‘NatWest accused us of faking fraud after Royal Mail thief stole our card and Pin’

QMy wife opened a NatWest current account to take advantage of an attractive switching deal. The deal required a minimum amount to be transferred into the account, so I moved £1,250 into it so she had enough to qualify to receive the £200 switching bonus.

We were due to go away on holiday, expecting the card and Pin to be there when we got home.

However, we returned from holiday and they had not arrived. We checked the account a few days later to see if the £ 200 switch money had been deposited, but what we discovered left us shocked. While we were away, a sum of £ 250 a day had been withdrawn until the account was empty. Some of these withdrawals were from NatWest and RBS cash points. We felt so upset, because £ 1,250 is a huge amount of money to us.

Instead of being sympathetic to the fact we’d fallen victim to a crime, NatWest was rude, unsympathetic and made us feel like the criminals.

At one point, NatWest suggested that even though we weren’t at home, we could have got a friend or family member to access the post, take the card and Pin and make the withdrawals. It was accusing us of fraud, which we felt was appalling. NatWest is still unable to accept that both the card and Pin never reached us, and is refusing to refund our money.

NatWest knows we have been to the police station three or four times to report the incident. I’m a trainee dentist and my wife is a trainee accountant, so we would also be risking both of our careers to perpetrate a fraud such as this. The idea that we are lying about it all is just so far-fetched.

We have tried to help the police by giving the locations and timings of train rides and withdrawals that the card was used to pay for, and the investigation is ongoing. Separately, we have also noticed that our post is arriving with holes in it and two other cards have not arrived. We were able to cancel these cards before any money was lost and, for those banks that comply, we have had the cards delivered to bank branches. A Royal Mail investigation into the theft is also ongoing.

– CM, London

Dear Reader

AAccusing you and your wife of deliberately perpetrating a fraud with the help of accomplices, and then lying about it to NatWest and the police, was an extremely serious claim by NatWest. I wanted to know: what evidence was the bank basing its accusations on? Had it obtained CCTV footage from the cashpoint? Or was there something shady in your financial history you hadn’t mentioned? For this response to be warranted there must have been something causing it to take this accusatory stance, or else I felt it would be outrageous.

I was incensed on your behalf when NatWest admitted it had no evidence against you or your wife at all, meaning its claims against the pair of you had been baseless. On the contrary, you had been the one to bend over backwards to provide the flight information for your holiday, put together a helpful spreadsheet of cash withdrawal times and locations, and report the incident to the police and Action Fraud, with numerous visits to the police station.

Based on everything I’ve seen, I’m convinced you’ve been the victim of a post thief, possibly operating within Royal Mail. You’ve done the right thing in reporting the suspected theft and fraud to Royal Mail, which is in the process of conducting an investigation.

I’m pleased to say that following my intervention, NatWest has profusely apologised for the way it treated you and has refunded your lost £1,250 in full, as well as providing further compensation of £ 100. Meanwhile, the police have managed to obtain CCTV footage of the fraudsters, although they told you they “didn’t have time to go through hours and hours of footage”. However, you have subsequently provided the exact times of the transactions to help them locate the perpetrators. You hope this will lead to their identification and arrest, and so do I.

A NatWest spokesman said: “After being provided with additional information we conducted a full review of the case. We have now refunded Mrs M for the transactions made by the criminal who used her card and Pin.”

A Royal Mail spokesman said: “The safety and security of mail is of the utmost importance. We will work with the police to support investigations into any incidents of mail theft.”

‘Interparcel fined me £234 for understating the size of my parcels’ Dear Katie

QI used Interparcel to arrange a collection of three sacks of wool. I declared the parcel sizes to be 100cm (39in) by 40cm by 40cm, as this is the standard size of a sack, according to the company that supplied the wool. I went through a broker, Interparcel, and chose an option with Parcelforce, which cost £ 34. The collection and delivery went ahead as planned.

Six weeks later, I received an invoice from Interparcel for £238. I assumed it was a scam so I didn’t open it, but I realised it had the correct order number on it, so I rang its customer service number. It was explained to me that the £238 was a surcharge imposed by Parcelforce because the items were bigger than the sizes I had declared. I was told not to worry, as this was probably a mistake. I was told to submit some photos showing the sizes. I did this and it showed that the parcels were the size I declared.

However, Interparcel has ignored the photos and refuses to cancel the invoice. It has not provided any proof that the parcels were the size they claim. It refuses to speak to me on the phone, and has said it won’t respond further to emails. I am terrified that I will be sued for not paying a surcharge that simply cannot be justified.

– CF, Herts

Dear Reader

AYou felt like you were being bullied into paying a charge that was seven times the original cost of the parcel, which, I agreed, seemed completely bananas.

You have found other people complaining about Interparcel imposing surcharges without evidence, and threatening court action to chase payment. You’re deeply suspicious that no pictures proving the larger size of your parcel have been provided. However, I’ve established this is because the measurements were calculated using an infrared machine, which Interparcel says is regularly independently checked for accuracy.

You sent me pictures of the bags next to a tape measure as proof of their true size, but I have to be honest: the photographs weren’t very clear. Also, as the sacks were irregular in shape, I couldn’t be sure if you had measured the dimensions at their widest and longest point. The sacks were also tied with a knot at the end, which I don’t think you’d included.

Because packages in sacks are difficult to measure and are more easily damaged, Interparcel’s terms and conditions do not allow for them. Items sent by Parcelforce must be packaged in cardboard boxes or jiff y bags, and this would have been clearly stated when you paid online, along with a warning about surcharges.

When your parcels were deemed unsuitable for the size category you paid for they were removed from the system and redirected to another section for larger items. This incurred surcharges and admin fees totalling £ 238. This was charged by Parcelforce, the carrier, which passed this on to Interparcel, which in turn, passed it on to you.

Following my involvement, Parcelforce recognises you didn’t set out to deceive anyone, and has reduced the extra charge by 20pc as a goodwill gesture. But I’m afraid the remaining fee still applies. Your case is a stark warning to all parcel senders that they must adhere to the carrier’s rigid terms, or face harsh penalties.