Tim Chuk, J'Accuse!
posted by Jaitu at 09:28
I received today the sixth or seventh letter from my credit card provider regarding transactions made on my last card to be ripped off. The last five (or six) were lists of one or more transactions showing payee and amount and with an attached statement for me to complete and return. All I had to do was 'delete as appropriate' to show whether or not they were made by me and whether the card was in my possession at the time.
I had a problem with these apparently simple letters. Firstly the way they were worded made no provision for the possibility that some of the listed items were genuine while others were fraudulent, it was an option of *all* the listed transactions were genuine or *all* the listed transactions were fraudulent. As most of the letters dealt with single transactions this was fine but one of them had a list of four, two of which were mine and the other two fraudulent. The second and more fundamental problem with the letter was that it didn't actually make sense.
The statement was worded "I can confirm that I, nor anyone with my authority, has authorised the following transactions." Now, if you remove the bit in commas you get "I can confirm that I has authorised the following transactions." Surely there should be a 'neither' in there? As it stands the statement is largely useless.
So to today. This morning I have received another letter, this time a little different. This time there were photocopies of sales vouchers for me to check and then a statement (with a 'neither') to fill in and return. The thing I find interesting about the sales vouchers is that they contain the delivery name and address in full. It might be that these are also falsified to a degree but if they are genuine then Tim Chuk of Wellington Drive, Dagenham, Essex should be thankful that I am not a vindictive chap. He will also have to use someone else's credit card if he still wants more Roberto Cavalli sunglasses. The italian, for it was a foreign vendor, tracking note shows that UPS delivered the goods on the 26th January.
If you ask me they'd make him look like a twat anyway.
I had a problem with these apparently simple letters. Firstly the way they were worded made no provision for the possibility that some of the listed items were genuine while others were fraudulent, it was an option of *all* the listed transactions were genuine or *all* the listed transactions were fraudulent. As most of the letters dealt with single transactions this was fine but one of them had a list of four, two of which were mine and the other two fraudulent. The second and more fundamental problem with the letter was that it didn't actually make sense.
The statement was worded "I can confirm that I, nor anyone with my authority, has authorised the following transactions." Now, if you remove the bit in commas you get "I can confirm that I has authorised the following transactions." Surely there should be a 'neither' in there? As it stands the statement is largely useless.
So to today. This morning I have received another letter, this time a little different. This time there were photocopies of sales vouchers for me to check and then a statement (with a 'neither') to fill in and return. The thing I find interesting about the sales vouchers is that they contain the delivery name and address in full. It might be that these are also falsified to a degree but if they are genuine then Tim Chuk of Wellington Drive, Dagenham, Essex should be thankful that I am not a vindictive chap. He will also have to use someone else's credit card if he still wants more Roberto Cavalli sunglasses. The italian, for it was a foreign vendor, tracking note shows that UPS delivered the goods on the 26th January.
If you ask me they'd make him look like a twat anyway.Labels: CreditCard, Fraud, Jaitu
posted by Jaitu at
09:28
|
0 Comments
Links to this post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home