Jump to content

Scam alert: 'Can you hear me' phone scam currently defrauding US consumers set to hit British shores


Recommended Posts

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/can-you-hear-me-phone-scam-fraud-us-britain-police-pennsylvania-florida-uk-a7597106.html


'If someone calls and asks, ?Can you hear me??, hang up the phone immediately.


A major phone scam from the US is set to cross the pond and hit the UK imminently.


But police and call-blocking companies are warning the public about the dangerous phone call in the hope of preventing innocent people falling victim to the scammers.


Here?s how it works:


You receive a phone call from a local number

The voice on the end introduces themselves and the company they supposedly work for

They then ask: ?Can you hear me??

Your answer is recorded, and if you say ?yes?, your response will be edited to make it appear as if you?ve

agreed to a huge purchase.


You?re effectively being tricked into signing a verbal contract, much the same as clicking ?I agree? to terms and conditions online.


Voice signatures like these are legitimately used by companies doing business over the phone, but this is being exploited by scammers who have conned many Americans already, predominantly in Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia.


CPR Call Blocker has seen the scam rise in frequency and the company believes it?s only a matter of time before Brits start being targeted too, according to the Sunderland Echo.


?In our experience of working across the US and UK, scams spread quickly across the pond,? says Kris Hicks from CPR Call Blocker. He adds that it?s sensible for Brits to be on their guard ?as we have no doubt that fraudsters operating in the UK will soon start using these tactics.?


The scammers may try and charge you for products or services you?ve never used, and if you try and argue with them, they?ll play back their recording of you saying ?yes? and threaten to take legal action if you don?t pay up.


Another version of the scam sees the criminals using the person?s voice recording to authorise a stolen credit card.


The public is being advised either to hang up straight away upon being asked ?Can you hear me??, or just not pick up at all if you don?t recognise the number.


And if you do think you may have been caught out by the scammers, contact your bank or card provider as soon as you can.'

This originates from CPR Blocker, who want to publicise their device and get more sales. A fuller version seems to have been released to at least many local newspapers. The Indie, which I gather is getting short of real journalists and, like most nationals, is in any case happy to pick up anything that'll fill their web space, reproduces it. Their naivete in citing the Sunderland Echo as source suggests to me that it's probably the work of an intern. From local or national news websites, it then of course gets nicely and freely disseminated at lower levels.


The payload message in the full original aricle is the para:


"One of the best ways to protect yourself is to register on the Telephone Preference Service and purchase a call blocker device such as a CPR Call Blocker which simply plugs into any land line and features a ?Block Now? button which ends an unwanted call and permanently blocks the number." https://www.cprcallblocker.com/blogs/news

For the practical and legal realities of voice signatures in the USA see for example http://www.tradeharbor.com/what-a-voice-signature-is.html and https://www.esignlive.com/blog/when-to-use-voice-signatures/ and . The article looks like a crude scare sales tactic. If still in doubt, just begin each telephone conversation with "I will be using the following sound [insert chosen insrument sound, ad lib] instead of the affirmative word throughout this call." And record it as well.


Anyone want to buy a telephone recording kit and software, only ?99.99?

Good grief. The Independent is not a newspaper, it's a flailing turdberg of clickbait.


In short, as others have almost pointed out, this is a marketing scam - which the Independent will have been paid to run. There is, though, a tiny nugget of something a bit like truth there. The 'verbal contract' is indeed a thing. Bbut consumer laws mean it can't be abused over the telephone to domestic addresses and so, for the most part, it isn't.


For businesses, however, it's different, and the verbal contract is a risk. But it is already a risk, and has been for over a decade, and there's no obvious way to stop it. I know at least two local businesses that have fallen prey to it, and if you google "opus energy verbal contract", for example, you'll find a bunch of business-owners grumbling about unscrupulous sales agents switching them to exorbitant tariffs without their permission. Opus Energy, being a thoroughly upstanding outfit, has no relationship with such agents and deplores their behaviour, though presumably they get paid somehow, and Opus isn't slow to put a block on the account if you try to switch it back. They will also send you a copy of 'your' contract, complete with forged signature, if you try to complain, suggesting the rogue agents aren't entirely unattached.


This is, apart from the lies and the forgery, mostly legal. However, for micro-businesses, such as newsagents, the laws to protect domestic consumer laws are supposed to apply. But you'd not know that from the regulator, who has, in the fine tradition of British regulators, failed to to anything much at all. They will, after a few months of prodding and once Opus' official complaints procedure (which is, unsurprisingly, not quick) has been exhausted (which, itself, takes an almost legalistic eye to accomplish), write a stiff letter forcing Opus to lift the block, but you won't get your money back, and nobody (because Plod takes less than no interest) will be done.


Sorry for the rant. This sort of thing makes me quite angry. All these sorts of things, as it happens - the Independent's attempt to gull vulnerable consumers, Opus Energy's persistent and unpunished duplicity, the apathy of Plod, Ofgem's bunch of overpaid uselessness or the calculated carelessness of government. From where I'm sitting, it's long been looking like an insidious epidemic of corporate fraud, determined to scupper every honest attempt to make a living on the part of humbler souls.

I'm doubtful that the Indy colluded. I think it was probably just another item hoovered up by its author to add to her portfolio. Chill out with more from her at http://www.independent.co.uk/author/rachel-hosie.


Your rant seems justified. I liked the way this dupee managed to sidestep them by finding out who the currently registered supplier for his new premises was, and contacting them to affirm a contract with them -- which conveniently trumped and blocked the nefarious transfer. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?471529-Tricked-into-an-Opus-Energy-Contract Obviously you need to act timeously to do that.


I had a problem that began with British Gas usurping my supply contract, with no third party involved other than EDF's incompetence in recovering it in the first instance, and dealing with the billing once they had. I had finally to resort to Subject Access Requests to get information from both of them. It took many months to get resolved and affected me very badly, including multiple threats of magistrates court actions and debt collector's letters. I should have had the strength to escalate it to Director level a lot earlier than I did.


Although they don't pursue individual cases, the Ofgem partner I wrote to seemed genuinely appreciative of the information I gave him. And they have fined energy companies millions for repeated breaches of customer care.

I wonder how they "charge" without details?


I get rid of "SALES" and "SURVEYS" easily ....

a) I tell them I am seventeen, they hang up because being under 18 I cannot enter into any agreement.

b) Tell them I'm deaf and waste their time making them repeat all the questions over and over

c) Put on a stupid "waynetta" voice and shout "I want an orange one! Can it work on the 24th floor?"

d) tell them I have no need to save money having recently won several million on the lottery!

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yep, sounds like a load of old crap to me. They

> extort money from you because they have a

> recording of you saying "yes"?

>

> Who the hell uses landline phones these days

> anyway?



I still use my landline Jeremy. An awful lot of elderly people do too, and I think being vulnerable these scammers know this and are therefore more likely to use these tactics to target those people. I'm constantly receiving phone calls where no one answers or they ask me strange questions.


Louisa.

I get those strange question calls too Louisa


1 do I have ppi?

2 do I want a conservatory

3 have I had an accident


They all make the day go quicker in between calling the TV advertised life insurance companies, stair lift companies, magic stomach exercise machines and NCIS


😳

stringvest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> b) Tell them I'm deaf and waste their time making

> them repeat all the questions over and over



This is even better if prefaced by


"You What"


As it really annoys people.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yep, sounds like a load of old crap to me. They

> extort money from you because they have a

> recording of you saying "yes"?

>

> Who the hell uses landline phones these days

> anyway?


Unfortunately we have just had one installed, after years without one, part of BT bundle. Very irritating.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yep, sounds like a load of old crap to me. They

> > extort money from you because they have a

> > recording of you saying "yes"?

> >

> > Who the hell uses landline phones these days

> > anyway?

>

> Unfortunately we have just had one installed,

> after years without one, part of BT bundle. Very

> irritating.


I never use mine since my Mum passed away

She rang me every week on it :)

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still use my landline Jeremy. An awful lot of

> elderly people do too, and I think being

> vulnerable these scammers know this and are

> therefore more likely to use these tactics to

> target those people. I'm constantly receiving

> phone calls where no one answers or they ask me

> strange questions.


Fair enough on the landline usage, but I don't think this "scam" is real.. just doesn't sound believable to me. Who would believe that a phone conversation - actually not even a conversation, just a solitary "yes" - is a legally binding contract?

It's one of a long-ongoing series of tests orchestrated by aliens in order to assess aspects of the intelligence of Homo Sapiens. Why they persevere quite so long I don't know. Perhaps it's a longitudinal study.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...