"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
...
Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

They'll go to their trusty manual "How to reduce the crime statistics
and do as little work as possible" and then say that no crime has been
committed and it's a civil matter.

Go to the police complaints committee (or whatever they're called). Or
your
MP. Let them laugh at you.

Can you explain what the purpose of that stupid comment was? Is it
related to your protestations that when somebody has money taken from
their account unauthorised they are not a victim?

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know. You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a mistake),
and no evidence as to where the problem occurred. The correct procedure is
to report it to the bank, let them investigate, establish if it was actually
fraud, and if so they can provide the evidence to the police if they or the
retailer (who has been defrauded) want to pursue. The only reason for even
considering going to the police would be if the bank refuse to refund the
charge, and even that would be pretty pointless because the first port of
call should be the financial ombudsman and if they rule against you it's
unlikely the police would consider there is any evidence to pursue a
criminal charge.

If you get an incorrect item on your bill in a restaurant do you call the
police immediately, or do you query the charge with the waiter first?

--
Andy

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake), and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so it's
up to them to report it.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.

This isn't a murder. The retailer and bank are still "alive". In general
where the victim survives it is up to the victim (or someone on behalf of
the victim) to report the crime, and if the victim wants to drop charges
that's up to them (I know there are some exceptions).

Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

But the police would want evidence that it is a fraud. The customer will not
be able to provide that evidence. The bank and/or the retailer are in a far
better position to be able to provide that evidence.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake), and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so it's
up to them to report it.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.

This isn't a murder. The retailer and bank are still "alive".

JB did not suggest a murder had been committed. He illustrated the
absurdity of what you said by pointing out that if it were the case
[that the victim of a crime is the only person permitted to report
a crime to the police] then nobody could report murders.

In general
where the victim survives it is up to the victim (or someone on behalf of
the victim) to report the crime,

That's utter tosh. Where a crime has been committed, *ANYONE* can *AND
SHOULD* report it, since it is obviously in everyone's interests that
crime should be fought.

and if the victim wants to drop charges
that's up to them (I know there are some exceptions).

In general it is not up to the victim to decide whether charges should
or should not be dropped. It's different in civil mattersm of course,
where no crime has been committed but there is still a victim. There
it is only the victim or their agent who can raise proceedings.

Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

But the police would want evidence that it is a fraud.

OK, they'll want evidence that it was a crime. It doesn't have to be
fraud. It could be plain old theft. It could be criminal negligence
on the part of the bank to fail to assist the victim properly.

The customer will
not be able to provide that evidence. The bank and/or the retailer are in
a far better position to be able to provide that evidence.

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected, nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
...
Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

They'll go to their trusty manual "How to reduce the crime statistics
and do as little work as possible" and then say that no crime has been
committed and it's a civil matter.

Go to the police complaints committee (or whatever they're called). Or
your MP. Let them laugh at you.

Can you explain what the purpose of that stupid comment was? Is it
related to your protestations that when somebody has money taken from
their account unauthorised they are not a victim?

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know.

Wrong. You also know there has been a victim: You.

You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a
mistake), and no evidence as to where the problem occurred.

Even if there was no crime, there was a victim.
You can be the victim of a mistake too, you know.

The correct
procedure is to report it to the bank, let them investigate, establish if
it was actually fraud, and if so they can provide the evidence to the
police if they or the retailer (who has been defrauded) want to pursue.

Agreed, that is the correct initial procedure.

The only reason for even considering going to the police would be if the
bank refuse to refund the charge,

Fine.

and even that would be pretty pointless
because the first port of call should be the financial ombudsman and if
they rule against you it's unlikely the police would consider there is any
evidence to pursue a criminal charge.

Going to the FOS or the courts to pursue a civil claim is one thing, it may
get you your money back, and compensation on top. But if there is reason
to suspect a crime has been committed, you should *also* involve the police,
and as soon as possible.

If you get an incorrect item on your bill in a restaurant do you call the
police immediately, or do you query the charge with the waiter first?

Depends. Normally you would assume it was a simple mistake and you'd query
it with the waiter. But suppose you had heard from friends of a number of
unrelated incidents in all of which this particular waiter made the same
"mistake", and when queried always "checks" and "discovers" that he's
made a mistake and cancels the charge, apologising profusely. You decided
to mount a sting operation to confirm his MO, and you catch him out. You
call the police immediately. Or better still, make sure one of your dining
partners *is* the police.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
m...
Andy Pandy wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake), and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so it's
up to them to report it.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.

This isn't a murder. The retailer and bank are still "alive".

JB did not suggest a murder had been committed. He illustrated the
absurdity of what you said by pointing out that if it were the case
[that the victim of a crime is the only person permitted to report
a crime to the police] then nobody could report murders.

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

In general
where the victim survives it is up to the victim (or someone on behalf of
the victim) to report the crime,

That's utter tosh. Where a crime has been committed, *ANYONE* can *AND
SHOULD* report it, since it is obviously in everyone's interests that
crime should be fought.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I hope
you'll report that crime immediately. Or if someone at works photocopies a
copyrighted map.

But anyway the issue is evidence - without the evidence of the victim the
crime will often be hard to prove. Going to the police with a copy of your
credit card statement as the only evidence for "fraud" and they'll rightly
laugh at you.

and if the victim wants to drop charges
that's up to them (I know there are some exceptions).

In general it is not up to the victim to decide whether charges should
or should not be dropped.

But in reality the authorities will be reluctant to press charges if the
victim doesn't want them to. I (along with several other people) witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the evidence
being very good (lots of witnesses).

It's different in civil mattersm of course,
where no crime has been committed but there is still a victim. There
it is only the victim or their agent who can raise proceedings.

Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

But the police would want evidence that it is a fraud.

OK, they'll want evidence that it was a crime. It doesn't have to be
fraud. It could be plain old theft. It could be criminal negligence
on the part of the bank to fail to assist the victim properly.

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer or
financial authorities?

The customer will
not be able to provide that evidence. The bank and/or the retailer are in
a far better position to be able to provide that evidence.

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected, nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being brought
then.

--
Andy

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
m...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
...
Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

They'll go to their trusty manual "How to reduce the crime statistics
and do as little work as possible" and then say that no crime has been
committed and it's a civil matter.

Go to the police complaints committee (or whatever they're called). Or
your MP. Let them laugh at you.

Can you explain what the purpose of that stupid comment was? Is it
related to your protestations that when somebody has money taken from
their account unauthorised they are not a victim?

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know.

Wrong. You also know there has been a victim: You.

You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a
mistake), and no evidence as to where the problem occurred.

Even if there was no crime, there was a victim.
You can be the victim of a mistake too, you know.

The issue was about reporting it to the police. Do you go to the police and
says "I've been a victim of a mistake"??

The correct
procedure is to report it to the bank, let them investigate, establish if
it was actually fraud, and if so they can provide the evidence to the
police if they or the retailer (who has been defrauded) want to pursue.

Agreed, that is the correct initial procedure.

The only reason for even considering going to the police would be if the
bank refuse to refund the charge,

Fine.

and even that would be pretty pointless
because the first port of call should be the financial ombudsman and if
they rule against you it's unlikely the police would consider there is
any
evidence to pursue a criminal charge.

Going to the FOS or the courts to pursue a civil claim is one thing, it
may
get you your money back, and compensation on top. But if there is reason
to suspect a crime has been committed, you should *also* involve the
police,
and as soon as possible.

Which is pointless without the co-operation of the bank/retailer/VISA etc.
You may as well leave it to them.

If you get an incorrect item on your bill in a restaurant do you call the
police immediately, or do you query the charge with the waiter first?

Depends. Normally you would assume it was a simple mistake and you'd
query
it with the waiter. But suppose you had heard from friends of a number of
unrelated incidents in all of which this particular waiter made the same
"mistake", and when queried always "checks" and "discovers" that he's
made a mistake and cancels the charge, apologising profusely. You decided
to mount a sting operation to confirm his MO, and you catch him out. You
call the police immediately. Or better still, make sure one of your
dining
partners *is* the police.

And your evidence on its own would prove nothing. You might have searched
restaurant reviews on Google and found 10 other people complaining of the
same thing, but when the restaurant is confronted they say that waiter had
served 5000 people in that period and 4990 hadn't had a problem - and
further investigation might show that waiter had undercharged 10 people over
the same period.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote

You're looking at the problem with too money-focused a view. A
person
is a victim of a crime as soon as he suffers any injury or loss,
even
if it is not loss of money. At the very least, he loses the time it
takes to get it sorted. That's not indirect, it's a direct result
of the fraud attempt.

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim.

Agreed, but I wasn't talking about some other person, I'm talking
about the same person.

It's not the same person. In all likelyhood the retailer has been been
defrauded by someone using someone else's card details.

In that case the direct victim is still the cardholder, because he's the
one lumbered with either the loss of money (if he fails to notice [actually
this is a bit like the tree falling in the forest where there is no-one to
hear it - does it make a noise? If you don't notice you've lost money, are
you a victim? :-) but I digress] or if, having noticed, he decides against
taking any action because he can't face the hassle for such a small amount)
or with the hassle involved in getting it back (which as you variously say
can be hard to sort out or could take just one phone call).

If he then does manage to get the loss transferred to the retailer, then
the retailer is the indirect victim. Remember that the retailer's victim
status is conditional on the cardholder taking action, whereas the
cardholder's victim status is unconditional.

Having a fraudulent transaction on your credit card is one of life's
minor irritations. If someone really does get wound up enough about it
to cause them a heart attack then they are likely to get one anyway,
minor irritations are a fact of life.

The trouble is that a minor irritation can easily turn into a major
one when attempts to sort them out turn into serious challenges,
especially when your bank and card company act as though you were the
criminal.

Well if that happens you're a victim of defamation not fraud.

Only if the bank calls you a criminal. Treating you as one isn't,
they're just being cautious, after all you *could* be a criminal, you
could have made the purchase in question and then tried to weasel out
of paying for it by denying all knowledge of it.

But whether or not defamation/libel is involved, doesn't stop it being
fraud, at least potentially.

Does it happen often?

I shouldn't think defamation of customers by their banks happens often.
But in a way, any attempt by them to fob you off can, if successful,
leave you the victim of fraud. That makes the accomplices after the
fact. I understand it happens very often.

"Andy Pandy" writes:

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know. You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a mistake),
and no evidence as to where the problem occurred. The correct procedure is
to report it to the bank, let them investigate,

Yet in the case under discussion, it was not just a single charge. An
incorrect (apparently periodic) charge was made, the bank notified and
the charge reversed but then the same incorrect charge was accepted for
the following periods despite the bank a) being informed that the charge
was incorrect and that the entity making the charge does not have the
account holder's authority to make it and b) instructed to decline any
further attempts to apply that charge. Surely, at the very least this is
negligence on the part of the bank and at worse (if the charge is
actually fraudulent) making the bank an accessory to the fraud.

"Graham Murray" wrote in message
...
"Andy Pandy" writes:

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know. You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a
mistake),
and no evidence as to where the problem occurred. The correct procedure
is
to report it to the bank, let them investigate,

Yet in the case under discussion, it was not just a single charge. An
incorrect (apparently periodic) charge was made, the bank notified and
the charge reversed but then the same incorrect charge was accepted for
the following periods

Was it? That wasn't clear from the OP's post, that charges were applied
*after* the bank was notified.

despite the bank a) being informed that the charge
was incorrect and that the entity making the charge does not have the
account holder's authority to make it and b) instructed to decline any
further attempts to apply that charge.

There probably isn't a mechanism to put a block on a specific customer
account to a specific retailer.

Surely, at the very least this is
negligence on the part of the bank and at worse (if the charge is
actually fraudulent) making the bank an accessory to the fraud.

When I see one prosecuted for this kind of thing I'll believe you.

--
Andy

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
m...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote

You're looking at the problem with too money-focused a view. A
person
is a victim of a crime as soon as he suffers any injury or loss,
even
if it is not loss of money. At the very least, he loses the time it
takes to get it sorted. That's not indirect, it's a direct result
of the fraud attempt.

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim.

Agreed, but I wasn't talking about some other person, I'm talking
about the same person.

It's not the same person. In all likelyhood the retailer has been been
defrauded by someone using someone else's card details.

In that case the direct victim is still the cardholder, because he's the
one lumbered with either the loss of money (if he fails to notice
[actually
this is a bit like the tree falling in the forest where there is no-one to
hear it - does it make a noise? If you don't notice you've lost money,
are
you a victim? :-) but I digress] or if, having noticed, he decides
against
taking any action because he can't face the hassle for such a small
amount)

Yes, but then as well as being a victim of fraud (or of a mistake) he's also
a victim of his own carelessness or apathy.

or with the hassle involved in getting it back (which as you variously say
can be hard to sort out or could take just one phone call).

If he then does manage to get the loss transferred to the retailer, then
the retailer is the indirect victim.

Erm, no, the retailer (I suspect) loses the money and therefore clearly is
the direct victim. There might be circumstances where it's the bank which
loses the money.

Remember that the retailer's victim
status is conditional on the cardholder taking action, whereas the
cardholder's victim status is unconditional.

The one who suffers the loss of money is clearly the direct victim of the
fraud.

Having a fraudulent transaction on your credit card is one of life's
minor irritations. If someone really does get wound up enough about it
to cause them a heart attack then they are likely to get one anyway,
minor irritations are a fact of life.

The trouble is that a minor irritation can easily turn into a major
one when attempts to sort them out turn into serious challenges,
especially when your bank and card company act as though you were the
criminal.

Well if that happens you're a victim of defamation not fraud.

Only if the bank calls you a criminal. Treating you as one isn't,
they're just being cautious, after all you *could* be a criminal, you
could have made the purchase in question and then tried to weasel out
of paying for it by denying all knowledge of it.

But whether or not defamation/libel is involved, doesn't stop it being
fraud, at least potentially.

Potentially.

Does it happen often?

I shouldn't think defamation of customers by their banks happens often.
But in a way, any attempt by them to fob you off can, if successful,
leave you the victim of fraud. That makes the accomplices after the
fact. I understand it happens very often.

That banks attempt to fob you off when you report an unauthorised
transaction? In that case I'd agree with you - but that's not what happened
in the OPs case and I very much doubt it's commonplace. Do you have any
evidence that this happens "very often"?

--
Andy