By Tony Hetherington for the Daily Mail
Published: 22:04 GMT, 13 December 2014 | Updated: 10:41 GMT, 14 December 2014
Ms M.C. writes: In 1997 I took out an endowment policy to cover my mortgage, doing so through C&C Financial Services, run by Stephen Carroll and Laurence Currie. By 2003 it was clear the policy was underperforming, but the advisers failed to reply to my letters.
Eventually, I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and in 2008 I was awarded mis-selling compensation of £4,517 plus interest.
C&C Financial Services ceased trading and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme put the onus on me to prove that Mr Carroll and Mr Currie would be unable to pay the FOS award. I have spent hundreds of pounds in legal fees, to no avail.
Distressed: Laurence Currie now runs this estate agency in West London
There is a gaping hole in consumer protection rules that the authorities have known about for years – because I highlighted it. But they refuse to take action.
An award from the Financial Ombudsman Service is only worthwhile if the firm that loses the case agrees to pay up. Most do so because they want to stay in business. But if they shut up shop, the Ombudsman is powerless and you, the victim, have to take the firm to court to get your money.
The official compensation scheme only kicks in if the company or all its owners are bankrupt.
There is an easy answer to this. I have suggested that in situations like yours the compensation scheme should pay the award, and then it – not you – should take any necessary court action to get the firm to pay up.
But nobody, not the Ombudsman, the compensation scheme, nor its parent body, the Financial Conduct Authority, is willing to do this.
So what about Mr Carroll and Mr Currie? Why won’t they pay? They went their separate ways years ago, but I traced Stephen Carroll to High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
I gave him a copy of the Ombudsman’s decision to remind him that he and his former partner now owe you more than £5,000, with interest still accruing. What happened next surprised even me. Carroll did not wait for you to sue him: he applied to Aylesbury County Court to declare himself bankrupt.
That left Laurence Phillip Currie. I found him at Hayes in West London, where he runs Phillip Laurence Estate Agents.
He told me that the duff life policy was sold to you by Mr Carroll, and not by him.
He said: ‘I understand the legal side, but I feel that it is an unfair position when I had no input or knowledge of the sales process in this case.’
The legal side, of course, is that Currie and Carroll were a partnership, sharing profits and responsibilities, and the Ombudsman’s award can be enforced against either partner or both.
Currie told me he accepts this, but at the same time he added: ‘I feel hounded’. If I tried to suggest that he was responsible for compensating you, this would be ‘unbalanced and unfair’, and this was ‘causing both my family and myself great distress’.
I was simply promoting a ‘compensation culture’, he complained.
In effect, Currie believes he is more deserving of sympathy than you. And this brings me to one final bizarre point. Currie’s new business in Hayes proudly advertises that it is a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme.
I asked Ombudsman Christopher Hamer how it was right to allow membership to someone who has failed over a long period to respect an award made by another Ombudsman? How confident is the Property Ombudsman scheme, I wondered, that Currie would honour an award by it, if one were ever made?
Hamer did not respond, but a spokeswoman said: ‘The Financial Ombudsman Service operates in a different market sector, with a different jurisdiction to the Property Ombudsman scheme.’ She added that ‘the estate agency business is a separate legal entity from the financial services firm investigated by the FOS’.
I disagree. Laurence Currie is still Laurence Currie. If all it takes to keep the Property Ombudsman happy is a new trading name, then it is a sad day for estate agents’ customers. And it is a sad day for you too, Ms C. You will now have to incur fresh legal fees to enforce the Financial Ombudsman Service’s award in court against Mr Currie.
Why is it so difficult to add my wife to my store card account?
Request: John Lewis would not issue a second card without checks
P.C. writes: I requested that my wife of 17 years become an additional cardholder on my John Lewis account. We have two joint bank accounts and my wife has other savings accounts. We have never been in debt, yet credit checks had insufficient details for John Lewis to allow her a card.
The company asked for proof of identity documents, witnessed by a professional person, and my wife sent everything to John Lewis, witnessed by a chartered accountant. But now we have been told these were not received and we have to pay for witnessing again.
This is like treating a respectable woman as a criminal.
I suspect the problem might be that your wife has never had any debts. Credit checking agencies would sooner see that someone has borrowed and then repaid their loans, rather than see a blank sheet of paper that leaves them to make a decision.
Justin van der Pant, general manager at John Lewis Insurance, told me he has to operate within credit industry rules on identifying customers, even for a supplementary card on an existing account.
He explained: ‘In this instance we were unable to check the additional cardholder’s identity via reference agencies, so requested further identification documents, which unfortunately we did not receive. We apologise for any inconvenience caused, and should the customer wish to resend the documents we will be happy to reimburse any costs incurred as a gesture of goodwill.’
window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Published: 22:04 GMT, 13 December 2014 | Updated: 10:41 GMT, 14 December 2014
Ms M.C. writes: In 1997 I took out an endowment policy to cover my mortgage, doing so through C&C Financial Services, run by Stephen Carroll and Laurence Currie. By 2003 it was clear the policy was underperforming, but the advisers failed to reply to my letters.
Eventually, I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and in 2008 I was awarded mis-selling compensation of £4,517 plus interest.
C&C Financial Services ceased trading and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme put the onus on me to prove that Mr Carroll and Mr Currie would be unable to pay the FOS award. I have spent hundreds of pounds in legal fees, to no avail.
www.samsungbola.com, Agen Bola dan Kasino Online, Agen Bola Terpercaya, Bandar Bola,
Distressed: Laurence Currie now runs this estate agency in West LondonThere is a gaping hole in consumer protection rules that the authorities have known about for years – because I highlighted it. But they refuse to take action.
An award from the Financial Ombudsman Service is only worthwhile if the firm that loses the case agrees to pay up. Most do so because they want to stay in business. But if they shut up shop, the Ombudsman is powerless and you, the victim, have to take the firm to court to get your money.
The official compensation scheme only kicks in if the company or all its owners are bankrupt.
There is an easy answer to this. I have suggested that in situations like yours the compensation scheme should pay the award, and then it – not you – should take any necessary court action to get the firm to pay up.
But nobody, not the Ombudsman, the compensation scheme, nor its parent body, the Financial Conduct Authority, is willing to do this.
So what about Mr Carroll and Mr Currie? Why won’t they pay? They went their separate ways years ago, but I traced Stephen Carroll to High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
I gave him a copy of the Ombudsman’s decision to remind him that he and his former partner now owe you more than £5,000, with interest still accruing. What happened next surprised even me. Carroll did not wait for you to sue him: he applied to Aylesbury County Court to declare himself bankrupt.
That left Laurence Phillip Currie. I found him at Hayes in West London, where he runs Phillip Laurence Estate Agents.
He told me that the duff life policy was sold to you by Mr Carroll, and not by him.
He said: ‘I understand the legal side, but I feel that it is an unfair position when I had no input or knowledge of the sales process in this case.’
The legal side, of course, is that Currie and Carroll were a partnership, sharing profits and responsibilities, and the Ombudsman’s award can be enforced against either partner or both.
Currie told me he accepts this, but at the same time he added: ‘I feel hounded’. If I tried to suggest that he was responsible for compensating you, this would be ‘unbalanced and unfair’, and this was ‘causing both my family and myself great distress’.
I was simply promoting a ‘compensation culture’, he complained.
In effect, Currie believes he is more deserving of sympathy than you. And this brings me to one final bizarre point. Currie’s new business in Hayes proudly advertises that it is a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme.
I asked Ombudsman Christopher Hamer how it was right to allow membership to someone who has failed over a long period to respect an award made by another Ombudsman? How confident is the Property Ombudsman scheme, I wondered, that Currie would honour an award by it, if one were ever made?
Hamer did not respond, but a spokeswoman said: ‘The Financial Ombudsman Service operates in a different market sector, with a different jurisdiction to the Property Ombudsman scheme.’ She added that ‘the estate agency business is a separate legal entity from the financial services firm investigated by the FOS’.
I disagree. Laurence Currie is still Laurence Currie. If all it takes to keep the Property Ombudsman happy is a new trading name, then it is a sad day for estate agents’ customers. And it is a sad day for you too, Ms C. You will now have to incur fresh legal fees to enforce the Financial Ombudsman Service’s award in court against Mr Currie.
Why is it so difficult to add my wife to my store card account?
Request: John Lewis would not issue a second card without checksP.C. writes: I requested that my wife of 17 years become an additional cardholder on my John Lewis account. We have two joint bank accounts and my wife has other savings accounts. We have never been in debt, yet credit checks had insufficient details for John Lewis to allow her a card.
The company asked for proof of identity documents, witnessed by a professional person, and my wife sent everything to John Lewis, witnessed by a chartered accountant. But now we have been told these were not received and we have to pay for witnessing again.
This is like treating a respectable woman as a criminal.
I suspect the problem might be that your wife has never had any debts. Credit checking agencies would sooner see that someone has borrowed and then repaid their loans, rather than see a blank sheet of paper that leaves them to make a decision.
Justin van der Pant, general manager at John Lewis Insurance, told me he has to operate within credit industry rules on identifying customers, even for a supplementary card on an existing account.
He explained: ‘In this instance we were unable to check the additional cardholder’s identity via reference agencies, so requested further identification documents, which unfortunately we did not receive. We apologise for any inconvenience caused, and should the customer wish to resend the documents we will be happy to reimburse any costs incurred as a gesture of goodwill.’
window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
www.samsungbola.com, Agen Bola dan Kasino Online, Agen Bola Terpercaya, Bandar Bola,
Licence freeze: GRF boss Eric Fairweather said the FCA asked his firm to surrender their licenses
Debt alert: If you need help with debt repayment be very careful about which company you choose to use
Delivery failure: A reader was unable to renew her insurance because Royal Mail could not find the address
DM.later('bundle', function(){ if (window.ArticlePage) { new ArticlePage(); } });
PPI muddle: The case went before the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in LondonThis ought to be pretty straightforward. You are due a refund of PPI premiums because you are self-employed, so you could not claim under the policy. But getting hold of the refund has turned into a nightmare.Santander wanted your ex-husband's signature on a release form. At first he said he would only sign if you gave him half the £5,300, but eventually he agreed and signed. Then Santander wanted him to produce proof of his identity, which he has not done, so you were back to square one.Officials at Santander have told me they believe you are only entitled to half the money, plus a small amount extra for the short time the policy was in your sole name.I did point out that your legally binding divorce settlement should mean that the PPI policy and its refund became yours, but Santander said that, while it was sympathetic, its view was that since most premiums were paid before the divorce, you were only entitled to half.My own view is that a court order is binding. A matrimonial home is typically in joint names, but on divorce the court can award ownership to either party. The names on the title deeds cease to matter. The court's decision is what counts, so in the case of your PPI policy, the names on the policy became irrelevant when the court approved the divorce settlement.
Airline error: Etihad made me overdrawn after taking flight money twiceAirline's error put me in the redJ. S. writes: We paid for tickets costing £1,990 with Etihad Airways using my Nationwide Visa debit card. Days later my Nationwide account was overdrawn as Etihad had 'reserved' a further £1,990. Nothing about this is stated on the website and Etihad says it may take 30 days for my money to be returned.It is not unusual for hotel and travel companies to reserve or block a sum of money when a customer books with a credit or debit card. When the booking is confirmed, the company frees up the money and collects the payment.Etihad says that your booking was confirmed and the payment was collected, but someone forgot to cancel the £1,990 block. The money never left your account, but Etihad's mistake froze it.The airline told me: 'Mr S has now received the funds and accepted our apologies.'Etihad offered you vouchers worth about £80 by way of compensation and I understand you have accepted.WE'RE WATCHING YOU!Two veteran conmen who have featured in The Mail on Sunday have now been unmasked in court as the bosses of scam investment company Denver Trading.Operating through a network of sales agents, Tobias Alexander Ridpath and Christopher John Sabin raked in around £6 million from investors who were given false advice about the profits to be made from rare earth metals.The Insolvency Service found that the metals were sold to investors for more than six times their actual cost. Sales agents were paid commission of up to 50 per cent.A High Court hearing was told that Ridpath and Sabin had hidden behind two offshore companies to control Denver Trading. Investigator David Hill said the business was 'simply designed to fleece vulnerable investors'. The judge ordered the company to be wound up.In 2003, Ridpath and Sabin were behind a dodgy London art dealing business called Taylor Jardine, which promised impossible yields to investors.I warned then that Ridpath had worked for Lancashire & Yorkshire, a corrupt stockbroking firm that folded in 1991, and for Financial Management International, which was shut down by regulators.Next Ridpath ran Connaught Drysberg, a shady currency speculation firm that was later dissolved. He then moved to Chelsea Wine & Spirits, which sold overpriced investments and was closed down. Ridpath was banned in 2000 from acting as a director for nine years.Sabin was a director of Taylor Jardine and employed notorious scam salesman Julian Blee, while Blee was awaiting trial for frauds for which he was jailed for five years.Earlier, Sabin worked with Ridpath at Financial Management International and was a director of a Hamburg-based rip-off currency investment company.Police are probing Denver Trading. Victims and witnesses not already in touch should make contact through www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/stagecoach. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Goodwill gesture: Santander upped its compensation to £100
But my experience was that four out of five US job bets went the opposite way to Banc de Binary’s advice. I was never able to make a withdrawal because I had accepted a bonus that meant I had to place bets for 20 times the amount in my account before I could withdraw anything. I have now lost about £8,500.
As for the firm’s ‘free money’ bonus system, this was a device aimed at stopping you from withdrawing even your own cash until you placed so many bets that it was virtually certain you ended up a loser.
Action: A court in Reno, Nevada, says boss Oren Laurent broke US investor laws
Advice: Staff at JNF Capital explained the risks involved to our reader who lost £2,500 in just a few weeksIt was hard to read your letter and not be sympathetic. To lose £2,500 in a short time is bad news for anyone, but your circumstances emphasised the loss. Of course, simply losing money on an investment is not in itself grounds for complaint. I explained to you that a lot depended on what you told JNF Capital about your financial situation and your willingness to take risks.You told me that you were called out of the blue by JNF Capital. You completed a fact find, answering questions about your finances and attitude to risk. But you added that you had no copy of this and when you answered the questions you were unwell and on medication. What was clear, though, was that you were investing in short-term movements in the FTSE 100 Index. This is a risky area, unsuitable for most ordinary investors because a lot of money can be lost quickly.It was only when I contacted Jonathan Green, head of JNF Capital, that it became clear you are no ordinary investor after all.
Bad tidings: Our reader received a confusing communication from Royal Mail Pensions and now has to repay some of the pensionBut to make matters worse, when you appealed, the head of the scheme sent a poorly worded letter that upheld your complaint, admitted there had been maladministration for years and offered £50 compensation. You read this with relief, believing the debt had been cancelled, but a week later a further letter made clear that the debt stood and would be collected by taking £77 a month off your pension.Since employees cannot calculate their own pension entitlement, I asked Royal Mail why its scheme should not bear responsibility for its own incorrect arithmetic.Technically, the scheme has been the responsibility of the Government’s Cabinet Office since 2012, in a move to take financial liabilities away from the business, so the reply came in a joint statement from both. They insist that writing off the overpayment ‘would negatively impact the overall scheme’.But the better news is that they have cut the repayments to £109 every three months, instead of £77 a month, and you have told me you are happy with this.Halifax calls ended in a little extra confusion Mrs L.F.writes: I received a letter from Halifax, saying the interest on my credit card would go up by 5 percentage points because my credit score had changed. Halifax referred me to Callcredit, which told me I had a perfect score so it was nothing to do with it.I called Halifax again and was informed the increase would be reversed. But later I was told this could not be done. I was told Halifax does not use credit scoring, but relies on ‘business sensitive information’.Finally, it apologised for giving wrong information, and offered £110 compensation, but said I would have to cancel my card or accept the 5 percentage point rise.You have been a Halifax customer for more than 30 years. You had a mortgage from it with a perfect repayment record and you have never defaulted on your credit card. Yet suddenly you have become such a risk that Halifax is raising your interest rate from 17.95 per cent to 22.95 per cent.When you asked for an explanation, you were given wrong information or hypothetical reasons, including the suggestion you might be a gambler. Finally, Halifax forked out £100 in compensation, plus £10 to cover the cost of a pointless credit check you made, and in effect paid you to cancel your card and take your business elsewhere.Halifax has been just as vague with me. It says it did use credit scoring, and that from December 2013 to January 2014 your score fell. Why it decreased is a secret, and why it took Halifax months to react is a mystery – yet it insists that 'we clearly set out the reasons' whenever a cardholder’s rate changes.This is as clear as mud.Are my Bradford & Bingley shares really worthless? M.R.W.writes: Help. I bought Bradford & Bingley shares some years ago to help with my pension. I am 86 years of age. Now a friend informs me my shares are worthless.I AM sorry to say that your friend is right. Bradford & Bingley collapsed in 2008 as part of the wider banking crisis. Its savings business and local branches were taken over by Santander, but nobody would touch the mortgage lending and personal loans side of the company. They had to be rescued by the Government.A shareholder group complained that investors had not been compensated when the Government took control of B&B. But an independent valuer and an appeal tribunal both decided that nothing was due because the business was worthless, so the shares had no value.I am sorry I cannot give you any cheerful news.If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, Room 301, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email tony.hetherington@ mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Peaceful scene: But Ms L never even set foot in Tenerife for the break she was charged with
Multiple offences: Richard Clay, the boss of a rip-off pension firm has pleaded guilty to three charges of fraud
Missing money: A cheque for £938 was paid into Lloyds BankP.H.writes: I sold my Standard Life shares via a link on Standard Life’s website that took me to Capita, which sent a cheque for £938, which was paid into Lloyds Bank. The problem is that I never received the cheque and I have never banked with Lloyds.I informed the Metropolitan Police and Action Fraud, and I have written to the bank, asking if the police have been in contact, but have received no response.Neither the Financial Ombudsman Service nor the Financial Services Compensation Scheme can help. Capita finally told me it was not at fault and I should ‘take the matter forward with the police’, which suggests that neither the police nor Action Fraud has looked into this.Tony Hetherington says: You have been deprived of £938 of your savings just as surely as if you were mugged in the street. The difference is that if you were mugged, you would stand a chance of getting a police investigation.Only a tiny percentage of reports to Action Fraud ever lead to a proper investigation and the police would not spend time tracking down a missing £938 unless, perhaps, they were asked to do so by the bank. The banks pay the police to conduct investigations, which puts them well ahead of Joe Public as a priority.According to Capita, your cheque was paid into an account at Lloyds Bank in Harlesden, North-West London. Bank records show that other cheques worth about £40 were deposited at the same time, though they did not come from Capita.This suggests that someone who shares your name operates the Lloyds account, but it does not explain how they might have got hold of your cheque. Capita insists it was posted to your home address, so it must have been intercepted or even stolen from your letter box.You might think that this is Capita’s loss. You signed over your shares and you expect to be paid. I would agree with you, but Capita does not. Its terms and conditions say it takes no responsibility for anything once posted. Anyone dealing with Capita might want to bear this in mind. But where does this leave you?Well, if you are willing to fight, your next step is to apply for a court order, forcing Lloyds Bank to reveal the full name and address of the account holder who deposited your cheque.With these details you can start a fresh court action to sue the account holder, though it would be no surprise to find the £938 has been spent, the account holder suddenly has no income, or the court orders repayment at a few pounds a month.Unfair? Of course it is unfair. Capita says it sympathises with you and did ask Lloyds to return the money, but it refused on the grounds that the name on the cheque matched the name of its account holder.But why, I wonder, does Capita not pay by bank transfer instead of cheque? Most large businesses do this, particularly as the banks are winding down their cheque facilities, and it would avoid exactly this type of theft.Capita refused to comment, so anyone selling shares through it as you did must accept its terms: all cheques are posted at the shareholder’s risk, so if anything is lost or stolen, you are the loser.My coins were valued at less than a tenth of what I paidR.C.writes: I have accumulated a collection of reproduction British coins from the London Mint Office. My outlay has been £2,500 to £3,000, but I went to a reputable coin dealer recently and was devastated when the coins were valued at less than a tenth of what I paid, despite rises in the value of gold and silver.You bought a shilling coin issued following the marriage in 1554 of England’s Queen Mary to Spain’s Prince Philip, a George III guinea issued in 1813 to Wellington’s army fighting the French, and a variety of equally attractive coins showing Britannia, St George and the Dragon, and so on.But all these coins are, as you say, just reproductions, so they have no historical or rarity value. The London Mint Office, which is a private company not connected to the Royal Mint, told me that it simply produces replicas ‘to give collectors the opportunity to see for themselves what these coins look like.’It says it would never recommend that people buy its coins as an investment. The London Mint Office has now bought back 13 of your coins at the price you paid and you have told me it is in contact with you about further buyback deals.If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, Room 301, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Piling demands: Student loans Mrs L.C.writes: I bought my house in 1999. Previous tenants left owing money to everyone possible. Their children went to university but have not repaid student loans, and every few months I have received demands, which I have returned, saying they are no longer at my address.Erudio Student Loans Limited has now taken over this debt. I told it that the family left over 15 years ago, but Erudio said it would keep sending demands.I protested and was told they would stop, but after two weeks another has arrived.Erudio is a commercial business that took over from the old Student Loans Company, and the takeover has not been without hiccups. The company is strange. One director is another limited company that acts as an officer of a remarkable 1,349 businesses. The only human director is Mark Filer, who is an officer of 450 companies.This may explain why he has not had time to file accounts due last September. This is an offence, and a couple of days from now Companies House will issue an official proposal to strike off Erudio. What would happen to outstanding student loans then is not clear, but the company’s credit licence from the Financial Conduct Authority would certainly disappear.I asked Filer to comment. He did not respond, but a spokesman admitted Erudio’s accounts were outstanding.He blamed the Student Loans Company for passing on your address, and added: ‘We can assure you our system has now been updated.’ Erudio has sent you £50 for the nuisance caused.> Read the full Tony Hetherington columnIf you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, Room 301, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Warning: Hackers swapped Clubcard vouchers for days out at attractionsBut Tesco chose to ignore the offer and treat complaints like yours one at a time, as if this serious problem did not exist.This is why, when you called the Clubcard helpline and explained that you were not even in the country on the date your vouchers were cashed, you were asked by Tesco whether a family member might have taken them. It also explains why, when you asked for a written response from Tesco, you were told that its internal fraud department is ‘non-customer facing’. You were also told you would have to wait months for Tesco to replace your vouchers.What you were not told was that about two years ago, thousands of compromised internet log-on names and passwords were being offered for sale by criminal hackers. These details had not come from any leak at Tesco itself, but crooks who harvested log-on information from other sources then used a computer program called a ‘Checker’ to fire names and passwords at the Tesco website to see if any worked.Because lots of people use the same password for several sites, the crooks had a fair bit of success. Once into the system, they swapped victims’ points for easily marketable goods, even including tickets to attractions like Thorpe Park.
Tesco ClubcardA private security firm – which has asked not to be named – spotted this at an early stage and alerted Tesco, offering its services to combat the fraud. Tesco turned it down. Apparently, the supermarket preferred to let customers be cheated, then refund those who protested enough, rather than alert those customers in advance and risk bad publicity.Tesco’s cyber security boss Clive Timmons told me: ‘We fully refund vouchers to customers affected by this problem, and we strongly advise all our customers to use different passwords for different sites. Where Clubcard vouchers are used fraudulently, it is almost always because the same password is used for a Tesco account as on another website which has had a security breach.’Tesco did not say why it turned down the offer of the list of likely victims, but said that it had a ‘well resourced internal security team’ as well as outside advisers. And you can have your replacement vouchers immediately, I was told.Disturbingly though, when I gave the security firm your name, and nothing else, it came back to me instantly with your full home address and email details. These and other items such as your password and date of birth were being offered for sale by internet criminals as long ago as December 2012. You would have known this if Tesco had sounded the alarm.It might be a good idea to register with the credit industry anti-fraud organisation at cifas.org.uk/pr. Member firms will then double-check to ensure they really are dealing with you and not an impersonator. And change your Tesco password.1.) Officials at Companies House are investigating an alleged breach of company law by a business linked to controversial offshore gambling business Banc de Binary, which I have warned against – most recently last Sunday.Banc de Binary, which is based in Cyprus and Israel and has faced fines or legal action in Cyprus and the US, appears with a clean record on the Financial Conduct Authority’s public register of authorised British investment firms. But one of its websites advises investors that ‘clearing and billing’ of its binary options bets is carried out through a separate firm, B.O. Bounty Ltd of Finchley Road, North West London.Records show the business is owned by yet another firm, B.O. Technologies Ltd, based in Belize.B.O. Bounty’s sole director, David Brown, quit in November last year and since then the company has had no director, which is illegal.A Companies House official said: ‘We will be taking action to remove this company from the records.’In a statement issued through its British representative, Mattison PR, Banc de Binary claimed B.O. Bounty is ‘a third party company’ that provides it with ‘business development solutions in the banking and clearing field’. But it denied it knew who runs the firm.2.) I warned last month that London wine investment company APW Asset Management was linked to the Wine Index, a scam wound up by the High Court, and to an Australian wine firm linked to Spencer Pibworth, a known trickster.APW Asset Management is now under investigation by the Insolvency Service, and has called a meeting to consider going into liquidation. Anyone with a claim against the firm should contact Caroline Lowes, of insolvency practitioners Quantuma, at caroline.lowes@quantuma.com.Quantuma warns that though it has traced stocks in a bonded warehouse, the ‘complex nature of the records surrounding ownership of the wine’ means enquiries will be lengthy.If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, Room 301, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});
Enigma: ‘Ken Kingstone’ was said in a US promotion to be ‘Jeff McBride’
Matt Bellamy jumped from Kate Hudson to her doppelganger -- who starred in the "Blurred Lines" video -- but we've learned he's just friends with the leggy model/actress.
9:45 AM PT -- Demi's rep says she returned home shortly after her ER visit and is "feeling much better."
Demi Lovato was hospitalized Tuesday for a nasty lung infection ... TMZ has learned.
Beyonce and Jay Z can't always get what they want -- they've been unable to find the perfect L.A. home to buy ... so, instead they haggled their way into a rental for $150K a month ... and yes, that's a deal.
