Which? urges clarity on financial help for bank customers

Which? is calling on the financial regulator to urgently provide greater clarity on temporary measures to help people struggling financially because of coronavirus, as new research reveals the huge toll the outbreak is expected to take on people’s finances.

A survey by the consumer champion carried out between 20-22 March, just before the government asked people to stay at home to stop the spread of coronavirus, highlights that significant numbers of people are expecting to struggle with their finances over the next year.

With the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) set to introduce temporary measures tomorrow designed to help consumers falling into financial difficulty as a result of the crisis, Which? can reveal people of all levels of working status are now expecting their household finances to worsen over the next 12 months, with those who work part time reporting the highest level of concern.

Taking the proportion of people expecting their financial situation to get better and subtracting the proportion who expects it to get worse, confidence among part-time workers was at -56 percentage points. The figure stands at -36 for those in full time work.

Of those that are retired, confidence in the future of their household finances stood at -49 for those on a state pension only and -45 for those with a private pension.

The research also shows that consumer confidence in the economy has plummeted. When asked whether the economy would be better or worse in 12 months’ time, confidence fell from -17 in February to -78 in March.

Worryingly, the financial impact of coronavirus follows a period in which large numbers of people were already reporting having cut back on spending, with 39 per cent of consumers in 2019 reporting that they reduced spending on essential items or took money from savings to cover their spending.

This indicates that a significant number of people may have already been close to the point of relying on credit to help manage their personal finances, and the impact of coronavirus could have pushed them to the point where they now need to depend on existing credit cards, loans or overdrafts.

Measures proposed by the FCA last week, due to come into force on Thursday, are designed to provide a temporary solution for consumers who until now have been financially stable. These include a temporary payment freeze on loans and credit cards as well as zero interest on existing overdrafts up to £500, with both put in place for three months.

However, while Which? is generally supportive of the plans, reassurance is needed that the measures can be consistently applied for customers across all banks, and that customers who take up these options will be fully aware of any longer term implications of using them.

This requires the FCA to be as explicit as possible about precisely when the payment holiday period starts – whether it is from the proposed launch date of 9 April, or from the moment the consumer requests support at any point during those three months.

There also needs to be a clear, industry-wide exit strategy for the temporary measures, which must ensure that customers do not end up in unnecessary financial hardship.

There is particular concern about how consumers will be moved off of their £500 interest free overdrafts after three months.

The consumer champion says it is vital that banks do not immediately place consumers back to their original arranged overdraft and rates at the end of any holiday period, and the FCA should consider “easing off” interest-free overdraft arrangements in a way that does not affect credit scores.

The consumer champion believes that greater transparency will make it easier for people to access services online and make it clear that only those in the most urgent need should seek to directly contact their financial institutions. This should reduce the burden on call centres, providing a greater chance of consumers getting the help they need in good time.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The impact of the coronavirus outbreak is going to cause a sharp shock to huge numbers of people across the country, and many who were previously in good financial health will now require help from their banks to see them through the coming months.

“While the FCA has taken positive steps to provide assistance, there needs to be urgent clarity so that banks can apply this support consistently for everybody who is eligible, and customers can decide whether these measures represent the best option available to them.”

Vulnerable people struggle to get essentials

Three-quarters of the population have experienced shortages of products when shopping in recent weeks, with vulnerable consumers among those struggling to get hold of essentials, new research from Which? has found.

In a survey of more than 2,000 members of the public on the impact of the coronavirus outbreak carried out between 20th-24th March, three-quarters (76%) reported experiencing shortages of products in supermarkets, shops or online.

A third (34%) said they could not find hand sanitisers while around a quarter could not find toilet rolls (27%) and rice and pasta (25%).

The coronavirus outbreak has also impacted shopping habits, with around a third (32%) saying they have shopped at independent and convenience stores more than usual.

While supermarkets have maintained there is plenty of food available to feed the nation, many stores have struggled to keep their shelves stocked around the clock to meet the sudden increase in demand, while online shopping delivery slots are booked up weeks in advance.

Major retailers have been seeking to address these issues by hiring thousands of extra staff, limiting purchases of some items and prioritising NHS workers and vulnerable customers at certain times, while the government has relaxed competition laws to allow supermarkets to work together on maintaining supplies of essential goods.

The government has also made plans to deliver weekly food parcels to more than a million people who have been identified as medically vulnerable.

Worryingly, in another survey of Which? members carried out in the same time period, thousands said they had experienced food shortages, including reports from some vulnerable customers who said they had struggled to get the products they needed.

One Which? member said they were struggling to get fresh food such as bread, vegetables and milk, particularly as they had been advised to stay indoors due to their age and had been unable to secure an online delivery slot.

Another member from rural Scotland said their local supermarkets, which are nine miles away, were filled with empty shelves. As these stores were relatively small, they had not yet introduced special opening times for older or vulnerable customers but were closing earlier.

Which? found that product shortages were experienced relatively evenly across all regions of the country, suggesting the issue was widespread.

The measures introduced by the supermarkets and the government appear to be having some impact and a number of supermarkets have recently been able to relax some of the restrictions that they put in place. The situation around the country continues to change regularly.

However, more must still be done to ensure effective coordination and clear communication across the country so that people are clear on the best way to access the food they need. This includes people the government has identified as vulnerable as part of its coronavirus guidance, as well as those who may be vulnerable because of their wider circumstances.

The government must also work with the food industry to develop an effective contingency plan to avoid any future disruption to supply chains, as well as addressing these issues of availability and distribution.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy at Which?, said: “Millions of people have been experiencing product shortages in supermarkets, with all parts of the country affected. While many can adapt their shopping habits, it is particularly concerning that we are hearing from vulnerable consumers who are struggling to get hold of essentials.

“Supermarkets must continue to work with the government to explore innovative solutions that ensure people have access to essential food supplies in the challenging weeks and months ahead.

“With coronavirus restrictions expected to last months, the government must ensure that there is more effective coordination of food supplies and clearer communication. All consumers, but particularly people who are vulnerable, need to have a much clearer route to access the right help and food supplies for their needs.”

Shopping: stay safe online

Some security advice to help protect British shoppers against cyber-crime has been released as we head online for the basics:

Internet shopping specialists from NetVoucherCodes.co.uk have revealed their 13 top tips to help UK consumers stay safe when shopping on the web in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

From using a credit card and keeping software up to date, to writing down complicated passwords and making up answers to security questions, online shoppers could avoid becoming a cyber criminal’s next victim by following the guidance.

A spokesperson for NetVoucherCodes.co.uk said: “With more and more Britons heading online to shop for the essentials, it’s important to take online security even more seriously.

“Browsing the web can be a security minefield for consumers – a computer virus, hacker or fraud could be just one click away.

“So to help Brits shop online with greater peace of mind, we’ve revealed the different measures you can take to stay safe when buying something on the internet.”

Here is the NetVoucherCodes.co.uk advice:

1. Use a credit card

If you purchase online using a debit card and it turns out to be a scam there’s usually no way to retrieve your money, but fraudulent charges must be reimbursed by credit card companies.

Check your statements regularly, just in case a purchase you didn’t make gets through the card provider’s safety net and you need to dispute it. This could also help if a purchase is shows up different to what you ordered, damaged or doesn’t arrive at all.

2. Make up security answers

When creating an account with online shopping sites, you might be asked to set up password reset security questions to confirm your identity.

Rather than entering the real town you were born in or mother’s maiden name, enter false answers and write them down if you can’t remember. This makes it much harder for cyber criminals who might be trying to gather information on you.

3. Only fill out required fields

Don’t offer up any more personal information that is necessary to complete an online purchase.

The required fields are usually starred or highlighted when checking out – it’s usually wise to leave the rest blank.

4. Never save information

Allowing even the most reputable of websites to store your payment or address information is unnecessary.

Don’t say yes when your browser suggests saving any passwords either and always log out when you’ve finished shopping.

5. Change passwords often

Regularly change between complicated, hard to guess, alphanumeric passwords that also contain symbols, even if you have to write them all down somewhere secure at home. Keep them different for each site you use too.

Using the same, simple but memorable password for every website for years, such as a pet’s name, is asking for trouble when online shopping.

6. Look for security indicators

A web address (or URL) that begins with ‘HTTPS’ are secure – those without the ‘S’, ‘HTTP’, may not be.

Other signs of shopping site security to look out for could include a closed padlock or complete key, possibly green, alongside the URL, next to the search bar or elsewhere around the screen.

7. Avoid public Wi-Fi

Entering personal information such as credit card details, passwords or home address while using free public Wi-Fi hotspots is dangerous as your data won’t be protected by encryption and could vulnerable to hackers.

8. Update your computer

Using an older version of a popular internet browser, operating system or anti-virus software on your computer means that you’ll be missing out on important security updates, which could leave you exposed when browsing the web.

9. Be extra careful on mobiles

Most mobile phones won’t have the same level of anti-virus protection as laptop or desktop computers so extra vigilance is required, particularly around shortened mobile-friendly URLs.

Mobile devices are also more likely to be stolen, so make sure any payment details are passcode or fingerprint protected.

10. Avoid email links

Rather than clicking on potentially suspect links to shopping sites that you see on social media, other websites or in emails, search for the website yourself.

This helps to make sure you browse the authentic site. If you’re getting a lot of spam emails, consider setting up a dedicated online shopping only email address.

11. Leave badly designed websites

If a shopping site appears to be out of date, has a strange URL, comes with lots of pop ups, or is dominated by cheap, irrelevant or overseas adverts, the page could be dodgy and worth exiting before it’s too late.

12. Research and read reviews

When considering spending on a new site that you haven’t used before, it can be useful to browse forums and social media to see what experience others have had of shopping there.

If you can find a real physical address and verifiable contact details for the company you intend to make a purchase from, they’re probably legitimate.

13. Trust your instincts

Just as you would when shopping on the high street, if you feel like a website is requesting too much personal information or could harm your computer with viruses, close it.

If in any doubt, stick to shopping with sites you know and trust.

Remember, if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Which? – Coronavirus email and text phishing scams

Phishing and smishing emails and SMS messages are already being sent out to trap the unwary into giving up login details.

One we’ve seen is an email that claims to come from the World Health Organization. It’s short and sweet, asking that you click on a link to what it says is a PDF offering advice on how to stay safe during the outbreak.

Security firm Sophos has a detailed breakdown of what happens if you click on that link, but broadly it shows you a pop-up in front of what looks like the WHO’s actual website asking you to input your email address and password so that you can receive the non-existent PDF.

Other phishing emails and SMS messages (known as ‘smishing’ texts) are also doing the rounds: Action Fraud has warned that emails purporting to be from organisations including the US Centers for Disease Control and the WHO are being sent with the aim of tricking you into opening malicious attachments or giving away your passwords.

The latest email and text phishing scams:

Fake lockdown fines

People have been warned not to fall for a bogus text message saying they have been fined for stepping outside during the coronavirus lockdown. The scam message claims to be from the Government, telling the recipient their movements have been monitored through their phone and they must pay a fine or face a more severe penalty.

HMRC goodwill payment

The MET police are warning of a fake message designed to steal your account details that says ‘As part of the NHS promise to battle the COV-19 virus, HMRC has issued a payment of £258 as a goodwill payment’.

Free school meals

The Department for Education has issued warnings about a scam email designed to steal your bank details saying: ‘As schools will be closing, if you’re entitled to free school meals, please send your bank details and we’ll make sure you’re supported.’

Conspiracy theories and misinformation

Another email we’ve seen is full of doom-laden warnings that ‘There is no vaccine for coronavirus’ and that ‘the US government, like the Chinese government, isn’t telling us the truth about how many are infected’. That email is full of links. While we’ve only seen screenshots of this, it seems likely that these links will lead you to either phishing sites or, worse, sites that can infect your computer with malware.

Sophos has also reported on emails that – for now – are targeting Italian email addresses and which include a Word document that purports to offer guidelines for preventing infection, but which in fact harbours a malicious script that infects Windows computers with a banking Trojan, i.e. malware that aims to steal online banking credentials.

So watch out for emails that include attachments.

Read the Which? guide on how to spot a phishing scam for more information:

Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/03/coronavirus-scams-how-to-spot-them-and-stop-them/

eBay and Amazon fail to prevent profiteering on essentials during crisis

eBay and Amazon Marketplace are failing to crack down on a spate of coronavirus-profiteering by sellers after a Which? investigation uncovered a wide range of products for sale on marketplaces with inflated, and often ridiculous, prices.

At the start of this month, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warned that traders should not be exploiting the coronavirus outbreak to take advantage of people through price gouging, and threatened to take strong action if the problem persisted.

However, the consumer champion’s snapshot investigation suggests third-party sellers are still brazenly ripping-off consumers and using the current situation to list overpriced items that are difficult or impossible to find in local shops.

Which? found consistent overpricing of household items, including cleaning products, thermometers, baby formula and tampons – products that are all currently in particularly high demand during the coronavirus outbreak.

There were hundreds of active listings and auctions for dramatically overpriced items, including a £40 thermometer priced at £300 on eBay and £150 on Amazon. A £3 bottle of disinfectant was on sale for £29.99 on eBay – a markup of up to 1,000 per cent – and was more than three times the recommended price on Amazon.

Meanwhile on eBay’s auction site, a flurry of bids sent the price for a bundle of three bottles of Dettol spray and three packets of antibacterial wipes soaring to £210.

Which? also found that consumers were actually buying these overpriced products from eBay, despite the extortionate prices. For some listings taken down during the investigation, eBay showed that multiple items had already been purchased before the listing could be removed.

The research also demonstrated a failure of ‘filters’ and other checks put in place by eBay and Amazon to adequately protect consumers, despite both having stated publicly that they have taken action on the issue.

When Which? asked eBay on 9 March what action it was taking to protect customers from price gouging on antibacterial gel, it said it had filters in place to prevent the listing of these items. But these listings continue reappearing, suggesting the systems in place are not working effectively.

Amazon seems to be having more success, with a number of active listings disappearing during Which?’s investigation. However, more are still appearing.

Which? is calling on eBay and Amazon to take more effective action against third-party sellers trying to take advantage of consumers at this difficult time.

Online marketplaces should be bringing in far stricter controls to identify and prevent these practices of charging unjustifiable high prices for essential products. They must communicate their policies clearly and directly with sellers.

This investigation raises serious broader questions about the checks and balances that eBay and Amazon currently have in place and their inability to prevent harmful listings, a problem raised repeatedly by Which? through its research and investigations.

If the systems used by the tech giants are not capable of preventing harmful listings from appearing at all, then better manual systems need to be put in place to identify and remove them.

While online marketplaces are taking action, both claim to have removed listings and suspended or terminated accounts during the coronavirus crisis, this investigation shows they need to be doing more. If they fall short, the CMA’s new coronavirus taskforce needs to take action to stop these practices.

The CMA has already engaged with the big platforms to find out more about what they’re doing to address the issue of retailers on their sites charging very high prices for essential items.

Given the exceptional circumstances brought about by coronavirus, the government should consider how it will work with the retail sector as a whole to tackle irresponsible price-hiking – bringing together businesses, including supermarkets and online marketplaces, as well as Trading Standards and the CMA – to agree how to keep essential items, that should be accessible to all, at reasonable prices.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said: “Online marketplaces have taken some action against coronavirus price gouging, but our investigation shows unscrupulous sellers are still cashing in on people’s fears by selling essential items at extortionate prices on eBay and Amazon.

“These companies must make good on their pledges to stamp out coronavirus profiteering, and if they fall short the CMA must be ready to take strong enforcement action.

“The government should consider how it will work with the retail sector as a whole to keep the price of essential items reasonable as the fallout from the coronavirus outbreak continues.”

Examples of over-priced items:

Thermometers

In one of the most extreme examples researchers saw a digital thermometer, which people worried about coronavirus are purchasing to check body temperature, selling for almost £300 on eBay and and almost £150 on Amazon when the typical price is around £40.

Medicines

They also spotted Dettol Liquid Antiseptic Disinfectant, which is typically around £3, being sold for £29.99 on eBay – a 1,000 per cent mark up – and for £9.53 on Amazon.

Carex antibacterial hand lotion

250ml bottles of Carex, which often retail for just £1, were seen priced at Amazon and eBay for over £10 each. One eBay listing showed the item priced at £100 – it was labelled ‘last one’, with three others apparently already sold. Another at Amazon was available from a third party seller for £26.41.

Hand sanitiser

A 50ml bottle of Carex antibacterial hand gel was being sold for more than £100 by multiple sellers on eBay, despite usually costing around £1.50. A multipack of four 300ml Carex Aloe Vera gels apparently sold for £9,999, although we believe this may have been a test or a hoax.

Bleach products

One eBay seller listed a 750ml bottle of Domestos Thick Bleach on eBay for £6.95, despite the accompanying picture showing that the bottle is clearly labelled with the price of £1. A similar bottle of Domestos bleach was being sold on Amazon for £7.66.

Sanitary products

On eBay an 18-pack of Tampax Compak Pearl were found for £6.31, rather than the usual £3.15 at Boots. 257 packs had been sold.

Tampax Compak was available in bulk on Amazon – despite the image showing the RRP is £2.99, eight boxes were priced at £48.64 rather than £18.32.

Baby formula

On eBay, Which? found sellers offering six packs of infant formula, which is vital for young babies that aren’t being breastfed, for over £100 – in Sainsbury’s, infant formula usually costs around £10 a pack. Some sellers were selling individual 800g packs for around £40, while another was priced at as much as £60.

Active auctions rife on eBay

Most of the products above were for sale with a ‘buy it now’ price, but Which? also took a look at auction style listings, where sellers can bid for an item. Concerningly, we spotted a raft of overpriced items being aggressively bid on by shoppers, driving the price up even higher.

A bundle of three Dettol Sprays and three packs of antibacterial wipes had 78 bids with less than an hour to go, with a price of £210. The starting price was £0.01, and there were 11 bidders who quickly upped the price.

One listing for three cans of Dettol Antibacteral disinfectant Spray had attracted 38 bids with less than four hours remaining, and the auction cost was up to £49.

An eBay spokesperson said: “All the items flagged by Which? have been removed and enforcement action has been taken against the sellers.

“We announced on Friday additional measures to tackle coronavirus-related price gouging. This is a continuation of the aggressive action against price gouging, which has included suspending hundreds of accounts, removing hundreds of thousands of listings, and suspending scores of bad seller accounts.

“Specifically in the face masks and hand sanitiser categories, only pre-approved whitelisted vendors will be allowed to sell these items.

“We are continually monitoring the situation and will consider widening the ban to include other categories if appropriate.”

An Amazon spokesperson said: “There is no place for price gouging on Amazon.

“We are disappointed that bad actors are attempting to artificially raise prices on basic need products during a global health crisis and, in line with our long-standing policy, have recently blocked or removed tens of thousands of offers.

“In addition to removing these offers, we are terminating accounts.”

Foreign Secretary: Come Home NOW

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) has advised all British travellers to return to the UK NOW.

Read our latest coronavirus travel advice.

all British travellers abroad who are usually based in the UK advised to return now
international travel is becoming highly limited with the further closure of air routes, land borders and domestic restrictions introduced daily
British travellers should contact their tour operator or airline now. Commercial flight options are still available at present.

All British tourists and short-stay travellers currently abroad should return to the UK where and while commercial flight options are still available, the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday.

Last week, the FCO announced an unprecedented change in travel advice to advise against all but essential international travel, initially for a period of 30 days.

Monday’s update reflects the pace at which international travel is becoming more difficult with the closure of borders, airlines suspending flights, airports closing, exit bans and further restrictions being introduced daily. Further closures to air routes may come in the next 48 hours, possibly without notice.

Some British tourists abroad are already finding difficulties returning to the UK because of international travel restrictions and domestic policies around the world. The FCO is working around the clock to support all British travelers in this situation come back to the UK.

The UK government is working with airlines to keep routes open and is calling for international action to keep air routes open for a sufficient period of time to enable international travellers to return on commercial flights.

Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, said: “We are strongly urging UK travellers overseas to return home now where and while there are still commercial routes to do so. Around the world, more airlines are suspending flights and more airports are closing, some without any notice.

“Where commercial routes don’t exist, our staff are working round the clock to give advice and support to UK nationals. If you are on holiday abroad the time to come home is now while you still can.”

Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, said: “This is a very difficult time for British citizens travelling overseas, or those with families and loved ones abroad.

“We’re in close contact with airlines, who are working tirelessly to ensure British citizens travelling overseas can safely return to the UK. We are also working closely with other government departments, including the FCO to ensure airlines are able to operate to bring people back home.”

British travellers should contact their tour operator or airline now to arrange a commercial flight if they want to leave. There is an unprecedented demand on the FCO’s consular services so all British tourists abroad should go online for the latest in-country advice.

This advice is aimed at British people travelling abroad, rather than those who are permanent resident overseas who are urged to follow the advice of the local authorities in their host country.

Rory Boland, editor of Which? Travel, said: “While it’s right British travellers are being urged to return to the UK, the reality is that there are now thousands of UK residents stranded in dozens of different destinations with no means to get back.

“The government must improve its communication and provide British citizens fearful of being stranded abroad with useful advice. Where scheduled services have been withdrawn, it should leave no stone unturned to get these people on flights home.”

Consumers face losing thousands amid travel protection breakdown

Which? is warning urgent action is needed to protect consumers who face losing large sums of money amid a breakdown of the system of travel protections.

The consumer champion has been inundated with messages and requests for help from people who face losing large sums – with some airlines and package travel providers refusing to meet their legal obligations to issue refunds for cancelled flights and holidays.

While Which? supports the government exploring options to help the travel industry, it is demanding that the crisis not be used as an excuse to undermine consumer protections. Reports of some package providers refusing refunds running into thousands of pounds in expectation of changes to the law are unacceptable.

Which? has heard from a family who were meant to be travelling to a wedding in Italy and whose flights have not been cancelled, despite Foreign Office (FCO) guidance against going to the country hardest hit by the virus.

Instead, the airline is offering to switch their flights to more expensive ones in the future. In some cases this can cost as much as £100 more per person.

The consumer champion has also been contacted by unhappy airline customers who are being offered vouchers instead of being refunded, with many complaining that they have received no clear guidance from their airline about what the next steps will be.

All flights on EU carriers in or into the EU and all flights leaving from an EU airport are protected by the EU’s Denied Boarding Regulation, which requires refunds or rerouting when flights are cancelled.

People have also been in touch reporting that their travel agents are refusing to offer refunds for cancelled holidays, despite travel regulations. Dozens of holidaymakers due to travel to France in the coming weeks have told Which? that their travel agent is refusing to issue a refund.

One customer was refused a refund for his holiday with a well-known beach holiday specialist. The customer faces losing £2,300 and the only options being offered are a credit note or rebooking. And, that if he decided to cancel instead, he would have to try to claim on his travel insurance.

The law says you are entitled to a full refund if your package holiday is cancelled because of extraordinary circumstances at the destination – so you do not have to accept a credit note.

Faced with these difficulties, many people are finding themselves pushed from pillar to post between airlines, tour operators and insurance companies – whose policies are not set up for providers failing to fulfill their duties in this way.

Which? has also heard from holidaymakers who have fallen foul of little-known exclusions in insurance policies – meaning they were not covered for cancelling an upcoming trip, even after the FCO advised against travel to their destination.

Many more people are concerned that they will be uninsured for upcoming trips booked well before the coronavirus outbreak as insurers make sudden changes to their policy terms and conditions.

Taken together, these issues represent a serious breakdown of the current system of travel protections, which is vital to ensuring millions of consumers have the confidence to book expensive holidays and flights abroad.

Urgent action is needed to protect consumers amid the crisis in the travel industry. It is vital that any emergency measures under discussion, such as credit notes replacing refunds for package holidays, include strong guarantees or protections so consumers know they are not at risk of losing their money if a travel firm fails.

And while consumers with holidays booked under the current regulations may choose to accept a credit note, their right to claim a refund must not be taken away retrospectively by any changes to the law. The hard-earned money of thousands of holidaymakers – who may be facing difficulty themselves – must not be used as a backdoor bailout of the travel industry, when direct government support is being used in other sectors.

While the current uncertainty continues, airlines must respond swiftly to this fast-moving situation by informing passengers about what is happening with future flights, and show flexibility with rebooking options if a flight has not been cancelled.

Insurers must also heed last week’s warning from the FCA about treating customers fairly and work with the government and travel industry on solutions to tackle the coronavirus crisis, as the public must have confidence that they will be covered when they travel.

Rory Boland, Which? Travel Editor, said: “We’ve heard from hundreds of people who face losing large sums of money because their travel plans have been left in tatters or they have been abandoned abroad and face extortionate bills to get home.

“It’s vital that the government, insurers and the travel sector work together to tackle the huge challenge posed by coronavirus, as the travel industry depends on people having confidence that they will be protected in times of crisis.”

Which? is a non-profit organisation working to make life simpler, fairer and safer for consumers. During the coronavirus crisis, Which? is making a range of news, advice and guides available for free for anyone who needs it at https://www.which.co.uk/news/coronavirus

Which? calls for mandatory transfer scam protections

Which? is calling for vital fraud protections to be made mandatory, as the consumer champion reveals more than £1 BILLION is estimated to have been lost to bank transfer scams in just three years.

With measures set to come in that should significantly reduce the amount of money lost to this type of fraud, Which? is also raising concerns that some banks are not committed to introducing the protections on time, or even at all.

Which? analysed bank transfer fraud statistics since the start of 2017, a few months after it first highlighted the threat from these devastating scams with a super-complaint.

The projected total lost since then, based on current trends, now stands at a staggering £1.1 billion, according to the research.

During that period, the sums lost to this type of scam, also known as authorised push payment (APP) fraud, have risen rapidly, while the payments regulator and banks have been slow to introduce much-needed protections for consumers.

According to Which?’s projections, £97 million could have already have been lost in the first three months of this year alone.

Alarmingly, analysis suggests that almost a third of the total losses since 2017, equating to £320 million, could have been prevented if a simple system of checking names on bank transfers had been in place during that period.

This important measure – known as confirmation of payee (CoP) – is finally due to be introduced by most of the UK’s major banks by the end of March.

CoP ensures that a check is made on whether or not the name a customer enters when making a payment matches the account details it is being sent to. It helps to stop fraudsters from posing as trusted organisations such as a bank or solicitor and tricking people into making payments to them.

The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) has only directed the six biggest banking groups to sign up by 31^st March, but Which? believes all banks must join the scheme in order for it to be effective.

The consumer champion asked all banks when they planned to introduce Confirmation of Payee.

Of the banks that have been directed to sign up, RBS Group (including Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest and Ulster Bank) and HSBC (including First Direct) were unable to confirm a specific date when asked if they would be ready by the regulator’s deadline.

On the other hand, Lloyds Banking Group is ahead of the pack, implementing CoP from 2 March 2020 for Bank of Scotland customers, before rolling it out to Halifax and Lloyds customers throughout the rest of this month.

Of the banks that haven’t been directed to sign up by the regulator, several have said that they plan to deliver the system by the end of the year.

However, Metro Bank told Which? that it has no current plans to implement CoP at all – despite this being a requirement of the voluntary industry code on APP scams launched in May 2019, which Metro Bank signed up to.

It did not elaborate on why it is does not intend to introduce CoP, but says the voluntary code gives customers significantly increased protection against authorised push payment scams.

Metro Bank said: “We take our customers’ security extremely seriously and have a range of safeguards in place to help defend them against fraud, which we constantly review and update in light of increasingly sophisticated tactics from fraudsters.

“We have no plans to implement Confirmation of Payee currently, but can reassure our customers that they will continue to be protected. Metro Bank is a voluntary signatory of the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code, giving customers significantly increased protection against authorised push payment scams.”

Amid concerning reports of banks failing to follow the code’s rules around reimbursing blameless APP scam victims, Which? is concerned that a voluntary approach to ensuring victims are treated fairly is no longer viable.

The next set of UK Finance figures on bank transfer scams is due for release in the coming days. It should show an increase in the amount of money being reimbursed to victims of bank transfer fraud, as banks signed up to the code begin implementing the greater protections it offers.

Which? believes the code and CoP should be made mandatory and that the government must consider directing the PSR to ensure all banks are signed up. The consumer champion is also encouraging all consumers to put pressure on their bank to sign up to both the code and CoP.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The UK has been in the grip of a fraud crisis for years, but new security measures offered by the banking industry should finally give people better protection against increasingly sophisticated fraudsters.

“At the end of this month, we should get a true sense of how well the industry is tackling the issue. It is vital for all banks to commit to basic name-check security, and the whole industry should sign up and follow through on the protections offered by the scams code.

“If the banks fall short of making these commitments themselves, these initiatives must be made mandatory by the government.”

Chancellor: “Whatever it takes”

Chancellor announces additional £300 BILLION to keep UK afloat

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced unprecedented support for business and workers to protect against the economic emergency caused by the coronavirus.

This includes unlimited loans and guarantees to support firms and help them manage cashflows through this period. The Chancellor will make available an initial £330 billion of guarantees – equivalent to 15% of UK GDP – and there could be more to come.

At last week’s Budget, the Chancellor provided £30 billion of support to the economy to deal with the crisis by investing in public services, increasing support for vulnerable people and providing business with tax reliefs and loans.

He said he would take further action as the situation evolved and today outlines further measures, including:

To ensure that businesses have access to the funds they need, \the UK Government will provide:

support for liquidity amongst large firms, with a major new scheme being launched by the Bank of England to help them bridge Coronavirus disruption to their cash flows through loans
increasing the amount businesses can borrow through the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme from £1.2 million to £5 million, and ensuring businesses can access the first 6 months of that finance interest free, as Government will cover the first 6 months of interest payments
including new legal powers in the Covid Bill enabling us to offer whatever further financial support we think necessary to businesses

Providing £20 billion of business rates support and grant funding to help the most-affected firms manage their cashflow through this period by:

giving all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England a 100% business rates holiday for the next 12 months
increasing grants to small businesses eligible for Small Business Rate Relief from £3,000 to £10,000
providing further £25,000 grants to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses operating from smaller premises, with a rateable value over £15,000 and below £51,000

Mortgage lenders have agreed they will support customers that are experiencing issues with their finances as a result of Covid-19, including through payment holidays of up to 3 months. This will give people the necessary time to recover and ensure they do not have to pay a penny towards their mortgage in the interim.

Confirmation that government advice to avoid pubs, clubs and theatres etc. is sufficient for businesses to claim on their insurance where they have appropriate business interruption cover for pandemics in place.

To support the food industry and help provide meals for people who need to self-isolate, the UK government will relax planning regulations to allow pubs and restaurants to start providing takeaways without a planning application.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak said: “We will do whatever it takes to protect our people and businesses from the effects of this global economic emergency brought on by the Coronavirus pandemic.

“The interventions I am setting out today will help support businesses of all sizes – so they can continue operating during these unprecedented times.”

The action announced yesterday means that over £3.5 billion in additional funding will be provided to the devolved administrations for support to businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor will expand on his plans to keep the economy afloat later today and an announcement of support for people who live in rented accommodation is expected this week.

Labour’s John McDonnell MP, Shadow Chancellor, responding to Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s coronavirus update, said: “People are being laid off today and losing their incomes. We are disappointed that this package does not address their concerns.

“The further announcements laid out by the Chancellor lack the certainty required amidst growing public anxiety and still do not go far enough in protecting workers, renters and those who are losing their jobs, or in fully supporting businesses at the scale necessary.

“In particular, the Chancellor’s claim that new forms of employment support will be developed does not appreciate the urgency and gravity of the situation. Workers and businesses need to know now that they will be supported, not in a few days’ time.

“Labour will continue to engage with the Government to ensure we have the proper scale of interventions required to secure proper funding of public services at the time of crisis, public control and oversight of those key services, a strong safety net, and the wellbeing of all.”

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The measures announced by the chancellor, such as a three-month mortgage holiday scheme, are an important first step to helping millions of consumers who may face financial hardship during the coronavirus crisis.

“The government must move swiftly to ensure those in need of assistance get clear information about how these schemes will work in practice – and that the process for doing so is straightforward, ensuring consumers can easily access the support they need in the challenging months ahead.”

Responding to chancellor Rishi Sunak’s package of support for businesses and the prime minister’s pledge to do `whatever it takes’ to support people and jobs through the corona virus crisis, the head of the UK’s leading union, Unite, has said that his union stands ready to play their part throughout this time of crisis.

Len McCluskey, Unite’s general secretary said: “It is abundantly clear that we need a package of measures equal to the public health and economic emergencies now upon us.

“Urgent and considerable action is needed by government to avert personal and industrial catastrophe.

“Unite is pleased to have heard the prime minister and chancellor say very clearly that they `will do whatever it takes’ to protect public health and the economy’s health. We will hold them to that.

“However, we remain extremely concerned that workers’ and individuals’ own capacity to act on the public health advice will remain seriously compromised because the direct economic support has not yet been provided by government. This must change and urgently. Providing wage support and covering rents must be a priority.

“It is welcome that those hit by the virus will have a three month mortgage holiday should they need it, but what about the vast majority of people who rent? They need to know that they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their families’ heads. Only then will they feel able to play their part in tackling this public health emergency.

“We urgently need for the government to introduce now the sort of measures that we have seen implemented in our competitor nations, including paying workers 75 per cent plus of their salary while they are forced to be at home as has been introduced in Denmark and Holland. UK workers deserve the same efforts and assistance.”

eBay’s review system can dupe consumers, says Which?

Ebay’s product review system has flaws that are allowing unscrupulous sellers to mislead shoppers and boost sub-standard, counterfeit and even dangerous products, Which? research has revealed.

The consumer champion found sellers are easily able to exploit gaps in the system to unfairly share positive reviews for potentially legitimate products from brands like Apple and Samsung.

By using the same product ID they can attach the glowing reviews to listings for inferior, or completely different, goods – making it difficult for shoppers to tell which items are the real thing.

Which? experts looked at hundreds of listings for several categories of products on eBay, including chargers, charging cables, headphones, smoke alarms and travel adaptors.

They found products that shared the same reviews despite clearly looking different from each other in images posted by the seller. In other cases some customers had posted warnings about the quality of the items amid the suspicious positive reviews.

There were hundreds of listings for counterfeit Samsung chargers that had been subject to a Europe-wide recall alert – but customers would be unaware because the sellers had been able to adopt four and five star reviews, shared across multiple listings, to falsely lend credibility to their listing.

To establish whether these products matched up to the positive reviews, Which? ordered 20 supposedly “official” Apple and Samsung accessories, including chargers and USB cables. Despite these multiple products being listed by different sellers, they all shared the same reviews.

For the 20 products ordered, eBay showed that more than 33,300 had been sold. Yet all fell short of what a buyer would have expected based on the listing, while some were out-and-out fakes.

During the investigation, Which? identified several underlying problems suggesting the eBay product review system is flawed.

Sellers appeared to be exploiting the eBay Product ID (ePID) – a code that can be chosen by any seller listing the same item. It is designed to make it easier for sellers to list products, by pulling relevant information from a central database.

But the system means reviews from all listings claiming to be the same item can be shared, regardless of the seller or the condition of the product.

When researchers looked further into eBay’s product review guidance, they also found concerning gaps such as sellers being able to leave reviews for their own products – a practice banned by other online marketplaces including Amazon.

When Which? shared its findings with eBay, the company said it would investigate the listings and remove any that breached its policies. While some of the products have now been removed, as of Wednesday 11 March the recalled counterfeit Samsung charger listings were still live.

Which? believes the findings demonstrate fundamental flaws with eBay’s review system – leading to a lack of transparency and a risk of consumers being duped by fake and misleading reviews. It is also clear that eBay’s enforcement of current policies around product safety, counterfeit goods and action against unscrupulous sellers are proving ineffective.

Ebay must take urgent action to make its review system more robust and transparent, so that consumers can trust the customer feedback on products they are buying.

The company must also demonstrate that it can put in place an effective system to remove misleading listings, unsafe products and counterfeit goods – and take strong action to shut down sellers who try to break the rules.

The CMA estimates £23 billion a year of consumer transactions are influenced by online reviews and it has already intervened on the trading of fake reviews on eBay.

Which? is now calling for the regulator to extend its scrutiny of online platforms to include an investigation of the seriously flawed online review systems that put consumers at risk of being misled.

Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services, Which?, said: “Our investigation has uncovered yet another example of online reviews being manipulated to mislead people.

“Ebay’s product review system is confusing for consumers and could even direct them towards counterfeit or dangerous products sold by unscrupulous sellers.

“Online reviews influence billions of pounds of consumer spending each year. The CMA must now investigate how fake and misleading reviews are duping online shoppers, taking the strongest possible action against sites that fail to tackle the problem.”

An eBay spokesperson said: “We have investigated the listings shared by Which? and will remove any that breach our policies.

“However the research does not fully consider that there are distinctions between product reviews (which provide buyers with a holistic review of the same product), and seller feedback (which can be used to see specific reviews of a seller’s performance and may reflect the item’s condition).

“In addition, all listings have a ‘report’ feature. Any user can use this to report a concern with a listing, its seller, or its reviews.

“eBay enforces its Product Safety Policy at a global level using block filter algorithms that prevent unsafe products being listed, and our international security teams also work around the clock to help safeguard our marketplace.

“We take enforcement action against any seller found to be in breach of our policies, which can be in the form of a warning, suspension or ban.

“eBay runs several anti-counterfeit initiatives including the Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO) and is continually introducing new proactive measures to combat the global trade in counterfeits. We are investigating Which’s claims on these items.

“Further information on seller feedback can be found here on eBay UK’s Help Hub.”

Void Android?

More than one billion Android devices around the world are vulnerable to attack by hackers because they are no longer supported by security updates and built-in protection, new research by Which? has found.

The consumer champion crunched Google data, which shows a staggering two in five (40%) Android users worldwide are no longer receiving vital security updates from Google, potentially putting them at risk of data theft, ransom demands and a range of other malware attacks that could leave them facing bills for hundreds of pounds.

The findings come as Which? adds warnings to its reviews of potentially affected smartphones – which are not necessarily old models and are still available to buy through online marketplaces – so consumers are aware of the risk.

Which? experts took a selection of affected phones and tablets into its labs, including handsets still available to buy from online marketplaces such as Amazon, and found they could easily be hit by a range of malware and other threats.

Researchers tested a range of phones including models from Motorola, Samsung, Sony and LG/Google and found vulnerability to hacks including enabling personal information to be stolen, a hacker to take complete control over the phone or large bills for services that the phone owner hasn’t used themselves.

Recently out-of-support devices won’t immediately have problems, but without security updates, the risk to the user of being hacked goes up exponentially. Generally speaking, the older the phone, the greater the risk.

Anyone using an Android phone released around 2012 or earlier – including popular models like the Samsung Galaxy S3 and Sony Xperia S, should be especially concerned, since it’s likely they will be running a version of Android that does not include various security enhancements Google has been rolling out since.

Google declined to respond when Which? asked for data on how many UK users are likely to be affected. But the consumer champion estimates there could potentially be millions of old unsupported Android devices still in use in the UK.

Which? shared its findings with Google but the tech giant’s response failed to provide reassurance that it has plans in place to help users whose devices are no longer supported.

Which? is calling for far more transparency around how long updates for smart devices will be provided so consumers can make informed buying decisions. The industry must also do a better job of giving support and guidance to customers about their options once security updates are no longer available.

Proposed legislation for mandatory security requirements – putting the onus on manufacturers to provide clear information about how long security updates will be provided for – and strong enforcement for manufacturers, retailers and online marketplaces that fall short are essential to tackle the growing problem of digital obsolescence.

Which? believes Google and other manufacturers also have questions to answer about the environmental impact of phones that can only be supported for three years or less – meaning consumers frequently need to fork out hundreds of pounds to replace them, while old phones end up piled up in landfill.

Kate Bevan, Which? Computing editor, said: “It’s very concerning that expensive Android devices have such a short shelf life before they lose security support – leaving millions of users at risk of serious consequences if they fall victim to hackers.

“Google and phone manufacturers need to be upfront about security updates – with clear information about how long they will last and what customers should do when they run out.

“The government must also push ahead with planned legislation to ensure manufacturers are far more transparent about security updates for smart devices – and their impact on consumers.”

Which? Tips

My Android phone is working fine, so why should I ditch it?

If your Android device is more than two years old, check if it can be updated to a newer version of Android. Open your phone or tablet Settings app, then tap System > Advanced > System update. You can then see your Android version.

If you are on a version before Android 7.0 Nougat, try to update your system. Still in the System update section, follow the instructions to run the update.

If you can’t update to a newer version, you’ll need to consider that there will be an increased risk of using your device going forwards – especially if you are running a version of Android 4 or lower.

What should I do if my mobile phone is no longer updated?

The older the phone, the greater the risk. Anyone with a smartphone that runs Android 4 or earlier should seriously consider whether it’s worth the risk to their data and privacy to continue using the device. However, there is an increased risk to any device that is no longer being supported by security updates. If you are still using such a phone, carefully consider the following advice until you upgrade.

1. Be careful what you download: The majority of threats come from downloading apps from outside the Google Play store, so be very wary of that. If you do sideload an app, check carefully that it is official and always manually re-enable the ‘unknown sources’ block in your Android settings after you’re finished. This is done automatically in newer Android versions.

2. Watch what you click on: As well as traditional phishing threats that might arrive via email, variations on these threats can be sent to a phone via SMS or MMS messages to take advantage of vulnerabilities found on some older versions of Android. Be very wary of clicking on any links that look suspicious, especially if they are from senders you’re not familiar with.

3. Back up your data: Make sure all your data is backed up in at least two places (a hard drive and a cloud service). If something goes wrong and you do get infected, this will help to ensure you won’t lose access to anything vital.

4. Get mobile antivirus: There are a range of additional apps that can provide some protection for your older Android device against security threats. Bear in mind, though, that the choice might be limited for really old Android builds. We could barely find any reputable services for the Sony Xperia Z2 running Android 4.4.

Which? advice guide for people who are using phones that no longer receive security updates: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/mobile-phones/article/mobile-phone-security-is-it-safe-to-use-an-old-phone