Identity theft???

[Prettybird]

My Dad was sent a letter from Sainsbury's Bank/Barclaycard (can't remember which credit card - but whoever does the Sainsubry's Bank credit card) telling him that in order to meet Government requirements (and supported by the Financial Services Authoirty) he needed to send them a piece of formal identification, such as a utility bill, payslip or failing that his birth certicate or a certified copy of his passport. If he did not do so by 8 July (the letter only arrived last week), then his account would be stopped.

This is for a credit card he has had for years and which is used regularly.

The letter itself had the registered office details word processed and superimposed on the pre-printed letterhead, so that it was virtually illegible.

On first reading, he thought "this is a scam", an attempted identity theft, so he rang the number on his credit card statement - they knew nothing about it. He rang the freephone number printed on the letter and gave them the reference number that was on the letter. They knew nothing about it.

So he rang the police, who like him thought this was a scam.

He then rang either the Barcalyacrd or the Sainsbury's Bank Fraud Department (can't remember which): they knew nothing about it but asked him to fax them a copy of the letter.......

...... they then rang him back to say it was genuine! !!!!

He has now written them a stinking letter saying that the left hand should really know waht the right hand is doing - and also saying could they tell him how is he to send them this information at no cost to himself, as the prepaid envelope that was supposed to have been enclosed had not been.

Incredible!

Has anyone else had one of these letters? My mum thinks it is because we have a foreign surname - but I don't think so.

did he call the numbe ron the latter, or one from another bill. i;d be ultra careful.

If it's genuine, has he had any "unusual" spending patterns on it recently? Lots of large-but-not-too-large amounts via the internet? foreign purchases, that sort of thing.

He first of all called the number on one of his normal credit card statements and ignored the freephone number on the letter. But even when he rang the number on the letter, even they did not know any thing about it when he quoted the referecne number on the letter!!!!

No - there was nothing unusual in his psening patterns - although they are routinely gallivanting off around the world, they haven't been anywhere recently.

They say in the letter that it is to do with governemtn anti-laundering and anti terrorist initiatives - yet this is an account that has been running for some time!

It was only when he called the Fraud Department at the head office that he eventually found out it was a genuine letter - but even they initially thought it was a scam.

He still hasn't sent them the information, as he wants them to explain how he is to do it at no cost to himself.

Very strange. Me thinks someone has been overzealous and cocked up.

psening = "spending" - really should spellcheck!

i'm with misdee on this one-i'd still be very wary.
i had my bank cards "cloned" at a sainsbury's atm in february and £1,500 taken so i don't trust anyone now.
i still havent had my money re-imbursed by my bank yet as it's taken all this time for me to convince them that i had nothing to do with it,although they have now agreed to finally pay me back.
must admit i've never heard of them asking for this info before-s'pose if it is genuine,it's better to be safe than sorry.

I work for a large bank, & we are slowly contacting ANY customer whose ID isn't up to date & on file. We never used to keep copies, now they are all stored centrally & a central fraud office can check for any discrepancies often missed by staff. If anyone changes a mandate, takes out a scond account etc we insist on new ID even if account is quite old.

I think my dad's anger about it was that although he does now beleive that it was genuine - having talked to the head office fraud Departmnet - he still isn't going to send them anything until they have a) acknowledged that they cocked up, if no-one else in the organisation knew what they were ding, to the extent that initial reactions were to agree that it was a scam and b) they have made arrangements for him to send them the information they have requested at no cost to himself and c) probably to re-imburse him for the many calls he had to make to establish that it was a genuine request.