‘O2 let fraudster run up £1,300 bill in my name’
One reader was the victim of identity fraud, but O2 billed him over £1,300 for cellphone calls and texts he never made 
Photo: AFP
I have been acquiring nuisance letter expenses from O2, the mobile phone network, for three months.
They send me bills and demand funds for an O2 telephone I by no means utilised. I never took out a contract or any other agreement with them. I have notified them in no uncertain terms that this is a fraudulent account.
They even deal with me as Mrs when I am Mr. I have asked the O2 fraud group to investigate, but every time they begin to investigate me – though I am the victim. An individual has taken my name and address out of a mobile phone guide, electoral roll or other source and utilized it to open an O2 account.
The fraudster has racked up a big bill by making calls and sending texts. I contacted O2 to close down the account early on but it remained open.
What had been a £35 bill escalated to a £1,300 debt. O2 failed to verify legitimate details on opening an account. I reported this situation to Action Fraud and have a crime reference.
YC, London
You had been a victim of identity fraud. You were so cross with O2 that your communication to me could be described as rambling. By now, debt collectors had grow to be involved. The bill at problem had an exceptional balance to spend of £1,126, plus court charges of £65 and solicitor charges of £80.
You had been told in writing: “If a Judgment is obtained and remains unsatisfied a bailiff might be instructed to recover assets from you to discharge the excellent debt. Judgment debts are registered by the Court and an unsatisfied debt could seriously influence your capacity to receive credit in the future.”
All regarding a telephone you had never acquired yourself.
O2 did block the cellphone off at some point but you continued to be pursued for the debt.
I spoke to O2 and it closed the account and suggested the debt collection company not to take this any additional. The £1,271 demand against you was negated.
O2 asserted that details this kind of as name, address and date of birth required for the application, including cross-checking with the related credit companies and databases, had been finished and all matched.
I reminded it of the concern of your intercourse. Your name is of foreign origin and some guesswork may be essential to know whether you are male or female. How, I asked, could it have missed the disparity on its so-referred to as “U R U” check, which it does on the internet? It argued that the titles this kind of as Mrs and Mr are selected from a drop-down menu and occasionally the wrong a single can be selected inadvertently.
I also needed to know if it scanned the applicant’s paperwork, and whether or not these had been referred to when you stated anything was incorrect. It countered that it didn’t give out this kind of details. However, I felt the checks had not been as thorough as they might have been and more rigour is required.
You and O2 remained at arm’s length, with O2 saying that you hadn’t given it all the information it had wanted. You obviously discovered O2 unsympathetic and needed an apology for the way it treated you. £50 has been sent along with an apology from O2, as you wished.