My £1,200 Samsung phone was blacklisted - by a network that I've never even used! SALLY SORTS IT
The repairer informed me that they could not fix it as it's been blacklisted by Three UK.
I was shocked as my network provider is O2 and I purchased the £1,200 phone new directly from Samsung in September 2022.
Since then, it has always been in my possession.
The device has now been blocked. I can't afford to replace it. Please help.
F. S., New Malden, London.
Sally Hamilton replies: The mystery of your blacklisted mobile is particularly baffling as you have never been a customer of Three.
Initially, you spent considerable time on the phone to both Samsung and O2 urging them to help unblock your device. You said they made every effort to help but concluded that only Three could resolve the problem.
After a slow start, Three launched an internal investigation which, maddeningly, also concluded that it could not help.
The firm simply sent you a deadlock letter to enable you to escalate the complaint to the Communications Ombudsman.
You hit yet another brick wall when the Ombudsman said it could not consider your complaint as you are not a Three customer. Arrgh!
I was your last hope if you were ever going to be able to use your pricey phone again.
On my request, Three reopened your case. It kept in touch with you throughout the process. It was three weeks before I finally received the good news that your phone had been unblocked and removed from the blacklist.
Three confirmed your device had been blacklisted on November 22, 2022, but could not confirm whether it was Three or another provider that had requested this, or the reason.
It won't share details of the mechanics of the blacklisting process either in case fraudsters take advantage of the information.
Devices are blacklisted via their International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is unique to each phone.
Providers or networks tend to do this if a mobile is lost or stolen, if there are security issues, if a customer fails to pay their bill, or the device has been reported as used for fraud or spam purposes.
Theft victims may find they are unable to claim on their insurance until the device has been confirmed on the blacklist.
No one was able to work out what happened in your case. It's possible the IMEI number from another phone might have been mistyped when it was reported stolen. We will never know.
You were grateful for my intervention and can finally get your phone repaired.
It's a pity there is not a simpler and speedier way for innocent victims of blacklisting to get their devices removed from the list.
Granddaughter in Australia can't access account
Our granddaughter emigrated to Australia with her parents 16 years ago at the age of three. At the time she had a Child Trust Fund with Nationwide Building Society.
Recently, she tried to access the £402 balance, but Nationwide blocked the account because she has not been into a branch. Can you help?
F .S., Nottingham.
Sally Hamilton replies: You said your granddaughter posted certified copies of her driving licence and passport to Nationwide's head office, along with a covering letter explaining that she would like to withdraw her money. But these were not accepted.
Staff told her only the original documents would do. She was reluctant to send these to the other side of the world as she feared never seeing them again.
Nationwide insisted the only way to resolve matters was for her to go into a branch and present identification in person. But as she lives in Queensland, Australia, and has no plans to visit the UK, this was not possible.
You say friends of hers with CTFs at other banks have been able to access their accounts online, but she doesn't have an internet account with Nationwide.
Scam Watch
Households should beware a scam email impersonating British Gas, consumer website Which? has warned.
The tricksters claim you have an overdue bill which needs paying as your
last direct debit 'hasn't gone through'.
The fraudulent email says you are £7.21 overdue and you are prompted to click a link to pay the remaining balance.
But the link will lead to a malicious website designed to steal your personal and financial details.
Do not click on the link – instead, forward the email to report@phishing.gov.uk.
She faced an additional frustration recently when the building society distributed £50 to eligible members as part of the so-called The Big Nationwide Thank You. This was a bonus handout following its purchase last year of rival Virgin Money.
Your granddaughter was issued a cheque but was unable to pay it into her Australian account as that country's banks no longer accept cheques in foreign currencies. I stepped in to ask Nationwide to resolve both the problem of the CTF and the bonus cheque and give her access to her £452.
It took about three weeks but eventually Nationwide found a way 'given the exceptional situation'. It agreed to verify your granddaughter's ID over the phone and sent the CTF funds and the bonus to her Australian account by bank transfer once it received an emailed copy of a recent bank statement.
A spokesman for Nationwide says: 'We apologise for the time it has taken to find a solution and we will offer her £50 as compensation.'
By coincidence, reader D. F., from Stroud, Gloucestershire, had a similar tale regarding her grandson's savings account with Coventry Building Society.
Now 21, he emigrated aged six to New Zealand, but in January tried to access the cash to help with his university costs.
He was told this could be done only by closing the account and raising a cheque for the £787.86 balance. This was done, but New Zealand also no longer accepts foreign currency cheques.
All was resolved by reopening the old account, paying the cheque back in and raising another in the name of his grandmother. This could be done only on receipt of a letter of consent from the grandson who also had to provide a copy of his passport and driving licence, validated by a Justice of the Peace.
After a tedious five months of effort, D. F. will shortly be able to transfer the money from her account to her grandson's.
Straight to the point
I booked an easyJet flight from Newcastle to Paris for June 6 but the airline cancelled the flight the night before. I was given no explanation.
I've tried twice to claim compensation through the website but it keeps telling me my details don't match the customer on the booking, when it does. It's almost impossible to speak to someone on the phone.
N.A., Durham.
Easyjet apologises and says you will be compensated. It says the first claim was filled out incorrectly while the second was rejected due to a mismatch of information.
***
I bought a television from John Lewis for £2,999. It has a 'price promise', which means if I find the same product at another retailer for a lower price within seven days of making the purchase, it will refund the difference.
I found one for £2,699 so submitted a claim, but it was rejected. I made the purchase at 10.30pm on a Tuesday so thought I could make a claim up to the same time the following week.
I made the claim around 4pm the following Tuesday, but John Lewis won't accept this.
R.W., via email.
John Lewis says it recognises your frustration and has refunded the price difference.
***
In May my phone, which had my bank card in the case, was stolen out of my pocket while I was in Benidorm.
The thief used my Apple Pay, which was linked to a different bank account, to transfer money to the account linked with my physical card.
They withdrew £1,450 from cash machines. I couldn't freeze the account until four days after the card was stolen as I no longer had my mobile phone to do this on the app.
I later attempted to dispute the transactions with the bank, but it says they aren't fraudulent.
B.B., via email.
Your bank apologises and is paying you the £1,450 along with £250 in compensation.
Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@dailymail.co.uk — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Prisons get ‘Minority Report' AI profiling to avert violence
Prison officers will use Minority Report-style technology to identify potentially violent inmates before they have launched an attack in a major expansion of artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, will on Thursday announce plans to give the prison service use of the artificial intelligence software. The AI violence predictor analyses factors such as a prisoner's age and previous involvement in violent incidents while in custody. This will help prison officers assess threat levels on wings and enable them to intervene or move prisoners before violence escalates — or before it breaks out at all. It will also inform decisions to put dangerous prisoners under tighter supervision. It has drawn comparisons with futuristic technology featured in the 2002 film with Tom Cruise in which a specialised police department named 'Precrime' apprehends criminals using foreknowledge provided by three psychics, or 'precogs', who can predict crime before it is committed. Mahmood's AI plan also includes a tool that can digitally scan the contents of mobile phones seized from prisoners, rapidly flagging messages that may provide intelligence such as inmates' code words. It will be deployed to enable staff to uncover potential for threats of violence to other inmates or prison officers as well as plans to escape or smuggle in weapons and other contraband. The phones, often used for gang activity, drug trafficking and intimidation, are a major source of violence in prisons, which has soared to record levels. The technology uses AI-driven language analysis and has been trialled across the prison estate, analysing more than 8.6 million messages from 33,000 seized phones. The plan also sets out proposals for the creation of a single digital ID for all offenders. AI will help link records across courts, prisons and probation for the first time, linking records that previous search systems may never have connected because of minor typos or missing words. This could lead to more effective monitoring and sentencing. Mahmood said: 'Artificial intelligence will transform the justice system. We are embracing its full potential as part of our Plan for Change. 'These tools are already fighting violence in prisons, tracking offenders and releasing our staff to focus on what they do best: cutting crime and making our streets safer.' The plan represents the government's latest effort to regain control of prisons in England and Wales as violence and drug use spirals. Being a prison guard has never been more dangerous — last year a record 10,605 assaults on staff were recorded, 15 per cent higher than the previous year and averaging 29 assaults on a prison officer every day. Research by the Ministry of Justice this year found a direct link between violence behind bars and overcrowding. Prisons in England and Wales are at 99 per cent capacity and, in August last year, had only 80 spaces left. The study found that inmates of overcrowded jails were 20 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults. Charlie Taylor, the chief inspector of prisons, warned in his annual report this month that jails were plagued with 'overwhelming' quantities of illicit drugs, mobile phones and other contraband. He said drone technology posed a level of risk 'different from what we've seen in the past' and was now so sophisticated that packages of up to 10kg were being flown over prison gates. Inmates were routinely offered a 'menu of drugs'. Taylor said there was also a 'theoretical possibility' that a drone could lift a prisoner out of jail in the near future.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
What screen time really does to children's brains
Zoe will be responding to reader comments about this article between 11am and 12pm (BST) today. Go to the comments section at the bottom of the page from 10am to share what you think about the impact of screen time on childrenThe other day, while I was doing some household chores, I handed my youngest child his dad's iPad to keep him entertained. But after a while I suddenly felt uneasy: I wasn't keeping a close eye on how long he had spent using it or what he was looking at. So I told him it was time to stop.A full-blown tantrum erupted. He kicked, he yelled, he clung to it and tried to push me away with the might of a furious under-five. Not my finest hour as a parent, admittedly, and his extreme reaction bothered older children are navigating social media, virtual reality and online gaming, and sometimes that concerns me too. I hear them tease each other about needing to "touch grass" – disconnect from the tech and get late Steve Jobs, who was CEO of Apple when the firm released the iPad, famously didn't let his own children have them. Bill Gates has said he restricted his children's access to tech too. Screen time has become synonymous with bad news, blamed for rises in depression in young people, behavioural problems and sleep deprivation. The renowned neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield went as far as to say that internet use and computer games can harm the adolescent brain. Back in 2013 she compared the negative effects of prolonged screen time to the early days of climate change: a significant shift that people weren't taking of people are taking it more seriously now. But warnings about the dark side might not tell the full editorial in the British Medical Journal argued that Baroness Greenfield's claims around the brain were "not based on a fair scientific appraisal of the evidence… and are misleading to parents and the public at large". Now, another group of UK scientists claim that concrete scientific evidence on the downsides of screens is lacking. So have we got it wrong when it comes to worrying about our children and curbing their access to tablets and smartphones? Is it really as bad as it seems? Pete Etchells, a psychology professor at Bath Spa University, is one of the academics in the group arguing that the evidence is lacking. He has analysed hundreds of studies about screen time and mental health, along with large amounts of data about young people and their screen habits. In his book Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time, he argues that the science behind the headline-grabbing conclusions is a mixed bag and, in many cases, flawed."Concrete scientific evidence to back up stories about the terrible outcomes of screen time simply isn't there," he writes. Research published by the American Psychology Association in 2021 told a similar story. The 14 authors, from various universities around the world, analysed 33 studies published between 2015 and 2019. Screen use including smartphones, social media and video games played "little role in mental health concerns", they while some studies have suggested blue light - such as that emitted by screens - makes it harder to drift off because it suppresses the hormone melatonin, a 2024 review of 11 studies from around the world found no overall evidence that screen light in the hour before bed makes it more difficult to sleep. Problems with the science One big problem is that most of the data on the subject of screen time relies heavily on "self-reporting", Prof Etchells points out. In other words, researchers simply ask young people how long they think they spent on their screens, and how they remember it making them also argues there are millions of possible ways to interpret these large amounts of data. "We have to be careful about looking at correlation," he says. He cites the example of a statistically significant rise in both ice cream sales and skin cancer symptoms during the summer. Both are related to warmer weather but not to each other: ice creams do not cause skin cancer. He also recalls a research project inspired by a GP who noticed two things: first, they were having more conversations with young people about depression and anxiety, and second, lots of young people were using phones in waiting rooms."So we worked with the doctor, and we said, OK, let's test this, we can use data to try and understand this relationship," he explains. While the two did correlate, there was a significant additional factor: how much time those who were depressed or anxious spent alone. Ultimately, it was loneliness that was driving their mental health struggles, the study suggested, rather than screen time by itself. Doomscrolling vs uplifting screen time Then there are the missing details about the nature of the screen time itself: the term is far too nebulous, argues Prof Etchells. Was it uplifting screen time? Was it useful? Informative? Or was it "doomscrolling"? Was the young person alone or were they interacting online with friends? Each factor generates a different experience. One study by US and UK researchers looked at 11,500 brain scans of children aged 9 to 12 alongside health assessments and their own reported screen time use. While patterns of screen use were linked to changes in how brain regions connect, the study found no evidence that screen time was linked to poor mental well-being or cognitive issues, even among those using screens for several hours of the study, which ran from 2016 to 2018, was supervised by Oxford University Professor Andrew Przybylski, who has studied the impact of video games and social media on mental health. His peer-reviewed studies indicate that both can, in fact, boost wellbeing rather than damage Etchells says: "If you think that screens do change brains for the worse, you would see that signal in a big data set like that. But you don't… so this idea that screens are changing brains in a consistently or enduringly bad way, that just doesn't seem to be the case." This view is echoed by Professor Chris Chambers, head of brain stimulation at Cardiff University, who is quoted in Prof Etchells' book as saying, "It would be obvious if there was a decline."It would be easy to look at the last, say, 15 years of research… If our cognitive system was so fragile to changes in the environment, we wouldn't be here. "We'd have been selected for extinction a very long time ago." 'Terrible formula for mental health' Neither Prof Przybylski nor Prof Etchells dispute the grave threat of certain online harms, such as grooming and exposure to explicit or harmful content. But both argue that the current debate around screen time is in danger of driving it further Przybylski is concerned about arguments for limiting devices or even banning them - and believes that the more rigidly screen time is policed, the more of a "forbidden fruit" it could become. Many disagree. The UK campaign group Smartphone Free Childhood says 150,000 people have so far signed its pact to ban smartphones for children below the age of 14, and delay social media access until the age of 16. When Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology from San Diego State University, began researching rising depression rates among US teenagers, she did not set out to prove that social media and smartphones were "terrible," she tells me. But she found it to be the only common she believes separating children and screens is a no-brainer, and is urging parents to keep children and smartphones apart for as long as possible."[Children's] brains are more developed and more mature at 16," she argues. "And the social environment at school and friend groups is much more stable at 16 than it is at 12." While she does agree that the data gathered on young people's screen use is largely self-reported, she argues that this does not dilute the Danish study published in 2024 involved 181 children from 89 families. For two weeks, half of them were limited to three hours of screen time per week and asked to hand in their tablets and smartphones. It concluded that reducing screen media "positively affected psychological symptoms of children and adolescents" and enhanced "prosocial behaviour", although added that further research was a UK study in which participants were asked to record time diaries of their screen time found that higher social media use aligned with higher reported feelings of depression in girls."You take that formula: More time online, usually alone with a screen; less time sleeping; less time with friends in person. That is a terrible formula for mental health," says Prof Twenge. "I have no idea why that's controversial." 'Judgment among parents' When Prof Etchells and I speak, it is via video chat. One of his children and his dog wander in and out. I ask whether screens are really re-wiring children's brains and he laughs, explaining that everything changes the brain: that's how humans learn. But he is also clearly sympathetic towards parental fears about the potential harms. It doesn't help parents that there is little clear guidance - and that the topic is fraught with bias and Radesky, a paediatrician at the University of Michigan, summed this up when she spoke at the philanthropic Dana Foundation. There is "an increasingly judgmental discourse among parents," she argued."So much of what people are talking about does more to induce parental guilt, it seems, than to break down what the research can tell us," she said. "And that's a real problem."The debate: Should smartphones be banned for under 16s?Mobile ban in schools not improving grades or behaviour, study suggestsSchool smartphone bans - are they effective? Looking back, my youngest child's tantrum over the iPad alarmed me at the time - but on reflection I've experienced similar performances over non-screen related activities: like when he was playing hide and seek with his brothers and didn't want to get ready for time comes up a lot in my conversations with other parents too. Some of us are stricter than official advice is currently inconsistent. Neither the US American Academy of Paediatrics nor the UK's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recommend any specific time limits for children. The World Health Organization, meanwhile, suggests no screen time at all for children below the age of one, and no more than one hour per day for under-fours (although when you read the policy this is aimed at prioritising physical activity).There is a bigger issue here in that there is simply not enough science to make a definitive recommendation, and this is dividing the scientific community - despite a strong societal push to limit children's without set guidelines, are we setting up an uneven playing field for children who are already tech-savvy by adulthood, and others who are not and are arguably more vulnerable as a result?Either way, the stakes are high. If screens really are damaging children, it might be years before the science catches up and proves it. Or if it eventually concludes that it isn't, we would have wasted energy and money and, in the process, tried to keep children away from something that can also be extremely all the while, with screens becoming glasses, social media regrouping around smaller communities, and people using AI chatbots to help with homework or even for therapy - the tech that's already in our lives is rapidly evolving, whether or not we let our children access it. Illustrator: Jodi Lai BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Met Police set to increase use of facial recognition technology amid force restructure
Britain's biggest police force is set to more than double its use of live facial recognition. The move by the Metropolitan Police comes as it restructures to cover the loss of 1,400 officers and 300 staff amid budget shortages and will see up to10 deployments of the technology a week. As part of the latest details of its restructure, the Met announced that live facial recognition will now be used up to 10 times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days. Earlier this month the Met revealed that it had made 1,000 arrests using live facial recognition to date, of which 773 had led to charge or caution. Part of the overhaul will also see officers moved to bulk up the force's public order crime team, as the Met said it has faced increased demand linked to protest-related crimes in the past two years. The squad will go from 48 to 63 officers due to a rise in the number of protests, particularly related to Israel and Palestine, as well as environmental issues. Force chief Sir Mark Rowley said: 'The numbers of protests have grown over the last couple of years. 'We don't have any powers that are there to reduce the number of protests, to cancel them. 'Laws are very permissive and encouraging of protests, which is entirely understandable, and I've got no objection to that, but what we've seen, unfortunately, is a proportion of those create crime and offences.' The facial recognition plans, however, have come under scrutiny. Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: 'It's incredibly concerning to see an expansion of facial recognition, especially at a time when there is a complete lack of regulation governing its use. 'Any tech which has the potential to infringe on our rights in the way scanning and identifying millions of people does needs to have robust safeguards around its use, including ensuring that proper independent oversight is in place. 'The government must legislate now to regulate this technology, protect people's rights, and make sure that the law on facial recognition does not get outpaced by the use.' Sir Mark insisted that the technology is responsibly used. 'We're only using it to look for serious offenders like wanted offenders and registered sex offenders. 'We routinely put it out there and capture multiple serious offenders in one go, many of whom have committed serious offences against women or children, or people who are wanted for armed robbery. 'It's a fantastic piece of technology. It's very responsibly used, and that's why most of the public support it.' Officers are also being moved to neighbourhood teams to deal with street crime including phone thefts, anti-social behaviour and shoplifting, with 80 moved to the team that covers the West End, a rise of 50 per cent. Last month, retailers warned that flagship high streets such as Oxford Street in the West End were at risk without urgent national action on crime. While shoplifting hit a record high in 2024 with the number of offences surpassing 500,000 for the first time, High Streets UK, a group that represents 5,000 businesses, called for wider action to deal with all types of crime affecting high streets. 'The West End generates £50 billion for the UK economy,' Sir Mark said. 'It's an enormous wealth generator. It's important we police and protect that well. 'And we think there's more we can do on our own and working with them.' This will include patrolling the streets, 'taking on the pickpockets', and officers tackling gangs plotting to rob shops, he said. Another 90 officers are moving to neighbourhood teams that cover six hotspots for robbery and theft – Brixton, Kingston, Ealing, Finsbury Park, Southwark and Spitalfields. The Met is Britain's largest police force, which as of February had 33,201 officers, 11,319 staff, 1,460 police community support officers and 1,127 specials. Sir Mark warned in April that the force is facing a £260 million budget shortfall, with cuts removing the Royal Parks police and dedicated schools officers as a result.
