Recent incidents involving telecommunications provider O2 have raised significant concerns regarding their handling of sim-swap fraud cases. A family’s distressing experience highlights the challenges faced by customers when dealing with such fraud, as well as the inadequacies in the provider's response to complaints.
AW's 91-year-old mother recently lost her pay-as-you-go (PAYG) number, an event that triggered a series of troubling interactions with O2. After reaching out to the company, O2 informed AW's mother that her SIM card did not match the number in question. This initial miscommunication set the stage for further complications.
O2 later acknowledged that it had failed to flag the first sim-swap as fraudulent. Consequently, this allowed a second attempt to transfer the number without proper scrutiny or verification. This lack of vigilance has left AW's mother without her number for several weeks, causing significant distress and inconvenience.
When contacted by AW, O2 claimed it was merely a coincidence that her mother’s number was restored on the same day. Despite the company's assertion, it became increasingly clear that there were systemic issues at play. O2 admitted that its communication with customers had been poor and offered £350 in goodwill as a gesture of apology for the mishandling of the situation.
In a separate but equally concerning case, AF reported that over £4,500 was stolen from her credit card after she received an unsolicited porting authorization code (PAC). This incident raises questions about O2's protocols for verifying customer identity before transferring numbers, which is a requirement set forth by telecoms regulator Ofcom.
Ofcom has expressed concerns regarding O2’s performance in handling complaints related to sim-swap fraud. The regulator stated, "We've discussed steps they are taking to protect customers," emphasizing the importance of safeguarding customer information. It added, "It's vital that all communications providers protect their customers, and if we see evidence of widespread harm, we've shown we won't hesitate to act where appropriate."
Despite O2's acknowledgment of potential fraud in AW's mother's case, the company could not definitively confirm whether she had fallen victim to it. This uncertainty stems from O2's limited ability to gather information on PAYG customers, which hampers their capacity to assess and address such incidents effectively.
Further complicating matters, JD also experienced difficulties with O2 after her number was transferred to fraudsters who tricked the company into processing the transfer using a SIM card acquired from another provider. Although O2 assured JD that their fraud team would reach out, no contact was made. Instead, JD received notifications that she had not answered calls, leading to the case being closed without resolution.
Customer service interactions with O2 have proven to be challenging for many users. Complaints about poor communication have become so prevalent that some liken reaching O2’s customer services to "pinning down Lord Lucan."
In JD’s case, O2 eventually offered to restore her lost number; however, by then she had opted to switch to another provider due to the ongoing issues. After reviewing her situation, O2 issued a refund and an additional £110 as goodwill for the inadequate service she experienced.