.
The taking would be done knowingly. There's a difference between your
wording and moving the "knowingly" along a bit as in "the act of taking
something they know does not belong to you". Whether it belongs to them
or not is a matter of fact which they are not necessarily in a position
to know wih certainty. Believing it is not enough.
If you knowingly take something you believe to be yours but in fact is
not, then arguably it's still theft.
> A bank seizing your savings because they claim you owe them money is not
> theft
Oh yes it is, unless they can substantiate their claim.
> and the police would not interested.
They had better be.
> Especially as there will be a
> clause in their T&T to allow them to do this.
Not good enough. If there is a dispute about a fact which makes the
difference between a civil and a criminal matter, then there is at
least suspicion of a crime, in which case the police should investigate.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385040 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 20:18 |
|
>>Oh yes it will. If you tell them it wasn't you, they'll need to be
>>damned sure you're lying before trying any funny business.
I can tell it has probably never happened to you. But ID fraud has
exploded.
Because banks want to dish out easy credit, and because the current
'gold standard' of security is the Royal Mail.
> All you can do is
> (i) guard your personal information. But this is not always so easy as
>>The closest they can get to this is requiring you to keep PINs secret.
I can also tell you haven't read about your responsibilities under the
banking code.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385041 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 20:25 |
|
>> (ii) write to your bank telling them you are only interested in using
>> their free-banking facilities and would never use them for any type of
>> credit.
>Impractical. What if you want to change your mind? What if a fraudster
>knows about this and pretends you changed your mind?
Well of course you don't tell anyone....
The point is as much to annoy the banks by letting them know you only
want to use them for free-banking, not all the other stuff they want to
foist on
you so they can actually make a profit. Instead you will be pointedly
using
their competitors for these services.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385050 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 23:33 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:Nz17g.65154$wl.52252 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> and the police would not interested.
>
> They had better be.
Why, what you gonna do if they're not.. Which they won't be..
Adrian
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385060 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 00:19 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:Nz17g.65154$wl.52252 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> AFAIK Thieving is the act of knowingly taking something that does not
>> belong to you.
>
> That's exactly what the bank would be doing in the scenario I envisage.
>
> The taking would be done knowingly. There's a difference between your
> wording and moving the "knowingly" along a bit as in "the act of taking
> something they know does not belong to you". Whether it belongs to them
> or not is a matter of fact which they are not necessarily in a position
> to know wih certainty. Believing it is not enough.
>
> If you knowingly take something you believe to be yours but in fact is
> not, then arguably it's still theft.
Indeed,and the argument will take place in court with all the hassle that
entails.
>
>> A bank seizing your savings because they claim you owe them money is not
>> theft
>
> Oh yes it is, unless they can substantiate their claim.
>
>> and the police would not interested.
>
> They had better be.
they wont.
>
>> Especially as there will be a
>> clause in their T&T to allow them to do this.
>
> Not good enough. If there is a dispute about a fact which makes the
> difference between a civil and a criminal matter, then there is at
> least suspicion of a crime, in which case the police should investigate.
It simply doesnt work that way.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385111 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 17:18 |
|
Adrian Smith wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> Adrian Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> and the police would not interested.
>>
>> They had better be.
>
> Why, what you gonna do if they're not.. Which they won't be..
Make a formal complaint. If you supply to them evidence which
reasonably suggests that a crime such as theft or fraud may have been
committed, they are, I would hope, *required* to investigate. Upon
investigation they may end up taking the view that it is a civil
matter, but a mere claim by the accused party to that effect should
certainly not suffice for them to reach that conclusion.
Otherwise I could claim that we had an agreement for me to borrow
your car, and when you report it stolen, my telling them about this
ficticious agreement would be enough to "disinterest" them.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385112 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 17:22 |
|
whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> All you can do is
>>> (i) guard your personal information. But this is not always so easy as
>>
>>The closest they can get to this is requiring you to keep PINs secret.
>
> I can also tell you haven't read about your responsibilities under the
> banking code.
Care to more specific? Which bits of the banking code require me
to "guard" information about me which is in the public domain, such
as by being in the phone book or on the electoral roll or on my birth
certificate?
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385115 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 18:17 |
|
I refer to to the Banking Code, March 06
http://www.bankingcode.co.uk/
"Never write down your PIN, password or OTHER SECURITY INFORMATION"
"..do not tell anyone else your PIN password or OTHER SECURITY
INFORMATION"
Emphasis in the original.
"Other security information" is defined as
"A selection of facts and information (which only you know) which is
used for identification
when using accounts."
If somebody has this information, e.g. family member or sombody close
to you (e.g. person
sharing your house) you could have the mother of all fights on your
hands, the banks will likely take
it to the wire. And don't think because you have been with the same
institution as a loyal customer it
will count in your favour: these days, loyalty counts for squat and
often costs the customer.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385116 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 18:22 |
|
>Make a formal complaint. If you supply to them evidence which
>reasonably suggests that a crime such as theft or fraud may have been
>committed, they are, I would hope, *required* to investigate.
Yes..
>Upon investigation they may end up taking the view that it is a civil
>matter,
I think it will take them about 3 seconds of 'investigating' to reach
that
conclusion.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385122 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 19:40 |
|
whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I refer to to the Banking Code, March 06
>
> http://www.bankingcode.co.uk/
>
> "Never write down your PIN, password or OTHER SECURITY INFORMATION"
> "..do not tell anyone else your PIN password or OTHER SECURITY
> INFORMATION"
>
> Emphasis in the original.
>
> "Other security information" is defined as
>
> "A selection of facts and information (which only you know) which is
> used for identification
> when using accounts."
Security numbers or random security words would be ok. However banks have
been known to ask for: Mother's maiden name , name of pet, school, .... none
of which "only you know" by definition. If the bank never asks anyone else
the same question. ie Only one customer is ever asked for mother's maiden
name, then fine. But if they ever ask anyone else the same question then
they are giving away clues.
Actually, bank phone operators do give away clues when trying to help a
customer remember details. Criminals have been using this to build up
enough info to access accounts. They also ring the customers pretending to
be the bank to get the answers that they don't have.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385124 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 20:02 |
|
whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> "Other security information" is defined as
>
> "A selection of facts and information (which only you know) which is
> used for identification when using accounts."
>
> If somebody has this information, e.g. family member or sombody close
> to you (e.g. person
> sharing your house) you could have the mother of all fights on your
> hands, the banks will likely take
> it to the wire.
"A selection of facts and information which only you know" by definition
cannot include any information which "sombody close to you" knows.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385127 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 22:31 |
|
>
> Otherwise I could claim that we had an agreement for me to borrow
> your car, and when you report it stolen, my telling them about this
> ficticious agreement would be enough to "disinterest" them.
>
Now your getting the picture..... With the right story and no witnesses to
dispute it, the police would indeed be disinterested.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385128 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 22:45 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> "Other security information" is defined as
>>
>> "A selection of facts and information (which only you know) which is
>> used for identification when using accounts."
>>
>> If somebody has this information, e.g. family member or sombody close
>> to you (e.g. person
>> sharing your house) you could have the mother of all fights on your
>> hands, the banks will likely take
>> it to the wire.
>
> "A selection of facts and information which only you know" by
> definition cannot include any information which "sombody close to
> you" knows.
And to think they used to ask for mothers' maiden names.
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #385130 ] |
So, 07 Mai 2006 23:34 |
|
rob wrote:
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> whitely525 [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> "Other security information" is defined as
>>>
>>> "A selection of facts and information (which only you know) which is
>>> used for identification when using accounts."
>>>
>>> If somebody has this information, e.g. family member or sombody close
>>> to you (e.g. person
>>> sharing your house) you could have the mother of all fights on your
>>> hands, the banks will likely take
>>> it to the wire.
>>
>> "A selection of facts and information which only you know" by
>> definition cannot include any information which "sombody close to
>> you" knows.
>
> And to think they used to ask for mothers' maiden names.
What do you mean "used to"?
|
|
|
| Re: Responsibility for ID fraud [message #386428 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 02:20 |
|
Adrian Smith wrote:
>>
>> Otherwise I could claim that we had an agreement for me to borrow
>> your car, and when you report it stolen, my telling them about this
>> ficticious agreement would be enough to "disinterest" them.
>>
>
> Now your getting the picture..... With the right story and no witnesses to
> dispute it, the police would indeed be disinterested.
Sounds like a good plan to get the cops nicked by the DPP for
conspiracy after the fact, or whatever they call it outside of
american telly.
|
|
|
