I have recently had to change my bank account details as someone started setting up new car insurance policies online and paying via direct debits on to my account. They used my name but a different address and obviously not my car number plate.
Have others experienced this? I can only assume it is a scam to get cover on a car for a few days/weeks to avoid the new cameras for automatically checking whether a car has insurance?
The insurer (Zurich), my bank (Cahoot) and the police (Thames Valley) haven't really been very helpful in the matter.
My bank suggested I do nothing as it only happened twice and just wait and see. They were really annoyed I insisted on a new account number. They were supposed to transfer my existing direct debits but in reality simply canceled the existing direct debits. This caused me to receive letters from the companies concerned asking why I had canceled my DD and threatening me in some cases (phone company 3!) with immediate legal action for unpaid bills !
The police are treating this as a crime against my bank. As they haven't formally complained they won't be pursuing the matter so the crime number I was given has been filed.
The insurer thinks they did nothing wrong as they have no obligation to check the individual insured lives at the address supplied.
It would appear there is a gaping hole following the enforcement of insurance requirements which has the potential to cause great inconvenience to innocent victims. None of the interested parties police, insurer or bank seem concerned about resolving the matter.
|
That is a bit odd - obviously it's become almost routine for credit cards to be cloned (happened to me twice last year) but I guess the address check would pick that up, so paying by bank transfer allows a few days before the insurance company realise it won't work.
I can understand the bank not caring (they don't lose anything) and the Police not being interested (far too difficult) but you would think the insurance company would be concerned - they could potentially be at some risk if someone is holding one of their certificates.
I wonder if the MIB would be interested - they have to pick up the tab for uninsured losses.
www.mib.org.uk/MIB/en/Contact/Default.htm
|
If it were me I would close the account at the bank and shift my insurance business elsewhere asap.
Are you sure the reference the police gave you was a crime reference and not a call reference?
|
|
|
|
It is the banks problem as the Direct Debit guarantee means that you are not liable in any way. They can easily put a stop on any new Direct Debits being made on your account.
|
|
|
|
ken1414 - You are not Jeremy Clarkson, are you?
All anyone needs to set up a direct debit are the details from your cheque.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm
"Clarkson stung after bank prank .... "I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said.
"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again. " "
|
No I am not Jeremy Clarkson. Wish I was.
What annoys me is how easy it appears to be. A simple address check would defeat this scam.
I don't insure with Zurich but used to work when I worked for them. That is why I went ballistic when they accessed my account and chased this up rather then just claiming under DD guarantee.
You are right the Direct Debit guarantee will cover this situation BUT you need to push for it. Cahoots initial response was "we have a valid DD mandate so get stuffed". It is only because I persisted and specifically mentioned DD guarantee that I got anywhere.
I don't think it is an individual insurer/bank problem but a fault in the system being exploited as cameras have become more common.
Insurer won't have to pay out on any claim as assume once they actually look at the policy (computer all through issue I guess) they will get twitchy about the case as person not on electoral roll etc. Plus you would have to be a bit stupid to try and claim on a policy that might be a detected fraud by time claim paid out!
To me the big loser is the poor customer who is being abused. For the bank & insurer no financial loss occurs. Oh yes and the public in general. My wife?s theory is the car was used for a bank job and she is expecting to see the car reg on crimewatch! Her theory is it was stolen from a dealer, needs no MOT as less then 3 years old so all they need is valid insurance for a day for the job!
I definitely have a crime number. Someone rang me back to suggest changing bank account etc but they won't pursue the matter as my bank was the entity defrauded and they haven't complained. Cloning your identity is not a crime apparently!
|
they won't pursue the matter as my bank was the entity defrauded and they haven't complained.
There was a recent thread by Optimist about these issues.
Reasons for the Police attitude on this type of crime is mentioned here:
www.surrey.police.uk/contactus_article.asp?artid=4...7
"The Fraud Act 2006 ? Reporting Credit Card Fraud
The Fraud Act 2006 represents an entirely new way for investigating fraud. It is no longer necessary to prove a person has been deceived. The focus is now on the dishonest behaviour of the suspect and their intent to make a gain or cause a loss.
It has also changed the onus in reporting credit card fraud to the police, from you to the bank/building society.
Therefore if you discover that your card has been compromised and/or there are transactions on your account that you are not responsible for you now ONLY need to report this matter to your bank or building society."
|
|
|
Insurer won't have to pay out on any claim as assume once they actually look at the policy (computer all through issue I guess) they will get twitchy about the case as person not on electoral roll etc. Plus you would have to be a bit stupid to try and claim on a policy that might be a detected fraud by time claim paid out!
The "insured" might not claim, but in the event of a 3rd party claim, especially for injury, the MIB lean very hard on insurance companies to pay out (otherwise they have to pay themselves).
To me the big loser is the poor customer who is being abused.
The losers are all of us who pay our insurance premiums.
My wife?s theory is the car was used for a bank job and she is expecting to see the car reg >> on crimewatch! Her theory is it was stolen from a dealer, needs no MOT as less then 3 years old so all they need is valid insurance for a day for the job!
The usual reason for this sort of thing is simply to allow the car to be taxed.
|
Thks for updates. My wife will be very disappointed! I had forgot about simple tax disc fraud.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the change in reporting fraud. Police are very lazy around here and will do anything they can to avoid a crime report. They won't even respond to 999 calls around here (with an intruder in the house) as they claim the post code given is not on their systems! I guess even if they did it would take hours to respond as they do a health and safety assessment so the officer doesn't stub his toe on the door frame!
Getting the banks to report the crime is going to be good for the government crime figures as the bank won't want to report it. Those crime figures must be coming down rapidly!
Just looked at home office website and they claim 'These changes were designed to reduce bureaucracy, and speed up investigations". Now why do I have some trouble believing that line.
Edited by ken1414 on 27/06/2008 at 17:43
|
crime figures must be coming down rapidly
That is what the gubermint Ministers tell us every year. They claim mobile phone thefts are going down - conveniently forgetting that the "reported" figures are down because people do not bother reporting crimes any more. It takes hours of your and Police time filling in forms, and wahat with "victim support" follow ups etc., and so people do not bother any more.
|
I don't think the Fraud Act is responsible, jbif. If you have a look at the Home Office identity-theft.org site you'll see an agreement between ACPO and the banks from 1 April last year. I think this is causing the problem.
At this rate you'll only tell the insurance company when your car is stolen or your house burgled and they can decide whether or not to tell the police. Or the hospital if you're assaulted, for that matter.
Recorded crime will tend to go down if it's not recorded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2022 Volvo XC40 1.5 T3 [163] R DESIGN 5dr](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/fee3233d64e3e82193591a31e7d14834/5f6e9e88b0513e924533286f77023387.jpg)
