Blacklisted phone after purchase

[Matty]

Hello,
On monday before work (nightshift) i've bought an Samsung galaxy s7 edge from private person (found advertise on gumtree, paid on collection in seller's home). I started using it on tuesday (for couple hours) and it worked perfectly (inserted 2 different sim cards - lycamobile and giffgaff). On wednesday when i boot the phone, get message : No Mobile Data. I've checked imei through imei.info and other sites and it says Phone has been Blacklisted by Vodafone.
I've called them but all informations about phone can be obtained by this legal owner.

I've called police - they send me to CAB.
CAB send me to some scam investigation department.
This department send me to police again...

I've contacted seller - he said he bought phone from other person and he gave me his contact number. I've texted him and he replied he don't know anything about phone.
Seller said he's lying and I suppose to go to police (yeah.). ((I think he's saying the truth because if the phone will be scam, he wouldn't allowed me to come to his phone while his father was inside. Seller was like 20years old).

Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from it.

I told seller i want money back because it is fraud - he didn't wanted to get it. Later on he wrote he can pay me 400 instead of 460 ive paid, because phone is "not in the same condition as was sold" (not packed in plastic bag).


What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for refund money? Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about returning item up to 14 days?

Help, please...

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Matty <sssy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for refund money?

Very few.

> Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about returning item up to 14 days?

You might be thinking of the Consumer Contracts (Information,
Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Previously
known as the Distance Selling Regulations).

However, these apply only to business to consumer sales and only to
contacts completed entirely by distance means. As you bought in a
private sale you have few of the statutory rights you would have in a
business to consumer contract. Your redress is to sue for the goods
not being as described (assuming the description said it was working
or "new")

>Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from it.

The phone wasn't new if it had been blacklisted. Unfortunately the
blacklisting takes some time and a common scam is to sell a stolen
phone as working before it is blacklisted and indeed it will work for
a day or so which gives the seller time to squirrel away the money and
disappear or act innocent.

[GB]

Why aren't the police really really interested in this sort of case?
There's a simple crime and a clear lead to investigate.

The OP seems to be in possession of stolen goods. Why aren't the police
confiscating the phone to return it to its owner?

[Iain Archer]

Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 22:40:15:
>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Matty <sssy...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>As you bought in a private sale you have few of the statutory rights
>you would have in a business to consumer contract. Your redress is to
>sue for the goods not being as described (assuming the description said
>it was working or "new")
>
>>Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from it.
>
>The phone wasn't new if it had been blacklisted.

What if had been stolen from a retailer or wholesaler? Would they not
blacklist it if sure of its disappearance?
--
Iain Archer

[tabb...@gmail.com]

If you can get 400 off him take it. Then demand the rest later.


NT

[Janet]

In article <227178f8-ce98-4f64...@googlegroups.com>,
sssy...@gmail.com says...

>
> Hello,
> On monday before work (nightshift) i've bought an Samsung galaxy s7 edge from private person (found advertise on gumtree, paid on collection in seller's home). I started using it on tuesday (for couple hours) and it worked perfectly (inserted 2 different sim cards - lycamobile and giffgaff). On wednesday when i boot the phone, get message : No Mobile Data. I've checked imei through imei.info and other sites and it says Phone has been Blacklisted by Vodafone.
> I've called them but all informations about phone can be obtained by this legal owner.

Which suggests that the seller was not the legal owner, and the legal
owner of the phone has very recently reported it stolen. Sealed wrapping
does not mean it's not stolen.


Janet.

[Matty]

Thank you all for replies!

Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction. Going to court is the only thing I can do?
Seller is saying that if i took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not in the same condition as sold so he won't repay me full amount.
I understand that someone putted it on blacklist and it mean it has been stolen. Hopefully police won't knock to my doors and put me in jail..


GB - that's good question. They could resolve this case in few days, but i assume they are busy eating donuts or finding places for new speed cameras instead of helping people.

NT - I can, but in this case i can't write about that in texts or anywhere, because if i agree on that amount and later on i will demand more - he can say - you have agreed on that, i have your texts..

Janet - On auction he mentioned that this phone was a gift for him but he don't need it, so he is selling it. Right now from texting with him ive get an information that his "uncle" gave him phone, but uncle get this phone from other person aswell....
Is it possible to unregiester phone in network? To be sure nobody will put it on blacklist anymore?


Thank you all for replies, that helped me a lot psychically (knowing i am not alone and there is always someone to help).

[Peter Crosland]

On 20/08/2016 18:36, Matty wrote:
> Thank you all for replies!
>
> Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction. Going to court is the only thing I can do?
> Seller is saying that if i took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not in the same condition as sold so he won't repay me full amount.

This is pure BS by the seller. The only way to establish that there was
a problem was to open the packing.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Fredxxx]

I would ask for evidence of where he got the phone to back up his claim,
plus details of the receipt for its original purchase.

I would then simply threaten County Court action for your loss, namely
the cost of the phone, plus any direct travel and associated costs.

If he ignores you, or only agrees part of your claim then I would make a
claim through:
www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

There are times when there is little point in arguing.

[tim...]

"Matty" <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fbfbe54-5773-4bad...@googlegroups.com...

> Thank you all for replies!
>
> Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction. Going
> to court is the only thing I can do?
> Seller is saying that if i took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not
> in the same condition as sold so he won't repay me full amount.

Irrelevant

you are not retuning it under your DSR rights (where he has a chance of
being correct)

you are returning it under your SoGA rights (not as described)

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <npbsi3$ual$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:32:34 on Sun, 21 Aug
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>you are returning it under your SoGA rights (not as described)

Even to a private seller?
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:44:44 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Yes, there are two possible clauses of the SoGA which apply to private
sales and which might apply here (depending upon the wording of the
advertisement).

Firstly S12 Implied terms about title, etc.

"(1)In a contract of sale...there is an implied term on the part of
the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the
goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell he will have such a
right at the time when the property is to pass."

If the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of
them and no right to sell them.

Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they
were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not. S13 of the
SoGA requires goods to correspond with their description.

"S13(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by
description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond
with the description."

In either case the buyer can rescind the contract.

[Clive George]

I'd be tempted to try for a more direct approach. "You've sold me a
stolen phone. Either give me a full refund and we'll forget about it, or
the police get involved."

[Roland Perry]

In message <ei5jrbhn4b15o2hhn...@4ax.com>, at 13:12:18 on
Sun, 21 Aug 2016, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

>Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they
>were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not.

I don't think we've established that... they could have been stolen
brand-new.

When I worked in consumer electronics it wasn't that rare for an entire
container of TVs or VCRs to go missing somewhere between the port of
entry and the warehouse.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:40:39 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ei5jrbhn4b15o2hhn...@4ax.com>, at 13:12:18 on
>Sun, 21 Aug 2016, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:
>
>>Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they
>>were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not.
>
>I don't think we've established that... they could have been stolen
>brand-new.

In which case the seller would not have title to the phone and hence
no right to sell it and S12 would apply.

[Robin]

If the original owner reported it stolen as part of a fraudulent
insurance claim, does that invalidate the successive sales of the
physical phone? If not, I don't see that the phone is stolen.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Fredxxx]

That may be tempting, but wouldn't open the OP to a claim of criminal
blackmail?

[polygonum]

On 21/08/2016 13:38, Clive George wrote:
>

> I'd be tempted to try for a more direct approach. "You've sold me a
> stolen phone. Either give me a full refund and we'll forget about it, or
> the police get involved."

If you make such a statement, if there anything whatsoever preventing
you from receiving the full refund (if the seller pays up) and then
still shopping them to the police? (Other than some threat or fear of
threat from the seller.)

--
Rod

[Matty]

Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction. Going to court is the only thing I can do?
> > Seller is saying that if i took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not in the same condition as sold so he won't repay me full amount.

> This is pure BS by the seller. The only way to establish that there was
> a problem was to open the packing.

That's great news!


Fredxxx:

>I would ask for evidence of where he got the phone to back up his claim,
>plus details of the receipt for its original purchase.

>I would then simply threaten County Court action for your loss, namely
>the cost of the phone, plus any direct travel and associated costs.

>If he ignores you, or only agrees part of your claim then I would make a
>claim through: www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

Very good idea! I'll do it definately in message to him. He told me to give him time untill monday to sort this out but well.. He can remove phone from blacklist and after a month phone will be blacklisted again so I would rather to give him phone back and forget about this unpleasant situation.


Peter Parry:

>Yes, there are two possible clauses of the SoGA which apply to private
>sales and which might apply here (depending upon the wording of the
>advertisement).

>Firstly S12 Implied terms about title, etc.

>"(1)In a contract of sale...there is an implied term on the part of
>the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the
>goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell he will have such a
>right at the time when the property is to pass."

>If the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of
>them and no right to sell them.

>Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they

>were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not. S13 of the
>SoGA requires goods to correspond with their description.

>"S13(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by
>description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond
>with the description."

>In either case the buyer can rescind the contract.

That's great, i will use it in message to this guy if you dont mind because it is smartly written. He is young so he might be scaried after so serious message. I will write about police car in front of his house, hearing on police etc etc so he might change his thinking. I will go there on monday and speak with his father about consequences aswell.

Clive George : > I'd be tempted to try for a more direct approach. "You've sold me a > stolen phone. Either give me a full refund and we'll forget about it, or
> the police get involved."

He told me already to go to the police because he think he is not responsible for the item as seller, but the previous person from who he get it. I need to explain him, he is responsible for selling stolen goods, this is a felony and he might go to jail. If i go to police it will take ages to sort this out and a lot of time to going to police, gathering evidences,going to court, writing a claim, hearings etc etc.. I think i need to scare him and I think about texting him something like that:

I've already spoken with my solicitor. First of all the only way to establish that there was a problem with phone was to open the packing so mentioning about refunding me 400 instead of 460 is bullshit.
Secondly what evidences of where you've got phone to back up your claim you have? If you haven't got any, you will be charged by Country Court for my loss, costs of phone, direct travel and associated costs including costs of claim and the phone will be taken anyway, so you'll loose much more than me.
Phone will be returned to you under Sales of Goods Act (item was not as described). And not only that. According to S12 : if the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of them and no right to sell them. If you do it - it is a felony prosecuted by law. According to S13(1) Buyer can rescind the contract. So you are obligated by law to give me full refund for an item. You - not other guys.

What else can I add to let him know that he is responsible for this transaction and he will take all consequences as the seller?



He just texted me: "Your going to have to go to police there is no other way to sort this. I've contacted the person I got the phone off he said when police inquire you give them my number so the choise is yours" DAMN!

[Matty]

I've edited text to him for tomorrow and added few more words. Any suggestions what to add/erase/change?

"I've already spoken with my solicitor. First of all the only way
to establish that there was a problem with phone was to open the

packing, so mentioning about refunding me 400 instead of 460 is wrong
and illegal.

Secondly what evidences of where you've got phone to back up your claim

you have? If you haven't got any, i will win the case and YOU will be

charged by Country Court for my loss, costs of phone, direct travel and
associated costs including costs of claim and the phone will be taken

anyway from you by police, so you'll loose much more than me.

Phone will be returned to you under Sales of Goods Act (item was not as

described). And not only that. According to S12 : if the goods were

stolen the seller would have had no ownership of them and no right to

sell them. If you do it - it is a felony prosecuted by law. According to
S13(1) Buyer can rescind the contract. So you are obligated by law to

give me full refund for an item. You - not other guys. As I mention YOU
are the one responsible for this deal and YOU will be prosecuted by law.
Best option for you right now is refunding me and returning phone to
previous owner (your uncle i assume). He will have to go to the police
and court to resolve this case and find responsible guy for selling
stolen goods and skip you in investigation.
I will come collect money after 17:30 today - same time as I picked up
phone first time."

[RJH]

I became aware of a similar case recently - my friend's bike was
stolen/he identified it on an auction site and he told the police/the
bike sold/police did nothing (in effect). More details in a post of mine
in this NG a few month's back.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Roland Perry]

In message <npdvjh$e36$1...@dont-email.me>, at 05:38:08 on Mon, 22 Aug
2016, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> remarked:

>> The OP seems to be in possession of stolen goods. Why aren't the police
>> confiscating the phone to return it to its owner?
>
>I became aware of a similar case recently - my friend's bike was
>stolen/he identified it on an auction site and he told the police/the
>bike sold/police did nothing (in effect).

There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
that, as you will a stolen bicycle".

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader, why.
--
Roland Perry

[Fredxxx]

Did your friend get their bike back, was there any follow up by the police?

[Roger Hayter]

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction.
> > > Going to court is the only thing I can do? Seller is saying that if i
> > > took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not in the same condition
> > > as sold so he won't repay me full amount.
>

> > This is pure BS by the seller. The only way to establish that there was
> > a problem was to open the packing.
>
> That's great news!
>
>
> Fredxxx:
> >I would ask for evidence of where he got the phone to back up his claim,
> >plus details of the receipt for its original purchase.
>
> >I would then simply threaten County Court action for your loss, namely
> >the cost of the phone, plus any direct travel and associated costs.
>
> >If he ignores you, or only agrees part of your claim then I would make a
> >claim through: www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
>

> Very good idea! I'll do it definately. He told me to give him time untill
> monday to sort this out, but well.. He can sort this out and after a month
> phone will be blacklisted again so i prefer to give him phone back.
>
>
> Peter Parry:

>
> >Yes, there are two possible clauses of the SoGA which apply to private
> >sales and which might apply here (depending upon the wording of the
> >advertisement).
>
> >Firstly S12 Implied terms about title, etc.
>
> >"(1)In a contract of sale...there is an implied term on the part of
> >the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the
> >goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell he will have such a
> >right at the time when the property is to pass."
>
> >If the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of
> >them and no right to sell them.
>

> >Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they

> >were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not. S13 of the
> >SoGA requires goods to correspond with their description.
>
> >"S13(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by
> >description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond
> >with the description."
>
> >In either case the buyer can rescind the contract.
>
>

> That's great again that I am covered by law! Don't you mind if I use some
> of your words in message to him? He might start thinking about
> consequences. If not, I will go there on monday and speak with his father
> about that situation, maybe he will be smarter. Probably he dont want to
> see police car on his driveway.

>
>
>
> Clive George : > I'd be tempted to try for a more direct approach. "You've
> sold me a > stolen phone. Either give me a full refund and we'll forget
> about it, or > the police get involved."
>
> He told me already to go to the police because he think he is not
> responsible for the item as seller, but the previous person from who he

> get it. I need to make him understand that he is responsible and from
> trade stolen goods there are consequences of that... If i go to police it

> will take ages to sort this out and a lot of time to going to police,

> sorting out evidences,going to court, write a claim etc etc.. I think i
> need to scare him somehow and return phone immidiately instead of taking
> all these actions ( of course I will do it if it won't help) and I think

> about texting him something like that:
>

> "I've already spoken with my solicitor. First of all the only way to

> establish that there was a problem with phone was to open the packing.

> Secondly what evidences of where you've got phone to back up your claim

> you have? If you haven't got any, you will be charged by Country Court for

> my loss, costs of phone, direct travel and associated costs including

> costs of claim. Phone will be returned to you under Sales of Goods Act
> (item was not as described). And not only that. According to S12if the

> goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of them and no

> right to sell them. According to S13(1) Buyer can rescind the contract."

>
> What else can I add to let him know that he is responsible for this
> transaction and he will take all consequences as the seller?
>

> Thank you all for answers!

Be very careful not to use the threat of reporting him to the police to
induce him to give you the money. This could be construed as
blackmail. I would say nothing about the police unless he refuses to
refund youin full. Then I would report it to the police if I think this
will help me, *not* threaten to.



--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <npee5d$e82$4...@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:37 on Mon, 22 Aug
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>> [quoted text muted]

>> Why aren't the police really really interested in this sort of case?
>

>Because their job is to do as little work until they retire ? (Which is
>an answer to your question. It may, or may not be the *correct* answer.
>But it certainly fits).

It's all about priorities, and thresholds. All police forces have them.
I the USA, for example, it's well known that they won't investigate
individual cases of online fraud unless you've lost more than $5k.
--
Roland Perry

[RJH]

No, he bought a new one. He didn't follow it up because of the hassle,
and likelihood of getting anywhere low in his view. It actually sold
locally - so the local police could have tidied the whole thing up.

--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 22/08/2016 02:59, Matty wrote:
> I've edited text to him for tomorrow and added few more words. Any suggestions what to add/erase/change?
>
>
> "I've already spoken with my solicitor. First of all the only way
> to establish that there was a problem with phone was to open the
> packing, so mentioning about refunding me 400 instead of 460 is wrong
> and illegal.

Have you? I suppose you could say that you've taken legal advice ;-)

> Secondly what evidences of where you've got phone to back up your claim
> you have? If you haven't got any, i will win the case and YOU will be
> charged by Country Court for my loss, costs of phone, direct travel and
> associated costs including costs of claim and the phone will be taken
> anyway from you by police, so you'll loose much more than me.
> Phone will be returned to you under Sales of Goods Act (item was not as
> described). And not only that. According to S12 : if the goods were
> stolen the seller would have had no ownership of them and no right to
> sell them. If you do it - it is a felony prosecuted by law. According to
> S13(1) Buyer can rescind the contract. So you are obligated by law to
> give me full refund for an item. You - not other guys. As I mention YOU
> are the one responsible for this deal and YOU will be prosecuted by law.
> Best option for you right now is refunding me and returning phone to
> previous owner (your uncle i assume). He will have to go to the police
> and court to resolve this case and find responsible guy for selling
> stolen goods and skip you in investigation.
> I will come collect money after 17:30 today - same time as I picked up
> phone first time."
>

I'd get advice from the CAB rather than send that little lot by text. It
isn't necessarily stolen - it could be an insurance case, reported lost,
then found.

Overall, I'd take the £400 and cut my losses. I tend to get quite
consumed by such things, and made the decision a while ago to let more
stuff like this go.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Peter Crosland]

On 21/08/2016 19:08, Matty wrote:
>>> Peter Parry : Yes, the phone was described as Brand New on auction. Going to court is the only thing I can do?
>>> Seller is saying that if i took of all plastic bags from phone, it is not in the same condition as sold so he won't repay me full amount.
>

>> This is pure BS by the seller. The only way to establish that there was
>> a problem was to open the packing.
>
> That's great news!
>
>
> Fredxxx:
>> I would ask for evidence of where he got the phone to back up his claim,
>> plus details of the receipt for its original purchase.
>
>> I would then simply threaten County Court action for your loss, namely
>> the cost of the phone, plus any direct travel and associated costs.
>
>> If he ignores you, or only agrees part of your claim then I would make a
>> claim through: www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
>
> Very good idea! I'll do it definately. He told me to give him time untill monday to sort this out, but well.. He can sort this out and after a month phone will be blacklisted again so i prefer to give him phone back.
>
>
> Peter Parry:
>

>> Yes, there are two possible clauses of the SoGA which apply to private
>> sales and which might apply here (depending upon the wording of the
>> advertisement).
>
>> Firstly S12 Implied terms about title, etc.
>
>> "(1)In a contract of sale...there is an implied term on the part of
>> the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the
>> goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell he will have such a
>> right at the time when the property is to pass."
>
>> If the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of
>> them and no right to sell them.
>

>> Secondly, if the seller had ownership of the goods apparently they

>> were described as "brand new" yet patently they were not. S13 of the
>> SoGA requires goods to correspond with their description.
>
>> "S13(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by
>> description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond
>> with the description."
>
>> In either case the buyer can rescind the contract.
>
>

> That's great again that I am covered by law! Don't you mind if I use some of your words in message to him? He might start thinking about consequences. If not, I will go there on monday and speak with his father about that situation, maybe he will be smarter. Probably he dont want to see police car on his driveway.
>
>
>
> Clive George : > I'd be tempted to try for a more direct approach. "You've sold me a > stolen phone. Either give me a full refund and we'll forget about it, or
>> the police get involved."
>
> He told me already to go to the police because he think he is not responsible for the item as seller, but the previous person from who he get it. I need to make him understand that he is responsible and from trade stolen goods there are consequences of that... If i go to police it will take ages to sort this out and a lot of time to going to police, sorting out evidences,going to court, write a claim etc etc.. I think i need to scare him somehow and return phone immidiately instead of taking all these actions ( of course I will do it if it won't help) and I think about texting him something like that:
>
> "I've already spoken with my solicitor. First of all the only way to establish that there was a problem with phone was to open the packing.
> Secondly what evidences of where you've got phone to back up your claim you have? If you haven't got any, you will be charged by Country Court for my loss, costs of phone, direct travel and associated costs including costs of claim.
> Phone will be returned to you under Sales of Goods Act (item was not as described). And not only that. According to S12if the goods were stolen the seller would have had no ownership of them and no right to sell them. According to S13(1) Buyer can rescind the contract."
>
> What else can I add to let him know that he is responsible for this transaction and he will take all consequences as the seller?
>
> Thank you all for answers!

Take the money offered and sue for the rest?

[Matty]

>
> Be very careful not to use the threat of reporting him to the police to
> induce him to give you the money. This could be construed as
> blackmail. I would say nothing about the police unless he refuses to
> refund youin full. Then I would report it to the police if I think this
> will help me, *not* threaten to.

Ok done!

[Fredxxx]

That's a shame. Just shows that it's best to do the footwork yourself.

Personally I would have bid on the bike myself, with the full intention
of winning the auction. The seller would have already paid the entrance fee!

Interesting that in Matty's phone thread, the buyer can cancel the
contract in such circumstances.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <227178f8-ce98-4f64...@googlegroups.com>,

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I told seller i want money back because it is fraud - he didn't wanted
>to get it. Later on he wrote he can pay me 400 instead of 460 ive paid,
>because phone is "not in the same condition as was sold" (not packed in
>plastic bag).

Legally you are entitled to the full amount, I think.

You can accept the L400 under protest. Your seller may fall for it,
especially if you offer to return the phone.

>What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for refund

>money? Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about

>returning item up to 14 days?

That only applies to purchases from businesses, which it sounds like
your seller isn't.

But there is law about selling people stolen goods. Your seller is in
breach of contract.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <e1u8el...@mid.individual.net>,

No, there is nothing stopping the OP doing that.

Also, the OP can accept the L400 from the seller and then sue for the
remaining L60.

They do need to avoid agreeing with the seller that this L400 is an
end to the matter, but it sounds like this seller is an idiot, so that
shouldn't be a problem.

[Iain Archer]

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 12:59:53:
>On monday before work (nightshift) i've bought an Samsung galaxy s7
>edge from private person (found advertise on gumtree, paid on
>collection in seller's home). I started using it on tuesday (for couple
>hours) and it worked perfectly (inserted 2 different sim cards -
>lycamobile and giffgaff). On wednesday when i boot the phone, get
>message : No Mobile Data. I've checked imei through imei.info and other
>sites and it says Phone has been Blacklisted by Vodafone.

>I've called them but all informations about phone can be obtained by
>this legal owner.

Is there any potential use in Matty's asking Vodaphone to ask the legal
owner to contact him?
--
Iain

[Matty]

Unfortunately Vodafone is not able to give me any informations about phone, because I am not first purchaser.

I've texted buyer and he replied only : go to police. That's it.
I've been there and police send me to Action Fraud (actionfraud.police.uk). They've gathered all my informations and told me to wait 4 weeks for starting the case...

[Matty]

[Janet]

In article <npehd0$ufq$1...@dont-email.me>, patch...@gmx.com says...

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-
a-purchase/if-you-think-youve-bought-stolen-goods/

quote

"
If you think you've bought stolen goods
This advice applies to England

If you?ve bought something that?s been previously stolen, you shouldn?t
get into trouble if you didn?t know it was stolen when you bought it.
Take the item to the police

As soon as you think it's stolen you need to call the police on 101 or
take the item to your local police station. They?ll try to return it to
its original owner.

You shouldn?t keep the item or return it to the seller yourself - this
might be considered ?handling stolen goods?, which is illegal."

Janet.

[Iain Archer]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote on Mon, 22 Aug 2016 at
14:33:40:

>I suspect that Vodafone would not have the permission from the original
>owner to divulge their details to a private individual.

I'm sure they don't.

I did actually mean what I wrote.

> And any law- enforcement agency that received the details would have
>their own policy to follow - which would also preclude divulging
>information to a third party.
--
Iain
"Meanwhile, one must be content to go on piping up
for reason and realism and a certain decency."

[GB]

There have been a few people posting here complaining about what boils
down to police operational procedures. The answer to all of them is that
the police are allowed to organise themselves in whatever reasonable
manner they choose. As a member of the public, you can raise a
complaint. I urge you to do so. It may ginger the police up a bit, which
is precisely what you want. It may have no effect at all, of course.

The alternative approach is to issue civil proceedings, but bear in mind
whom you are suing and your chances of getting him to pay up, even if
you obtain a court order.

Quite frankly, if the offer of £400 is still on the table, I'd take it.
However, *don't do that as well as involving the police further*. You'd
be disposing of stolen goods.

[GB]

On 22-Aug-16 5:44 PM, GB wrote:

> Quite frankly, if the offer of £400 is still on the table, I'd take it.
> However, *don't do that as well as involving the police further*. You'd
> be disposing of stolen goods.
>
>

On second thoughts, let me retract that suggestion.

[Matty]

This offer is not available, he told me to go to the police

[GB]

On 22-Aug-16 6:28 PM, Matty wrote:
> This offer is not available, he told me to go to the police
>

Just as well you are not being tempted, then.

So, either do your best to ginger up the police or sue the guy who sold
the phone.

[Roger Hayter]

He could reasonably accept the 400GBP as long as the seller does not
require the phone to be returned!

--

Roger Hayter

[Gorf]

On Monday, 22 August 2016 09:37:56 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".

I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the police to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call the take away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive first."

[Matty]

Can i do both? Police send me to fraud action so looks like they are not interested in this.

In claim can i demand money for distress, time i spend without phone etc? I would like to proove him I was right...

[Matty]

He require to get phone back unfortunately...

[Roland Perry]

In message <560735df-c3e9-4dc9...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:52:51 on Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:

>> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
>> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
>> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".
>
>I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the police
>to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call the take
>away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive first."

The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
what the public wants, apparently.
--
Roland Perry

[Nick]

Under-funded? What does that even mean. What the public want is a
lawful, orderly society. It is unclear that spending more money on the
police is the best way to achieve this result. There was a massive
increase in police budgets under Blair, it is unclear that this had a
huge effect.

The problem of stolen phones is a big one. AIUI due to security/snooping
requirements phones are largely identifiable and locatable. It is a
problem that the police could solve. With the internet of things soon to
arrive more goods will be traceable in this way, including bicycles, it
seems to me that if they pioneered techniques for catching phone thieves
it would put them in a good position for the future. This does not
necessarily require bigger budgets just different priorities. I would
like to see less spent on the war on drugs.

Perhaps your view on underfunding is related to your work with on-line
pornography. I hope the budgets for this work are small and are cut as I
suspect it provides very little net benefit to society.

There is also a clear need for more resources to be devoted to on-line
fraud but I'm not sure if the police are the correct people to tackle
this one. Like many of the large government agencies Army, NHS, etc the
police seem to be technologically backward.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:23:31 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put
finger to keyboard and typed:

And all pizzas are the same shape and (approximate) size, and orders for
them are dealt with purely in the sequence in which they are received.
Crimes come in a large number of shapes and sizes, and have wildly
differing priorities.

Your pizza delivery would be far more unreliable if all the orders for a 9"
Margherita had to wait until all the family size Full House orders with a
side of dough balls and chicken wings had been fulfilled.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Friday, 19 August 2016 22:27:46 UTC+1, Matty wrote:
> Hello,

> On monday before work (nightshift) i've bought an Samsung galaxy s7 edge from private person (found advertise on gumtree, paid on collection in seller's home). I started using it on tuesday (for couple hours) and it worked perfectly (inserted 2 different sim cards - lycamobile and giffgaff). On wednesday when i boot the phone, get message : No Mobile Data. I've checked imei through imei.info and other sites and it says Phone has been Blacklisted by Vodafone.
> I've called them but all informations about phone can be obtained by this legal owner.
>

> I've called police - they send me to CAB.
> CAB send me to some scam investigation department.
> This department send me to police again...
>
> I've contacted seller - he said he bought phone from other person and he gave me his contact number. I've texted him and he replied he don't know anything about phone.
> Seller said he's lying and I suppose to go to police (yeah.). ((I think he's saying the truth because if the phone will be scam, he wouldn't allowed me to come to his phone while his father was inside. Seller was like 20years old).

>
> Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from it.
>

> I told seller i want money back because it is fraud - he didn't wanted to get it. Later on he wrote he can pay me 400 instead of 460 ive paid, because phone is "not in the same condition as was sold" (not packed in plastic bag).
>
>

> What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for refund money? Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about returning item up to 14 days?
>

> Help, please...

Take the £400 [in cash] if you can get it.

The phone may be literally stolen, but as it is boxed etc. that would imply it was stolen before it was sold retail.

More likely IMO is that the phone has been bought on contract using false credentials and immediately sold on , leaving you with a problem.


If the phone were older then it might have been blocked because of a billing dispute with Voda, but this appears to be intentional dishonesty.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nph1pd$e82$5...@dont-email.me>, at 08:33:49 on Tue, 23 Aug
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>We have (needlessly) new laws making it a criminal offence to say
>nasty things on Twitter.

There has been a law about malicious communications for a long time. And
quite a lot of people think death threats via Twitter are something the
police should take seriously, even if most of them are claimed to be
"just banter" once the perpetrator has been confronted.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <7n3orb95p7ifg5hth...@news.markshouse.net>, at
09:58:55 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>>> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
>>>> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
>>>> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".
>>>
>>>I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the police
>>>to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call the take
>>>away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive first."
>>
>>The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
>>what the public wants, apparently.
>
>And all pizzas are the same shape and (approximate) size, and orders for
>them are dealt with purely in the sequence in which they are received.
>Crimes come in a large number of shapes and sizes, and have wildly
>differing priorities.
>
>Your pizza delivery would be far more unreliable if all the orders for a 9"
>Margherita had to wait until all the family size Full House orders with a
>side of dough balls and chicken wings had been fulfilled.

And in most cases the nearest pizza delivery shop is a lot closer than
the nearest police station (let alone nearest 24x7 police station), with
in most instances several to choose from.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nph3cg$v9p$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:01:05 on Tue, 23 Aug
2016, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>On 23/08/2016 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <560735df-c3e9-4dc9...@googlegroups.com>, at
>> 14:52:51 on Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
>>>> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
>>>> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".
>>>
>>> I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the
>>> police to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call
>>> the take away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive
>>> first."
>>
>> The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
>> what the public wants, apparently.
>
>Under-funded? What does that even mean.

It means they can't respond to every incident (or alleged crime or
whatever you want to call it) reported to them. Unlike pizza shops which
do usually deliver all the orders that are phoned in.

>What the public want is a lawful, orderly society. It is unclear that
>spending more money on the police is the best way to achieve this
>result. There was a massive increase in police budgets under Blair, it

I'm sure suggestions for improving society will be gratefully received.
You could start with an educational programme which teaches people not
to be such objectionable trolls on Twitter.

>The problem of stolen phones is a big one. AIUI due to
>security/snooping requirements phones are largely identifiable and
>locatable.

Even easier with "find my phone" apps.

>It is a problem that the police could solve.

I'm glad you support the use of telecoms identification and location
data for lower level crimes. Although a typical police force only has a
handful of officers trained in the use of that data.

>With the internet of things soon to arrive more goods will be traceable
>in this way, including bicycles, it seems to me that if they pioneered
>techniques for catching phone thieves it would put them in a good
>position for the future.

There's a difference between knowing where a phone is within 100ft and
actually getting your hands on it. Does retrieving a stolen phone
justify bashing down someone's front door, or pulling them over on the
road (maybe after a short chase)?

>This does not necessarily require bigger budgets just different
>priorities. I would like to see less spent on the war on drugs.
>
>Perhaps your view on underfunding is related to your work with on-line
>pornography.

I gave that work up over ten years ago, and handed the baton on to
others. It's impossible to entirely escape though, due to the prevalence
of the stuff.

>I hope the budgets for this work are small and are cut as I suspect it
>provides very little net benefit to society.

The budgets were only very small (when I was involved, the IWF had only
half a dozen staff). Whether they do a useful job or not, is the sort of
debate I've been trying to avoid getting sucked back into for over a
decade now. But I note there was yet another high profile historic child
abuse case in court yesterday, so there is some policing effort going
into it.

>There is also a clear need for more resources to be devoted to on-line
>fraud but I'm not sure if the police are the correct people to tackle
>this one.

The police have largely punted it over to Action Fraud. What they really
need is a bigger and better version of:

https://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/Police-The-dcpcu.asp

...funded by industry. But you'd need to get the big ecommerce platforms
to "buy-in" in the same way the banks financially support the DCPCU.

>Like many of the large government agencies Army, NHS, etc the police
>seem to be technologically backward.

There are pockets of expertise, but in general all the folks you mention
were recruited years ago with the equivalent of one GCSE in English. It
appears you don't even need (any more) to have a driving licence,
because so many youngsters don't.

People who graduated five years ago in Computer Science don't tend to
hed for the police as a career.

If you want to help, there are some police forces who recruit computer
specialists as Special Constables.
--
Roland Perry

[simon....@googlemail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:21:16 AM UTC+1, RJH wrote:
> On 22/08/2016 09:25, Fredxxx wrote:
> > On 22/08/2016 05:38, RJH wrote:
> >> On 20/08/2016 10:15, GB wrote:
> >>> On 19-Aug-16 10:40 PM, Peter Parry wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Matty <sssy...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>>> What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for
> >>>>> refund money?
> >>>>

> >>>> Very few.

> >>>>
> >>>>> Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about returning
> >>>>> item up to 14 days?
> >>>>

> >>>> You might be thinking of the Consumer Contracts (Information,
> >>>> Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Previously
> >>>> known as the Distance Selling Regulations).
> >>>>
> >>>> However, these apply only to business to consumer sales and only to
> >>>> contacts completed entirely by distance means. As you bought in a
> >>>> private sale you have few of the statutory rights you would have in a
> >>>> business to consumer contract. Your redress is to sue for the goods
> >>>> not being as described (assuming the description said it was working
> >>>> or "new")
> >>>>

> >>>>> Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>

> >>>> The phone wasn't new if it had been blacklisted. Unfortunately the
> >>>> blacklisting takes some time and a common scam is to sell a stolen
> >>>> phone as working before it is blacklisted and indeed it will work for
> >>>> a day or so which gives the seller time to squirrel away the money and
> >>>> disappear or act innocent.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Why aren't the police really really interested in this sort of case?
> >>> There's a simple crime and a clear lead to investigate.
> >>>
> >>> The OP seems to be in possession of stolen goods. Why aren't the police
> >>> confiscating the phone to return it to its owner?
> >>
> >> I became aware of a similar case recently - my friend's bike was
> >> stolen/he identified it on an auction site and he told the police/the
> >> bike sold/police did nothing (in effect). More details in a post of mine
> >> in this NG a few month's back.
> >
> > Did your friend get their bike back, was there any follow up by the police?
>
> No, he bought a new one. He didn't follow it up because of the hassle,
> and likelihood of getting anywhere low in his view. It actually sold
> locally - so the local police could have tidied the whole thing up.

I'd have bought the bike, then turned up to collect in person..... With a quick call to the local police before you rock up.

[GB]

On 23-Aug-16 3:06 AM, Matty wrote:
> Can i do both?

Yes

> Police send me to fraud action so looks like they are
> not interested in this.

The police intervention may not get your money back, anyway. They are
not debt collectors.

>
> In claim can i demand money for distress, time i spend without phone
> etc? I would like to proove him I was right...
>

You can claim court fees. Interest at 8%.

You should be aware that roughly half of county court judgements go
unpaid. So, you should try to keep your expenses down. The court fee for
a claim up to £500 is £35, but if you go over that it's £60. You'll need
to pay the court fee right at the start, and you'll only get it back if
you win (highly likely) and the crook pays up (rather less likely).

So, you should keep your claim below £500, and there's no point trying a
dodgy claim for distress, etc.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:09:36 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

And, to continue the reasons why the analogy doesn't work, pizzas are
delivered from a central point to which the drivers always return after
each delivery. The police may or may not be sitting in the canteen at the
police station waiting for a call; they may well be out on patrol,
responding to another call, or returning from another call. So their
location at point of dispatch is considerably variable as well.

Possibly a better analogy, particularly bearing in mind that last point, is
calling for a taxi without pre-booking. We all know that if you do that at
midday, you'll get one much quicker than if you call at midnight. Unless
you just happen to be lucky, and one is just around the corner after
finishing another job.

[Roger Hayter]

And there has been a perfectly good law against death threats since
before electronic communications began. QED

--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <rfforbtgkrl87mtg2...@news.markshouse.net>, at
13:18:33 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>Possibly a better analogy, particularly bearing in mind that last point, is
>calling for a taxi without pre-booking. We all know that if you do that at
>midday, you'll get one much quicker than if you call at midnight. Unless
>you just happen to be lucky, and one is just around the corner after
>finishing another job.

I see a market opportunity here for Uber-cops.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1msfsep.f7h6f7emcemuN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 14:47:33 on Tue,
23 Aug 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >We have (needlessly) new laws making it a criminal offence to say
>> >nasty things on Twitter.
>>
>> There has been a law about malicious communications for a long time. And
>> quite a lot of people think death threats via Twitter are something the
>> police should take seriously, even if most of them are claimed to be
>> "just banter" once the perpetrator has been confronted.
>
>And there has been a perfectly good law against death threats since
>before electronic communications began. QED

Exactly, it's not a "(needless) new law", but an old one. QED^2

--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

In article <842bd5c8-c35b-40a3...@googlegroups.com>,
sssy...@gmail.com says...

>
> Can i do both? Police send me to fraud action so looks like they are not interested in this.

Action Fraud is part of the policing system; the local police
directed you to the appropriate department that specialises in the kind
of fraud you've got mixed up in.

> In claim can i demand money for distress, time i spend without phone

etc? ?

Seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Wasn't it you recently trying to do the same "distress" claim to your
landlord, and to a previous phone company which wouldn't privide free
service to Poland.


Janet.

[Matty]

Exactly, in all cases i was cheated so i should demand more to show is not worth lying. If person make a fraud and have to pay back twice more - highly likely he wont do that anymore because it wont be worth it

[Matty]

And this type people mostly care only about money so its good to hit them where hurts most - in wallet..

[Janet]

In article <nph3cg$v9p$1...@dont-email.me>, Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On 23/08/2016 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message <560735df-c3e9-4dc9...@googlegroups.com>, at
> > 14:52:51 on Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:
> >>> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
> >>> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
> >>> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".
> >>
> >> I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the
> >> police to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call
> >> the take away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive
> >> first."
> >
> > The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
> > what the public wants, apparently.
>
> Under-funded? What does that even mean. What the public want is a
> lawful, orderly society. It is unclear that spending more money on the
> police is the best way to achieve this result.

If people would regulate their own behaviour, drive safely, refrain
from hitting people, child pornography, shoplifting, vandalism, robbing
old ladies, housebreaking, littering, blowing up trains etc etc we could
have a lawful orderly society for free.

There was a massive
> increase in police budgets under Blair, it is unclear that this had a
> huge effect.

Didn't that coincide with increased demands for public security
after some other countries unaccountably got fed up being bombed,
invaded etc?

Janet

[Roger Hayter]

The 'new' bit is having to add 12,000,000 iterations of "He said I
looked fat in that swimsuit" and make a harassment case out of it.

--

Roger Hayter

[Janet]

In article <iWSW2AaL...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...

No problem recruiting those; usenet is full of wannabees.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <5046f74b-50af-4f4a...@googlegroups.com>,
sssy...@gmail.com says...

>
> Exactly, in all cases i was cheated so i should demand more to show is not worth lying. If person make a fraud and have to pay back twice more - highly likely he wont do that anymore because it wont be worth it

and how has that worked out so far?

Janet

[Roger Hayter]

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And this type people mostly care only about money so its good to hit them
where hurts most - in wallet..

In this country, unlike America, the civil courts very rarely take on
this role. Punishment is mainly the responsibility of the criminal
court system.


--

Roger Hayter

[Matty]

One case - unsolved yet
Second - won
Third - this one -ongoing

[Chris R]

I agree that more resources are needed for fraud, but I also think part of
the public perception problem is that the police want to address crime at
the top, not by investigating each case by following up each report of a
stolen mobile. Sending a bobby out to each person who loses or finds a phone
is not going to contribute much to nicking the thieves who hijacked a
containerload of phones. Prosecuting the idiots who sell the stuff on eBay
isn't a high priority. But the victims feel short-changed if their own
little part of the crime is not investigated, and minor crimes don't get
investigated at all.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Roland Perry]

In message <5046f74b-50af-4f4a...@googlegroups.com>, at
09:06:09 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> remarked:

>Exactly, in all cases i was cheated so i should demand more to show
>is not worth lying. If person make a fraud and have to pay back twice
>more - highly likely he wont do that anymore because it wont be worth it

English law doesn't really have a concept of that kind of retribution.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1msg085.1ilve7iecbf8oN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 21:06:48 on

Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>> >> >We have (needlessly) new laws making it a criminal offence to say
>> >> >nasty things on Twitter.
>> >>
>> >> There has been a law about malicious communications for a long time. And
>> >> quite a lot of people think death threats via Twitter are something the
>> >> police should take seriously, even if most of them are claimed to be
>> >> "just banter" once the perpetrator has been confronted.
>> >
>> >And there has been a perfectly good law against death threats since
>> >before electronic communications began. QED
>>
>> Exactly, it's not a "(needless) new law", but an old one. QED^2
>
>The 'new' bit is having to add 12,000,000 iterations of "He said I
>looked fat in that swimsuit"

If only the comments directed at people were as mild as that.

>and make a harassment case out of it.

Threatening to come round and rape your daughter is something which
might attract the attention of the police if shouted through a megaphone
at a political rally, but it's hard work to get online equivalents taken
seriously.

And that's only one form of harassment.

Stealing can be shoplifting, burglary, fraud, mugging, ram raiding,
joyriding and not paying for your petrol. Famously, the last two were
sufficiently difficult to prosecute that specific offences were
introduced to make it clear they were just as disparaged as other forms.

We are at about that stage with much online misbehaviour; where it
requires pointing out that harassment takes many different forms
including trolling-for-amusement at the discomfort of others, stalking
by rejected suitors or workmates bearing a grudge, fermenting racial
hatred, and the only one that's specifically been legislated so far-
revenge porn.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <npjjtr$om0$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:53:57 on Wed, 24 Aug
2016, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> remarked:

>I agree that more resources are needed for fraud, but I also think part
>of the public perception problem is that the police want to address
>crime at the top, not by investigating each case by following up each
>report of a stolen mobile. Sending a bobby out to each person who loses
>or finds a phone is not going to contribute much to nicking the thieves
>who hijacked a containerload of phones. Prosecuting the idiots who sell
>the stuff on eBay isn't a high priority. But the victims feel
>short-changed if their own little part of the crime is not
>investigated, and minor crimes don't get investigated at all.

It's human nature. Genocide the other side of the planet hardly gets a
mention, but someone with minor injuries after a car accident gets on
the front page of the local newspaper. The kid next door dropping a
brick on his toe is the talk of the street.
--
Roland Perry

[Matty]

Well, Ive received email from action fraud:

Dear Mr M...

I’m sorry to hear you’ve been a victim of crime. Thank you for taking the time to report to Action Fraud.
All Action Fraud reports are passed to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and we review every crime to
identify investigative leads and opportunities to disrupt criminal activity. We have reviewed your report and I
regret to inform you that we have not identified any leads that would result in a successful criminal
investigation therefore your report has not been sent to a local police force or other enforcement organisation
to commence an investigation at this time.
Please be assured that we have not closed your report and it will continue to be reviewed against new
information received from Action Fraud reports and other intelligence sources. If it is linked to an
investigative opportunity in the future we will contact you.
If you would like information on what support is available to you, please visit the Victims’ Information Service
website www.victimsinformationservice.org.uk. If you would like information on how to protect yourself from
fraud please visit www.actionfraud.police.uk/support_for_you or you can call them on 0300 123 2040.
I would recommend that you sign up to www.actionfraudalert.co.uk so you can receive warning messages
about new and emerging scams and practical prevention advice. This is a free service and allows you to
receive tips, guidance and helpful advice to prevent fraud against you.
If you have any queries regarding this letter please visit www.actionfraud.police.uk/FAQ where you will find
answers to the most common questions. You may also submit questions which you feel are not addressed
by the FAQ using our online form.
Thank you for taking the time to report to Action Fraud. Every report we receive contributes to building an
accurate picture of the fraud threat. It is critical for policing to identify and disrupt suspected criminals now
and in the future and we will strive to provide practical prevention advice to protect the community and
businesses.
Yours sincerely

So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
Is there anything I can do in this case?
I've called the police again and asked is there a possibility to make a claim again but through them, sadly they said no because it is not criminal offense but civil and they can't do anything...

[Roland Perry]

In message <b64300d2-943e-42f4...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:22:06 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> remarked:

>Well, Ive received email from action fraud:
>
>Dear Mr M...
>

>I’m sorry to hear you’ve been a victim of crime. Thank

>you for taking the time to report to Action Fraud.
>All Action Fraud reports are passed to the National Fraud Intelligence
>Bureau and we review every crime to
>identify investigative leads and opportunities to disrupt criminal
>activity. We have reviewed your report and I
>regret to inform you that we have not identified any leads that would
>result in a successful criminal
>investigation therefore your report has not been sent to a local police
>force or other enforcement organisation
>to commence an investigation at this time.
>Please be assured that we have not closed your report and it will
>continue to be reviewed against new
>information received from Action Fraud reports and other intelligence
>sources. If it is linked to an
>investigative opportunity in the future we will contact you.
>If you would like information on what support is available to you,

>please visit the Victims’ Information Service

>website www.victimsinformationservice.org.uk. If you would like
>information on how to protect yourself from
>fraud please visit www.actionfraud.police.uk/support_for_you or you can
>call them on 0300 123 2040.
>I would recommend that you sign up to www.actionfraudalert.co.uk so you
>can receive warning messages
>about new and emerging scams and practical prevention advice. This is a
>free service and allows you to
>receive tips, guidance and helpful advice to prevent fraud against you.
>If you have any queries regarding this letter please visit
>www.actionfraud.police.uk/FAQ where you will find
>answers to the most common questions. You may also submit questions
>which you feel are not addressed
>by the FAQ using our online form.
>Thank you for taking the time to report to Action Fraud. Every report
>we receive contributes to building an
>accurate picture of the fraud threat. It is critical for policing to
>identify and disrupt suspected criminals now
>and in the future and we will strive to provide practical prevention
>advice to protect the community and
>businesses.
>Yours sincerely
>
>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.

The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.

>Is there anything I can do in this case?

Have you accepted the offer of £400 refund? Have you found out from
Vodafone whether the blacklisting was a mistake, or a genuine response
to the phone's original theft?

>I've called the police again and asked is there a possibility to make a
>claim again but through them, sadly they said no because it is not
>criminal offense but civil and they can't do anything...

Ah, the famous "it's a Civil Matter, Sir". Although from your original
description, the person who sold it to you could be handling stolen
goods.
--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

On 19/08/2016 20:59, Matty wrote:
> Hello,
> On monday before work (nightshift) i've bought an Samsung galaxy s7 edge from private person (found advertise on gumtree, paid on collection in seller's home). I started using it on tuesday (for couple hours) and it worked perfectly (inserted 2 different sim cards - lycamobile and giffgaff). On wednesday when i boot the phone, get message : No Mobile Data. I've checked imei through imei.info and other sites and it says Phone has been Blacklisted by Vodafone.
> I've called them but all informations about phone can be obtained by this legal owner.
>
> I've called police - they send me to CAB.
> CAB send me to some scam investigation department.
> This department send me to police again...
>
> I've contacted seller - he said he bought phone from other person and he gave me his contact number. I've texted him and he replied he don't know anything about phone.
> Seller said he's lying and I suppose to go to police (yeah.). ((I think he's saying the truth because if the phone will be scam, he wouldn't allowed me to come to his phone while his father was inside. Seller was like 20years old).
>

> Phone was brand new, when i open it i took off all plactic bags from it.
>

> I told seller i want money back because it is fraud - he didn't wanted to get it. Later on he wrote he can pay me 400 instead of 460 ive paid, because phone is "not in the same condition as was sold" (not packed in plastic bag).
>
>

> What moves do i have to recover money and don't wait a year for refund money? Is there any law between seller and buyer mentioning about returning item up to 14 days?
>
> Help, please...
>
>

Sorry, Matty, I've come rather late to this discussion.

Have you asked Vodafone what they think you should do with this stolen
phone, eg pass it to them or to someone else?

In your position I'd give the seller a final ultimatum to refund the
money to you within 14 days, the whole 460 pounds, and tell him you will
be commencing County Court proceedings if he fails to refund the money
to you - and also tell him that after proceedings have started he will
then have to pay you legal costs as well as the 460 pounds.

Don't waste time reasoning with him about his legal obligations. He is
in breach of contract and it is no defence for him to say that he bought
the goods from someone else. Don't say that your solicitor will do this
or that - most people know that solicitors don't get involved in claims
that fall within the County Court small claims track.

Of course, ultimately you might get a default judgment against him (very
likely) and then have to consider paying a further fee to send in the
bailiffs. It might seem like throwing good money after bad, but
personally I'd do it.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:45:29 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <b64300d2-943e-42f4...@googlegroups.com>, at
>08:22:06 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>
>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.

That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
territorial police force.

I was at a fringe meeting yesterday addressed by the minister responsible
for Action Fraud; he indicated that there are plans to change the way it
works so that people get more transparancy into how AF is dealing with
their reports. In conversation wtih him afterwards I mooted the possibility
of creating a non-territorial "British Cyber Police", akin to British
Transport Police, whose sole remit was dealing with online crime
irrespective of where in the UK the victim is located. His response was
that I'm not the first to suggest that (which doesn't surprise me), but if
it ever did happen it would probably only extend to "cyber-dependent"
crimes, rather than merely "cyber-enabled", as the latter usually have a
local connection anyway.

[Roland Perry]

In message <vh7avb57lm9rlv012...@news.markshouse.net>, at
16:45:27 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>>
>>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.
>
>That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
>result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
>intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
>crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
>territorial police force.

In a tiny minority of cases.

>I was at a fringe meeting yesterday addressed by the minister responsible
>for Action Fraud; he indicated that there are plans to change the way it
>works so that people get more transparancy into how AF is dealing with
>their reports. In conversation wtih him afterwards I mooted the possibility
>of creating a non-territorial "British Cyber Police", akin to British
>Transport Police, whose sole remit was dealing with online crime
>irrespective of where in the UK the victim is located.

Yawn yawn. I've been working in this space for 15+ years, and have seen
(and participated in) the transition between local fraud squads getting
involved in a small number of online fraud cases, to getting a budget to
set up the National High Tech Crime Unit to dip a quarter of a toe in
the water, to seeing how SOCA inadvertently sabotaged that initiative,
and then several years where PECU (in the Met) struggled to get funding
to be NHTCU v2.0, and then working closely with the people who set up
Action Fraud. Now working with the ex-ACPO group who have this kind of
thing as a deliverable.

>His response was that I'm not the first to suggest that (which doesn't
>surprise me), but if it ever did happen it would probably only extend
>to "cyber-dependent" crimes, rather than merely "cyber-enabled", as the
>latter usually have a local connection anyway.

One of the essentials when proposing a "Cybercrime initiative" is to
spend several years navel gazing at what it means.

Cyber-dependent crimes sounds like the latest buzzphrase for crimes
against the digital networks. Nothing new there.

Cyber-enabled is 99% of the problem, precisely because the perp is *not*
local to the victim.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:07:25 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <vh7avb57lm9rlv012...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>16:45:27 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>>>
>>>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>>>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>>>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.
>>
>>That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
>>result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
>>intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
>>crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
>>territorial police force.
>
>In a tiny minority of cases.

Depends what you call tiny.

>>I was at a fringe meeting yesterday addressed by the minister responsible
>>for Action Fraud; he indicated that there are plans to change the way it
>>works so that people get more transparancy into how AF is dealing with
>>their reports. In conversation wtih him afterwards I mooted the possibility
>>of creating a non-territorial "British Cyber Police", akin to British
>>Transport Police, whose sole remit was dealing with online crime
>>irrespective of where in the UK the victim is located.
>
>Yawn yawn. I've been working in this space for 15+ years, and have seen
>(and participated in) the transition between local fraud squads getting
>involved in a small number of online fraud cases, to getting a budget to
>set up the National High Tech Crime Unit to dip a quarter of a toe in
>the water, to seeing how SOCA inadvertently sabotaged that initiative,
>and then several years where PECU (in the Met) struggled to get funding
>to be NHTCU v2.0, and then working closely with the people who set up
>Action Fraud. Now working with the ex-ACPO group who have this kind of
>thing as a deliverable.

Then you're aware of the issues we were discussing. The anecdote was aimed
more at introducing a note of topicality.

>>His response was that I'm not the first to suggest that (which doesn't
>>surprise me), but if it ever did happen it would probably only extend
>>to "cyber-dependent" crimes, rather than merely "cyber-enabled", as the
>>latter usually have a local connection anyway.
>
>One of the essentials when proposing a "Cybercrime initiative" is to
>spend several years navel gazing at what it means.
>
>Cyber-dependent crimes sounds like the latest buzzphrase for crimes
>against the digital networks. Nothing new there.
>
>Cyber-enabled is 99% of the problem, precisely because the perp is *not*
>local to the victim.

Cyber-dependent means that the crime is digital by nature. CMA offences,
for example. Cyber-enabled is where things that can be carried out offline,
like stalking and harassment, are facilitated by digital communications. At
least, that's my understanding of the current state of the jargon.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ialavb5i6658vmvhp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
20:36:19 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge

<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>>>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>>>>
>>>>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>>>>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>>>>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.
>>>
>>>That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
>>>result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
>>>intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
>>>crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
>>>territorial police force.
>>
>>In a tiny minority of cases.
>
>Depends what you call tiny.

According to HMIC, Action Fraud annually receives around 300k reports of
crimes and a further 150k which are not sufficiently well formed to
proceed with (even for intelligence purposes only). Of these they
escalate a little under 19k to a police force, who according to HMIC
typically triage that down to the 20% most promising looking. That's
around 1%.

Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.

>>>I was at a fringe meeting yesterday addressed by the minister responsible
>>>for Action Fraud; he indicated that there are plans to change the way it
>>>works so that people get more transparancy into how AF is dealing with
>>>their reports. In conversation wtih him afterwards I mooted the possibility
>>>of creating a non-territorial "British Cyber Police", akin to British
>>>Transport Police, whose sole remit was dealing with online crime
>>>irrespective of where in the UK the victim is located.

I sometimes float the concept of the "ball-point pen police" which would
be a national unit dedicated to bringing their special expertise in
writing instruments to solving crimes where a ball-point pen had been
shown to be a factor.

In effect the opposite of "mainstreaming" - another much over-used
buzz-phrase.

That's identical to mine, as above. Although at the moment I've invested
too much time over the years trying to make that distinction, in front
of audiences who won't do anything about either until the exact words
have been agreed in triplicate; and now lump them both together as
"Digital Crime", while trying to raise the profile of "Digital Abuse",
which is that subset of behaviour which concerns the public protection
units in police forces (rather than the fraud or e-crime[1] units).

[1] Another word for your cyber-dependent crimes.



--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:44:22 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <ialavb5i6658vmvhp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>20:36:19 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>>>>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>>>>>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>>>>>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.
>>>>
>>>>That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
>>>>result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
>>>>intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
>>>>crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
>>>>territorial police force.
>>>
>>>In a tiny minority of cases.
>>
>>Depends what you call tiny.
>
>According to HMIC, Action Fraud annually receives around 300k reports of
>crimes and a further 150k which are not sufficiently well formed to
>proceed with (even for intelligence purposes only). Of these they
>escalate a little under 19k to a police force, who according to HMIC
>typically triage that down to the 20% most promising looking. That's
>around 1%.

That percentage is, clearly, far too low. But that is a failure of process,
not a failure of intent.

>Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.

Which is more than burglary and [AG]BH combined. It's an order of magnitude
higher than bicycle theft. Yet you will find the latter listed as a
category on the police.uk crime maps, and no mention of fraud. Which
demonstrates a significant weakness of using a geographic, territorial
approach to crime. If you look at the crime maps and attempt to argue for
policing priorities based on them (which the public certainly does, and so
do a lot of uninformed politicians), you will end up making a totally
unjustified argument.

>I sometimes float the concept of the "ball-point pen police" which would
>be a national unit dedicated to bringing their special expertise in
>writing instruments to solving crimes where a ball-point pen had been
>shown to be a factor.

I don't think that's close enough an analogy. The reason for setting up BTP
was the realisation that a county-based police system simply wasn't
appropriate for dealing with crime committed on a transport network which
enabled criminals to easily cross county boundaries in the course of
committing their crimes. With online crime, particularly "cyber-dependent"
crime, the geographical locations of victim and perpetrator are almost
entirely irrelevent.

>In effect the opposite of "mainstreaming" - another much over-used
>buzz-phrase.

It's not an either/or situation. Territorial-based policing also needs a
much stronger awareness of how the Internet and other modern communication
systems facilitate crime against residents in their areas. But there is an
argument for a cross-border agency which can more effectively investigate
crimes that are not directly geography-based.

>>Cyber-dependent means that the crime is digital by nature. CMA offences,
>>for example. Cyber-enabled is where things that can be carried out offline,
>>like stalking and harassment, are facilitated by digital communications. At
>>least, that's my understanding of the current state of the jargon.
>
>That's identical to mine, as above. Although at the moment I've invested
>too much time over the years trying to make that distinction, in front
>of audiences who won't do anything about either until the exact words
>have been agreed in triplicate; and now lump them both together as
>"Digital Crime", while trying to raise the profile of "Digital Abuse",
>which is that subset of behaviour which concerns the public protection
>units in police forces (rather than the fraud or e-crime[1] units).
>
>[1] Another word for your cyber-dependent crimes.

"Digital crime" is a horrible term, almost as bad as "cybercrime" :-)

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NvZQpmxm...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <ialavb5i6658vmvhp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 20:36:19 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>>>So of course it means action fraud which is supposed to help with
>>>>>>frauds and help people is refusing to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The objective of Action Fraud is to help the general public by
>>>>>identifying certain kinds of organised fraudulent activity. It is not
>>>>>concerned [in either sense] with individual fraudulent activity.
>>>>
>>>>That's not true. While it is the case that many reports to Action Fraud
>>>>result in nothing more than being logged for statistics, it is also
>>>>intended to be a triage system which will, where appropriate, allocate
>>>>crimes for investigation either by one of the national agencies or by a
>>>>territorial police force.
>>>
>>>In a tiny minority of cases.
>>
>>Depends what you call tiny.
>
> According to HMIC, Action Fraud annually receives around 300k reports of
> crimes and a further 150k which are not sufficiently well formed to
> proceed with (even for intelligence purposes only). Of these they escalate
> a little under 19k to a police force, who according to HMIC typically
> triage that down to the 20% most promising looking. That's around 1%.
>
> Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.

I imagine that includes people who:

click here to download a viruses

resulting in trip from local repair bod to remove it.

BTDTGTTS (though I fixed it myself)

And I don't recall ever having been conned in the whole of my life so I
suspect that this is a (reasonably) common occurrence.

tim

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:27:35 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>

>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NvZQpmxm...@perry.co.uk...
>>

>> Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>
>I imagine that includes people who:
>
>click here to download a viruses
>
>resulting in trip from local repair bod to remove it.
>
>BTDTGTTS (though I fixed it myself)

No, it doesn't. Fraud means pretty much what most people understand by it:
being conned out of money (or things with value that can be measured in
money) as a result of some form of deception or misrepresentation, or by
having your credentials being misused by someone who has no authority to
use them (eg, credit card fraud).

>And I don't recall ever having been conned in the whole of my life so I
>suspect that this is a (reasonably) common occurrence.

A large proportion of fraud is committed against organisations rather than
individuals. A large proportion of the fraud committed against individuals
is credential misuse (eg, skimmed credit cards). The number of individuals
who are actually conned, in the sense of being deceived themselves, rather
than suffering from a fraud where someone else is deceived (eg, an online
retailer who charges your card when given the detals by a fraudster) is a
fairly small proportion of the total. So the fact that you have never been
conned (or, at least, are not aware of having ever been conned) is nopt a
particularly reliable guide to the overall prevalence of fraud.

[tim...]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r0vcvb9o8ce5sr1q8...@news.markshouse.net...

> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:27:35 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:NvZQpmxm...@perry.co.uk...
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>
>>I imagine that includes people who:
>>
>>click here to download a viruses
>>
>>resulting in trip from local repair bod to remove it.
>>
>>BTDTGTTS (though I fixed it myself)
>
> No, it doesn't. Fraud means pretty much what most people understand by it:
> being conned out of money (or things with value that can be measured in
> money) as a result of some form of deception or misrepresentation, or by
> having your credentials being misused by someone who has no authority to
> use them (eg, credit card fraud).

That's want some of these viruses do

they tell you to ring a number who will "remove" it for you.

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <t78cvb55rjmgfss1e...@news.markshouse.net>, at
11:24:50 on Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge

The process is working exactly as intended. Higher percentages would be
cripplingly expensive. From a practical politics point of view, what's
important is that people recognise what these percentages are, and from
a policing point of view we should strive for faster and smarter
operational procedures so the same amount of money goes further.

>>Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>
>Which is more than burglary and [AG]BH combined. It's an order of magnitude
>higher than bicycle theft. Yet you will find the latter listed as a
>category on the police.uk crime maps, and no mention of fraud. Which
>demonstrates a significant weakness of using a geographic, territorial
>approach to crime. If you look at the crime maps and attempt to argue for
>policing priorities based on them (which the public certainly does, and so
>do a lot of uninformed politicians), you will end up making a totally
>unjustified argument.

That's a non-sequitur. The people making decisions about policing
priorities do have the geographic information, or at the very least a
concept of how most online crimes have three locations: the victim, the
perpetrator and the platform, and where these are more commonly located.
Although you can't really put the perpetrator's location into the
statistics until they've been at least roughly detected, and what would
this look like if they are overseas. (We are getting into Europol/NCA
territory here).

>>I sometimes float the concept of the "ball-point pen police" which would
>>be a national unit dedicated to bringing their special expertise in
>>writing instruments to solving crimes where a ball-point pen had been
>>shown to be a factor.
>
>I don't think that's close enough an analogy. The reason for setting up BTP
>was the realisation that a county-based police system simply wasn't
>appropriate for dealing with crime committed on a transport network which
>enabled criminals to easily cross county boundaries in the course of
>committing their crimes. With online crime, particularly "cyber-dependent"
>crime, the geographical locations of victim and perpetrator are almost
>entirely irrelevent.

The BTP makes sense to be a national force for reasons of economy of
scale, as well as avoiding the "Dukes of Hazzard" phenomenon of the
perpetrators fleeing to the next county (on the trains so handily
provided for them).

It's not because there's something very special about the skills
required to corral drunken football supporters and stick them in the
back of vans. Most regional police forces have worked out how to do that
for themselves.

The point about the "ball point pen police" is the way in which the
moment you mention (eg) Facebook to the average desk sergeant their
shutters come down, because they claim not to understand it. Remember
also that the NHTCU's 2001 mission had two prongs: To recruit and train
one IT-savvy PC *per force* [yes, that many!!] and to set up a centre of
excellence in London with another ~50 investigators who would be called
in to help with difficult (and international) cases.

That way of thinking hasn't gone away, although there are now perhaps
7,500 IT-trained cops out there [Hansard, March 2016] out of a total of
100k, and conversely the centres of excellence keep being diverted onto
more exciting stuff like drug running, human trafficking and
international money laundering.

>>In effect the opposite of "mainstreaming" - another much over-used
>>buzz-phrase.
>
>It's not an either/or situation. Territorial-based policing also needs a
>much stronger awareness of how the Internet and other modern communication
>systems facilitate crime against residents in their areas. But there is an
>argument for a cross-border agency which can more effectively investigate
>crimes that are not directly geography-based.

There already is - NCA. But they concentrate on the "up-market" crimes.

The call-centre approach of Action Fraud doesn't have many fans it
seems, and the moment you mention re-inventing NHS Direct, people's eyes
glaze over.

>>>Cyber-dependent means that the crime is digital by nature. CMA offences,
>>>for example. Cyber-enabled is where things that can be carried out offline,
>>>like stalking and harassment, are facilitated by digital communications. At
>>>least, that's my understanding of the current state of the jargon.
>>
>>That's identical to mine, as above. Although at the moment I've invested
>>too much time over the years trying to make that distinction, in front
>>of audiences who won't do anything about either until the exact words
>>have been agreed in triplicate; and now lump them both together as
>>"Digital Crime", while trying to raise the profile of "Digital Abuse",
>>which is that subset of behaviour which concerns the public protection
>>units in police forces (rather than the fraud or e-crime[1] units).
>>
>>[1] Another word for your cyber-dependent crimes.
>
>"Digital crime" is a horrible term, almost as bad as "cybercrime" :-)

There's an important distinction, because people interpret "Cyber" to
mean "online/Internet". Whereas "Digital" addresses the convergence of
telephony and TCP/IP, PCs and smartphones, and includes devices like spy
cameras, gps trackers which aren't essentially "cyber-enabled" rather
than "tech-enabled".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nt64b5$6st$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:26 on Thu, 6 Oct 2016,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>> Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>>
>>>I imagine that includes people who:
>>>
>>>click here to download a viruses
>>>
>>>resulting in trip from local repair bod to remove it.
>>>
>>>BTDTGTTS (though I fixed it myself)
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Fraud means pretty much what most people understand by it:
>> being conned out of money (or things with value that can be measured in
>> money) as a result of some form of deception or misrepresentation, or by
>> having your credentials being misused by someone who has no authority to
>> use them (eg, credit card fraud).

2.5m of that 3.8m are credit card or bank account offences.

>That's want some of these viruses do
>
>they tell you to ring a number who will "remove" it for you.

This just shows how hard it is to stick things in neat boxes. Meanwhile
the Crime Survey has 2million "Computer Misuse"[1] offences, which makes
it even more of a scandal that only one a month is successfully
prosecuted.

[1] Drive-by or Spam-delivered malware might well fall into that
category.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:13:26 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:r0vcvb9o8ce5sr1q8...@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:27:35 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:NvZQpmxm...@perry.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>>
>>>I imagine that includes people who:
>>>
>>>click here to download a viruses
>>>
>>>resulting in trip from local repair bod to remove it.
>>>
>>>BTDTGTTS (though I fixed it myself)
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Fraud means pretty much what most people understand by it:
>> being conned out of money (or things with value that can be measured in
>> money) as a result of some form of deception or misrepresentation, or by
>> having your credentials being misused by someone who has no authority to
>> use them (eg, credit card fraud).
>
>That's want some of these viruses do
>
>they tell you to ring a number who will "remove" it for you.

Being a victim of ransomware would count as fraud, yes. But not other forms
of malware.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:09:23 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <t78cvb55rjmgfss1e...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>11:24:50 on Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:44:22 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put
>>finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>In message <ialavb5i6658vmvhp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>>20:36:19 on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
>>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>

>>>Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>
>>Which is more than burglary and [AG]BH combined. It's an order of magnitude
>>higher than bicycle theft. Yet you will find the latter listed as a
>>category on the police.uk crime maps, and no mention of fraud. Which
>>demonstrates a significant weakness of using a geographic, territorial
>>approach to crime. If you look at the crime maps and attempt to argue for
>>policing priorities based on them (which the public certainly does, and so
>>do a lot of uninformed politicians), you will end up making a totally
>>unjustified argument.
>
>That's a non-sequitur. The people making decisions about policing
>priorities do have the geographic information,

Yes, but the people campaigning for the police to do more about their pet
crime du jour, and the politicians that are on the receiving end of those
campaigns, do not have that information (or, at least, not in a readily
accessible form).

I'm all in favour of open data and public datasets, and I think that the
crime statistics are, as far as they go, very useful. They do provide a
very valuable means of determining which locations are more or less prone
to physical crime, which is an important factor if you want to know where
to buy a house, open a shop or park your bicycle. But they give us
practically no help at all in getting an overview of crime as a whole.

> or at the very least a
>concept of how most online crimes have three locations: the victim, the
>perpetrator and the platform, and where these are more commonly located.
>Although you can't really put the perpetrator's location into the
>statistics until they've been at least roughly detected, and what would
>this look like if they are overseas. (We are getting into Europol/NCA
>territory here).

The location of the victim would be a good enough start. Knowing that 23
people in CB7 4AJ have suffered online fraud, while only 14 have suffered
vehicle crime and only one has had their bicycle stolen, would give a much
clearer picture of the type of threats faced by the general public.

>>It's not an either/or situation. Territorial-based policing also needs a
>>much stronger awareness of how the Internet and other modern communication
>>systems facilitate crime against residents in their areas. But there is an
>>argument for a cross-border agency which can more effectively investigate
>>crimes that are not directly geography-based.
>
>There already is - NCA. But they concentrate on the "up-market" crimes.
>
>The call-centre approach of Action Fraud doesn't have many fans it
>seems, and the moment you mention re-inventing NHS Direct, people's eyes
>glaze over.

So what is the solution to getting far more of the crimes reported to
Action Fraud actually investigated, rather than merely disappearing into a
statistical black hole?

[Roger Hayter]

I would have thought that ransomware was more extortion than fraud.
--

Roger Hayter

[Judith]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:23:31 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <560735df-c3e9-4dc9...@googlegroups.com>, at
>14:52:51 on Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> There's a long standing meme in the community which sits between victims
>>> and the police: "you are about as likely to get the police interested in
>>> that, as you will a stolen bicycle".
>>
>>I have an acquaintance on another forum, his sig reads "Call the police
>>to report a crime happening right now, on your property. Call the take
>>away for a pizza for delivery. Guess which one will arrive first."
>
>The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
>what the public wants, apparently.

I can't remember when the public said that they wanted less money to be spent
on the police. Was it in the Nasty Party's manifesto?

[Roger Hayter]

Spending less money on all public services, even limited growth in NHS,
and education, was in their manifesto.


--

Roger Hayter

[Matty]

> >Is there anything I can do in this case?
>
> Have you accepted the offer of £400 refund? Have you found out from
> Vodafone whether the blacklisting was a mistake, or a genuine response
> to the phone's original theft?

I've accepted the offer for £400 however he changed his mind.
I've called vodafone a few times, most common answer was : "Phone imei is attached to one of our accounts so provide all details and we well tell you all information you need". One of the ladies took imei number and promised to call back same day but she didn't, and finding this person is impossible.

> >I've called the police again and asked is there a possibility to make a
> >claim again but through them, sadly they said no because it is not
> >criminal offense but civil and they can't do anything...
>
> Ah, the famous "it's a Civil Matter, Sir". Although from your original
> description, the person who sold it to you could be handling stolen
> goods.

It could be, but it's not changing priority for police. Still civil matter though.

>Have you asked Vodafone what they think you should do with this stolen
>phone, eg pass it to them or to someone else?

I did, they told me to call police:) Police send me to action fraud and action fraud replied : we can't help you. Nice..

>In your position I'd give the seller a final ultimatum to refund the
>money to you within 14 days, the whole 460 pounds, and tell him you will
>be commencing County Court proceedings if he fails to refund the money
>to you - and also tell him that after proceedings have started he will
>then have to pay you legal costs as well as the 460 pounds.

Should I send him a letter or anything? Thing is- i know his adress (been in his house), know what car is he driving, know how his father looks like but have no idea what is his name.

>Of course, ultimately you might get a default judgment against him (very
>likely) and then have to consider paying a further fee to send in the
>bailiffs. It might seem like throwing good money after bad, but
>personally I'd do it.

Baillifs will recover all money I have lost?

[Roland Perry]

In message <pj1ivbt8654mb6kql...@4ax.com>, at 15:46:23 on
Sat, 8 Oct 2016, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>The police, unlike pizza delivery firms, are under-funded. But that's
>>what the public wants, apparently.
>
>I can't remember when the public said that they wanted less money to be spent
>on the police.

They complain if Council Tax goes up, one hypothecated component of
which funds the police. PCCs wanting to raise their income by a rise in
tax usually falls on deaf ears.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <78fb6a5e-8b14-4092...@googlegroups.com>, at
19:52:19 on Sat, 8 Oct 2016, Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> remarked:

>> >Is there anything I can do in this case?
>>
>> Have you accepted the offer of £400 refund? Have you found out from
>> Vodafone whether the blacklisting was a mistake, or a genuine response
>> to the phone's original theft?
>
>I've accepted the offer for £400 however he changed his mind.
>I've called vodafone a few times, most common answer was : "Phone imei
>is attached to one of our accounts so provide all details and we well
>tell you all information you need".

That suggests it was bought with fraudulent credentials, and then sold
on, with Vodafone blocking it as a result (when the monthly billing
"bounced").

>One of the ladies took imei number and promised to call back same day
>but she didn't, and finding this person is impossible.

Why not try again saying "I've got this phone which needs re-uniting
with its owner, can you tell me who that is", and see what they say.

>> >I've called the police again and asked is there a possibility to make a
>> >claim again but through them, sadly they said no because it is not
>> >criminal offense but civil and they can't do anything...
>>
>> Ah, the famous "it's a Civil Matter, Sir". Although from your original
>> description, the person who sold it to you could be handling stolen
>> goods.
>
>It could be, but it's not changing priority for police. Still civil
>matter though.

The handling isn't, although I know that they may think it's too onerous
to investigate.

>>Have you asked Vodafone what they think you should do with this stolen
>>phone, eg pass it to them or to someone else?
>
>I did, they told me to call police:) Police send me to action fraud and
>action fraud replied : we can't help you. Nice..

Action Fraud have helped you as much as they can. If you want a
different kind of help then it'll require a fundamental change in
national crime investigation priorities.

>>In your position I'd give the seller a final ultimatum to refund the
>>money to you within 14 days, the whole 460 pounds, and tell him you will
>>be commencing County Court proceedings if he fails to refund the money
>>to you - and also tell him that after proceedings have started he will
>>then have to pay you legal costs as well as the 460 pounds.
>
>Should I send him a letter or anything? Thing is- i know his adress
>(been in his house), know what car is he driving, know how his father
>looks like but have no idea what is his name.

Maybe someone (here) can help with what to do in that situation.

>>Of course, ultimately you might get a default judgment against him (very
>>likely) and then have to consider paying a further fee to send in the
>>bailiffs. It might seem like throwing good money after bad, but
>>personally I'd do it.
>
>Baillifs will recover all money I have lost?

Only if he has any.
--
Roland Perry

[Matty]

> That suggests it was bought with fraudulent credentials, and then sold
> on, with Vodafone blocking it as a result (when the monthly billing
> "bounced").

I think the same.

>
> >One of the ladies took imei number and promised to call back same day
> >but she didn't, and finding this person is impossible.
>
> Why not try again saying "I've got this phone which needs re-uniting
> with its owner, can you tell me who that is", and see what they say.

She told me the same: if i need any information about phone i have to provide all details about account it's connected to :/


Any other ideas? Just sue?

I have screenshots of conversation (last message is mentioning about coming to his home), have bank statement short time before transaction and of course phone. Is it enough for court?

[Roland Perry]

In message <bu6fvbhsia718jidt...@news.markshouse.net>, at
14:23:27 on Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge

<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>>
>>>Which is more than burglary and [AG]BH combined. It's an order of magnitude
>>>higher than bicycle theft. Yet you will find the latter listed as a
>>>category on the police.uk crime maps, and no mention of fraud. Which
>>>demonstrates a significant weakness of using a geographic, territorial
>>>approach to crime. If you look at the crime maps and attempt to argue for
>>>policing priorities based on them (which the public certainly does, and so
>>>do a lot of uninformed politicians), you will end up making a totally
>>>unjustified argument.
>>
>>That's a non-sequitur. The people making decisions about policing
>>priorities do have the geographic information,
>
>Yes, but the people campaigning for the police to do more about their pet
>crime du jour, and the politicians that are on the receiving end of those
>campaigns, do not have that information (or, at least, not in a readily
>accessible form).

These campaigns are presumably local ones, and the relevant politicians
will be those sitting on the Police and Crime Panel, who should have
access to as many statistics as anyone could.

>I'm all in favour of open data and public datasets, and I think that the
>crime statistics are, as far as they go, very useful. They do provide a
>very valuable means of determining which locations are more or less prone
>to physical crime, which is an important factor if you want to know where
>to buy a house, open a shop or park your bicycle. But they give us
>practically no help at all in getting an overview of crime as a whole.

The biggest step forward has been the fairly recent introduction of a
box for the police to tick to indicate some form of online involvement.

There's also quite a lot of information available about the national
extent of crimes in various sectors such as VAWG, stalking and so on.
I'm not sure that knowing how many people *locally* have been victims of
revenge porn is helpful at all. Unless there's a demographic connection,
but that should be known about already (from the national stats).

>> or at the very least a
>>concept of how most online crimes have three locations: the victim, the
>>perpetrator and the platform, and where these are more commonly located.
>>Although you can't really put the perpetrator's location into the
>>statistics until they've been at least roughly detected, and what would
>>this look like if they are overseas. (We are getting into Europol/NCA
>>territory here).
>
>The location of the victim would be a good enough start. Knowing that 23
>people in CB7 4AJ have suffered online fraud, while only 14 have suffered
>vehicle crime and only one has had their bicycle stolen, would give a much
>clearer picture of the type of threats faced by the general public.

The only reason I can think of why local information might be helpful is
if there's a trader locally skimming credit card details and selling
them on.

>>>It's not an either/or situation. Territorial-based policing also needs a
>>>much stronger awareness of how the Internet and other modern communication
>>>systems facilitate crime against residents in their areas. But there is an
>>>argument for a cross-border agency which can more effectively investigate
>>>crimes that are not directly geography-based.
>>
>>There already is - NCA. But they concentrate on the "up-market" crimes.
>>
>>The call-centre approach of Action Fraud doesn't have many fans it
>>seems, and the moment you mention re-inventing NHS Direct, people's eyes
>>glaze over.
>
>So what is the solution to getting far more of the crimes reported to
>Action Fraud actually investigated, rather than merely disappearing into a
>statistical black hole?

Smarter policing and more money. But top of my list is changes in the
law to make it easier to investigate and prosecute.

Currently it's virtually impossible to proceed with anything rising from
a CMA offence (which could include criminals gathering and distributing
so-called identity fraud and/or payment card details) and the vaguely
associated bits of the DPA are virtually useless too (it only works
against organisations with a reputation they don't want to lose). So
clarifying the law in terms of offending will help, as will the ability
in the future of the police to trace criminals via ICRs.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ddf70aac-5b37-423f...@googlegroups.com>, at
22:00:04 on Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> remarked:

>> That suggests it was bought with fraudulent credentials, and then sold
>> on, with Vodafone blocking it as a result (when the monthly billing
>> "bounced").
>
>I think the same.
>
>> >One of the ladies took imei number and promised to call back same day
>> >but she didn't, and finding this person is impossible.
>>
>> Why not try again saying "I've got this phone which needs re-uniting
>> with its owner, can you tell me who that is", and see what they say.
>
>She told me the same: if i need any information about phone i have to
>provide all details about account it's connected to :/

If it is the scenario above, the account holder is in effect Vodafone.
Perhaps they think it's cheaper (for them) to write off the experience
than go after the perp.

>Any other ideas? Just sue?
>
>I have screenshots of conversation (last message is mentioning about
>coming to his home), have bank statement short time before transaction
>and of course phone. Is it enough for court?

I'm hoping those with more experience than I, in such matters, will be
able to help you. (The cases I've been involved in, had all the
information available, with just a difference of opinion about who had
right on their side).
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:27:58 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <bu6fvbhsia718jidt...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>14:23:27 on Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>>Meanwhile, the National Crime Survey estimates 3.8m annual fraud crimes.
>>>>
>>>>Which is more than burglary and [AG]BH combined. It's an order of magnitude
>>>>higher than bicycle theft. Yet you will find the latter listed as a
>>>>category on the police.uk crime maps, and no mention of fraud. Which
>>>>demonstrates a significant weakness of using a geographic, territorial
>>>>approach to crime. If you look at the crime maps and attempt to argue for
>>>>policing priorities based on them (which the public certainly does, and so
>>>>do a lot of uninformed politicians), you will end up making a totally
>>>>unjustified argument.
>>>
>>>That's a non-sequitur. The people making decisions about policing
>>>priorities do have the geographic information,
>>
>>Yes, but the people campaigning for the police to do more about their pet
>>crime du jour, and the politicians that are on the receiving end of those
>>campaigns, do not have that information (or, at least, not in a readily
>>accessible form).
>
>These campaigns are presumably local ones, and the relevant politicians
>will be those sitting on the Police and Crime Panel, who should have
>access to as many statistics as anyone could.

They are local, the politicians being the ones that represent the people
campaigning. Which are not necessarily the same as the ones on the PCP.

>>The location of the victim would be a good enough start. Knowing that 23
>>people in CB7 4AJ have suffered online fraud, while only 14 have suffered
>>vehicle crime and only one has had their bicycle stolen, would give a much
>>clearer picture of the type of threats faced by the general public.
>
>The only reason I can think of why local information might be helpful is
>if there's a trader locally skimming credit card details and selling
>them on.

The point is that it demonstrates, in many cases (particularly places such
as where you and I live), that "physical" crime really is less of an issue
than digital crime/e-crime/cybercrime/whatever, which is why the police
are, quite rightly, not putting all their resources into bobbies on thbe
beat. The police.uk data doesn't have a category for stalking, harassment
and non-violent domestic abuse, either, which again gives the public the
impression that it isn't a problem.

And, actually, being able to go into a school and tell an assembly "twenty
people in your town reported being a victim of revenge porn last year" is
the sort of thing that really helps bring home to pupils the risk of
"sexting" and the suchlike. While that data is available if you are
prepared to dig for it, it isn't published anywhere that's simple enough to
just link to[1]. We need that data to be as readily available as the number
of bicycle thefts.

>>So what is the solution to getting far more of the crimes reported to
>>Action Fraud actually investigated, rather than merely disappearing into a
>>statistical black hole?
>
>Smarter policing and more money. But top of my list is changes in the
>law to make it easier to investigate and prosecute.

More money, of course, requires diverting resources from somewhere else.
Hence the need to be able to demonstrate why those resources are more
useful here than there.

>Currently it's virtually impossible to proceed with anything rising from
>a CMA offence (which could include criminals gathering and distributing
>so-called identity fraud and/or payment card details) and the vaguely
>associated bits of the DPA are virtually useless too (it only works
>against organisations with a reputation they don't want to lose). So
>clarifying the law in terms of offending will help,

What changes would you suggest making to the law?

>as will the ability
>in the future of the police to trace criminals via ICRs.

ICRs are being sold to us on the basis that it will help catch terrorists
and kiddy-fiddlers. I'm not sure how public opinion would be affected if
the purpose was more stated to be catching identity fraudsters and
phishers.

[1] This is one of my bugbears with a lot of "web 2.0" websites which
present otherwise useful data in a user-unfriendly manner. One of the worst
of these is the otherwise excellent roadworks.org, which allows you to see
what's going on on the roads anywhere in the UK, but doesn't let you link
to any specific incident or even a location. All you can do is tell people
to go to the site, zoom in on where you want them to look at and then to
click the icon. Which is really, really, unhelpful. Ideally, all data on
the web should have a permalink for every entry, so that a direct link can
be shared on social media or by email. But that's another issue.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ddf70aac-5b37-423f...@googlegroups.com>,

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Any other ideas? Just sue?

The seller and the telco are giving you the run-around. I think if
you want your money you will indeed have to sue.

When you do, sue for the full amount, not just the L400 (I think?) you
were offered.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Matty]

Ok will do. But how can i get all his personal details? As I know only his adress..

[Ian Jackson]

In article <3a62bbc6-7d6e-4cde...@googlegroups.com>,

Matty <sssy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok will do. But how can i get all his personal details? As I know only
>his adress..

You mean you know his street address ? Do you know his name as well ?

If you don't know both of those then you will have to extract them
from Ebay who theoretically know them. You can apply to the court for
an order to disclose them.

Before you do that you should obviously email this person and say

Well OK then, I guess I will have to sue you. This will cost me
money which I'll have to recover from you as well as the Lxxxx you
owe me.

But I don't have your full name and street address. Please can you
tell me what they are by <14 days from today>.

If you don't supply them I will have to apply for a Court Order to
obtain them from [Ebay and/or Paypal]. That will itself incur court
fees which I will add to the bill.