20.5k unique visitors in the last 3 days

Real Customer Flagged as Fraudster Because He Wanted Phone Delivered to New Address

Three UK warned other firms that someone was impersonating Dave Parr, but they did not bother to check with the customer.

ThisIsMoney.co.uk recently reported the story of Dave Parr, a British manager who was flagged as a fraudster by his telco because he asked for his new handset to be sent to an address that was different to his home. Parr called his provider, Three, to request his handset upgrade, and successfully completed all of their security checks. However…

The telecoms company tried to phone Dave twice later that afternoon to check if the upgrade had been requested by him, but due to poor signal couldn’t get through.

Convinced the upgrade request was fraudulent, when they didn’t hear back from him they cancelled the upgrade and notified Cifas, the fraud reporting and prevention service.

In all seriousness, could they not have waited until they spoke to Parr about his upgrade before rushing to judge? To make matters worse, Three never told Parr that they thought his upgrade request had been made by an imposter.

…when he contacted them after [the handset] had failed to arrive, the firm send (sic) him a new phone but never mentioned the black mark.

The Cifas flag meant Three was advising others that somebody was trying to steal Parr’s identity. This created problems for Parr when dealing with other businesses.

While Three said the Cifas marker was for Dave’s protection rather than because he was a suspected fraudster, it also caused a bank account with Nationwide which had £2,600 in it to be frozen just under a month later.

It was Nationwide, not Three, that finally informed Dave of the existence of the Cifas marker.

Parr complained about the Cifas marker when he finally learned of it. Three responded by asserting that their investigation had concluded the original upgrade request had been made by an unknown third party without Parr’s knowledge. To refer to this as an ‘investigation’ would be hilarious if it was not so dismissive of the customer’s best interests. What kind of investigation tries to phone the supposed victim to check the facts, but gives up after twice failing to reach him?

Fraud is bad. But so is messing with a customer’s life. If your fraud team cannot afford to make three calls to ‘investigate’ a suspected fraud, then they need a bigger budget.

The full story can be found here.

Eric Priezkalns
Eric Priezkalnshttp://revenueprotect.com

During his career, Eric has been a Director of Risk Management for a national telco, the Chief Executive of the Risk & Assurance Group, a Chief Marketing Officer for a software business, a consultant, a public speaker and the publisher of Commsrisk since its launch in 2006. Look here for more about the history of Commsrisk and the role played by Eric.

The comms providers that Eric has worked for include Qatar Telecom, Cable & Wireless, T‑Mobile, Sky and Worldcom. In addition to his proficiency at speaking about the current scamdemic, Eric is also a qualified chartered accountant and a subject matter expert in consumer protection, enterprise risk management, fraud prevention, data integrity and billing accuracy. Eric was the lead author of Revenue Assurance: Expert Opinions for Communications Providers, published by CRC Press. He can be reached through the contact form on this website.

Related Articles

The Commsrisk Global Fraud Dashboard


Our Global Fraud Dashboard uses AI-powered search to collate, update and visualize data about scams and other network abuses from around the world. New charts are added each month. See it here.

Get Our Weekly Newsletter by Email