Tackling fraud

I APPLAUD the Mail’s campaign against fraud — and hope you will include a call for amendments to the Data Protection Act, an unintended consequence of which is to help protect fraudsters.

I was a victim of identity theft recently. For about a week I had received no post, which was very unusual. It was to become apparent that my mail was being intercepted locally and personal information harvested, including bank statements.

At the time, my driving licence was due for renewal. I tried to do this online, but the system rejected my application. On calling the DVLA, I was told my licence had already been renewed by phone. I asked where it had been sent and they gave my address. The fraudster could clearly rely on further access to my mail.

Royal Mail investigated, but refused to give me any information about the outcome of their inquiry ‘for data protection reasons’.

Someone called my bank and asked for a replacement credit card to be delivered to my address — again indicating that my mail could be intercepted at will.

The attempt was thwarted by the bank’s use of voice recognition. They called me to confirm I hadn’t ordered a new card and ventured that the scam was from a local team ‘we have been monitoring for some time’. I asked for the caller’s phone number so I could try to track them down, but was told they couldn’t divulge it for ‘data protection reasons’.

Some expensive trainers were ordered using another credit card. I queried the transaction and the bank identified the supplier’s name. I called them to ask for the delivery address, so I could pay the thief a visit — but again was told that this wasn’t possible for ‘data protection reasons’.

I reported the incidents to the police, who referred me to Action Fraud, saying it wasn’t a matter for them. Action Fraud thanked me for the details and said I wouldn’t hear from them again. A few days later, I read with horror that they investigated just 4 per cent of cases.

Name and address supplied.