FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

[shamen]

Ill post up more of our battle with Next in the coming weeks. Its lengthy and stupid. A lot of this happened before I was on the scene.

Basic gist (acknowledged by Next and FOS as being accurate)
- An account was opened in wifes name fraudulently in 2007
- A box was delivered which she returned unopened
- She notified next of the fraud who closed the account and wiped all debt
- in 2008 someone re-ordered things and next re-activated the account (no paperwork for this, just an order number)
- Next did not contact my Wife in any way, even with the past fraud on the account. They just re-opened the account and shipped goods
- No one can say where these goods were delivered to (they have no record of delivery address)
- Late 2008 they start pressuring wife for payment, who reminds them the account is fraud but after Next wont budge, pays the small balance to just have them go away. She asks them to ensure the account remains closed.
- 2010 more goods ordered. Again no delivery address record, but next insist it 'must be your address' . Wife received nothing.
- Late 2010 Wife gets default notice and pays the £100 as she doesnt want any hassle
- 2011 we try to get this cleaned up
- Next acknowledge in writing the account was opened fraudulently
- SAR made, no default notice in SAR. Next claim a DCA warning letter is 'default notice'.
- Next records have no signed CCA, but they claim she 'must have signed one' although they do not have one. They provide three different CCA's from 2008, 2009 and (may) 2010 with just my wifes name on (surprisingly in my wifes married name which is silly as we were not married until July 2010)
- Complaint escalated to FOS for the following reasons

• Account opened fraudulently
• No benefit of goods
• No CCA
• Payments made under threats when clearly it was fraud
• Default applied with invalid default notice, no agreement to share personal data and no CCA agreement
• Next refusing to budge

Well the FOS investigated the claim, and surprise surprise, found in Nexts favour for everything. The FOS even put in their response that the account was opened fraudulently and no CCA can exist, but because Next advised the FOS that my wife 'must have re-opened the account' by those orders in 2008 and 2010, they have to assume its my wifes legitimate account.

They happily added that Next have offered a token payment of £25 to 'settle the matter' and that if we dont object within 14 days (which we have) then we are deemed ot have accepted the settlement and the matter is settled.

What a bunch of idiots. I dont even see the point to them.

[leclerc]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Hang on a minute. What exactly was the crux of the complaint?
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have gone to the FOS based on the CCA but based specifically on the fact that the account was opened fraudulently, that the account was never closed permanently as most retailers would do. Furthermore, I would have made absolutely no payments to next whatsoever. Their lack of records helped exacerbate the fraud by not having any address for delivery on their system despite no payment being received. What kind of organisation does that?

They haven't exactly found in their favour entirely though, have they? Why have Next offered £25.00 for if they were fully exonerated?

Was there any letters from Next confirming fraud? Did they have any notes on their system relating to the other two purchases and the dispute over them?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
one last bit did you get Next to send you details of the name address and date of birth for the fraudulent account?

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Hang on a minute. What exactly was the crux of the complaint?

Basicly that they pressured for payments and applied a default knowing fine well that the account was opened fraudulently. That they re-opened the account twice even though they knew it was fraud and were notified. That my wife had no benefit of the goods and that no one can say where they were delivered.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have gone to the FOS based on the CCA but based specifically on the fact that the account was opened fraudulently, that the account was never closed permanently as most retailers would do.

These were some of the main points of the complaint. the CCA was just an added extra.

Furthermore, I would have made absolutely no payments to next whatsoever. Their lack of records helped exacerbate the fraud by not having any address for delivery on their system despite no payment being received. What kind of organisation does that?

you and me both. Had I known what was going on at the time I would have stepped in. Unfortunately I was not around for many of those years and when I did find out we started trying to fix it

They haven't exactly found in their favour entirely though, have they? Why have Next offered £25.00 for if they were fully exonerated?

Exactly. They dont say why. They say none of the complaint is upheld, but a 'goodwill gesture' of £25 from next to settle "the matter" has been offered.

Was there any letters from Next confirming fraud? Did they have any notes on their system relating to the other two purchases and the dispute over them?

No letters from them, but in the SAR the account notes next provided clearly show my wife notifying them of the fraud in 2007 and again in 2008. They also show the account being closed each time/

one last bit did you get Next to send you details of the name address and date of birth for the fraudulent account?

There is no data like that on the CCA's and such, but on their account notes there is the correct name and DOB (though her maiden name). We know how this happened originally - her ex partner had a jealous ex who did all kinds of mail order things in my wifes name at the time. Catalogues, junk mail, offers etc. Theres even a police crime reference for it and the woman concerned was interviewed and cautioned.

This seems to hold no weight with them at all. As far as they are concerned, because she paid the demands, they believe the account was hers.

[leclerc]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Fraudster spent £300 creating Next online account | This is Money

Pity, this is what I found as well(that's why I asked the question re date of birth).
If the account was fraudulent I would never ever offer payments even if they threatened me with court.
Was there multiple accounts or just one of them?
Have they given any reason why a fraudulent account was re activated because by definition it's fraudulent?(how stupid are Next?)

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Was there multiple accounts or just one of them?

I think just one, though Ill have to check that. IIRC, the SAR notes were all for one account.

Have they given any reason why a fraudulent account was re activated because by definition it's fraudulent?(how stupid are Next?)

Yes, they say it was re-activated because a new order was placed, so they assumed it was placed by my wife and therefore was no longer fraudulent (?!?!). No phone call to confirm. No letter saying 'are you sure'. nothing.

(very stupid is the answer)

[leclerc]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

I think just one, though Ill have to check that. IIRC, the SAR notes were all for one account.

Yes, they say it was re-activated because a new order was placed, so they assumed it was placed by my wife and therefore was no longer fraudulent (?!?!). No phone call to confirm. No letter saying 'are you sure'. nothing.

(very stupid is the answer)

so do the SAR notes show that she called the first time to report it fraudulent?

If yes, then go back to the FOS and state that she reported it as Fraud but because the alleged fraudster decided to order again then it was reopened. That does not seem a rational thing for a company to do when Fraud has taken place. Surely you would close the account as there were not legitimate purchases on the account.

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

so do the SAR notes show that she called the first time to report it fraudulent?

Yes, and clearly. They even include the notes where the customer service rep handed it off to the 'fraud team' who confirmed the fraud in the notes as well.

If yes, then go back to the FOS and state that she reported it as Fraud but because the alleged fraudster decided to order again then it was reopened. That does not seem a rational thing for a company to do when Fraud has taken place. Surely you would close the account as there were not legitimate purchases on the account.

This is part of the original FOS complaint - its in there clearly that the account was opened fraudulently and should have remained closed after wife notified Next. We included copies of the account notes in the original complaint. Both the FOS and Next acknowledge that the account was opened fraudulently.

That being said the FOS are saying that orders made after the account was closed, which caused the account to re-open, must be genuine because they are accepting Nexts word on the matter.

Thats the low down. The FOS are siding with Next because Next are saying (paraphrasing here) 'As she paid the threatening demands we made, she must have accepted that the account was hers.' The FOS are siding with that stance.

[leclerc]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Yes, and clearly. They even include the notes where the customer service rep handed it off to the 'fraud team' who confirmed the fraud in the notes as well.

This is part of the original FOS complaint - its in there clearly that the account was opened fraudulently and should have remained closed after wife notified Next. We included copies of the account notes in the original complaint. Both the FOS and Next acknowledge that the account was opened fraudulently.

That being said the FOS are saying that orders made after the account was closed, which caused the account to re-open, must be genuine because they are accepting Nexts word on the matter.

Thats the low down. The FOS are siding with Next because Next are saying (paraphrasing here) 'As she paid the threatening demands we made, she must have accepted that the account was hers.' The FOS are siding with that stance.

Did you contact Next again and state that the account was fraud and is that in the notes again?
The problem you have and that was the main thing why I thought the ruling went against you is paying any monies to something that was not yours. That is the crux of their decision. Why would a rational human being do that? If you can argue the case why you would do that then that might be worth going back to them.

It still doesn't answer the reason for £25.00 payment. What reason are they giving and is that the amount that was paid to them?

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Did you contact Next again and state that the account was fraud and is that in the notes again?

We only escalated to the FOS after a lengthy battle of words with Next. Up to Manager level. They have written back that they will not discuss the matter with us any more, which is why we went to the FOS. They acknowledged the account was fraud over and over, but said as new orders came in, they were not fraud any more.

The problem you have and that was the main thing why I thought the ruling went against you is paying any monies to something that was not yours. That is the crux of their decision. Why would a rational human being do that? If you can argue the case why you would do that then that might be worth going back to them.

My wife is disabled, has 3 disabled children and was in and out of hospital during the time they made demands. They were threatening her, she couldnt cope with everything going on and just wanted things to go away. She had enough going on, but could afford the amounts they were asking so she paid it to 'go away'. A mistake, but thats what people do when threatened sometimes.

It still doesn't answer the reason for £25.00 payment. What reason are they giving and is that the amount that was paid to them?

Ill look tonight when Im home. I know its not the amount paid to them. Ive got a funny feeling its down to Next not writing to my wife in large print, even though she is partially sighted and had requested it, but i could be wrong.

Ill get all the paperwork scanned at some point soon and put it up. I think the next step is county court TBH. Not too worried about getting the money back ( less than £200 so a pittance really) but that default needs to go. It shouldnt be there.

[DJBrown]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

I have no idea about any of this but could you just go to the police if its fraud? Surley Next would then listen. Somebody on here had a similar problem but with Xbox and goods being bought on there.

[The Debt Star]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

would the police be interested though? unlikely I'd have thought.

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

Theres already a crime reference for it. The person who did the original things in my wifes name was arrested, interviewed and cautioned. As the first round of goods were delivered to my wife and returned to next by her, there was no theft.

We spoke to them since the new fraud happened, but as Next have no address records of the delivery and are saying they good 'must' have been delivered to our home, the police cant really do much. As far as they are concerned the matter is closed.

It all would be a lot easier had she not paid the demands. I know. But thats the situation we are in. A strange one where people admit there was fraud, but dont want to do anything because the money was paid.

[leclerc]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

shamen, I'm sure what more I can advise because of it.
Have you highlighted the fact that she was in and out of hospital with dates and the demands to pay? Furthermore, how can they not know about a delivery address? Surely that would be kept.

[shamen]

Re: FOS - what a bunch of wet uselessness

shamen, I'm sure what more I can advise because of it.
Have you highlighted the fact that she was in and out of hospital with dates and the demands to pay? Furthermore, how can they not know about a delivery address? Surely that would be kept.

We have told them about the hospital. They ignore that bit. As for the delviery address, they say 'it must have gone to the address on file' but can provide no proof of postage or proof of delivery.