Hungryhouse Ban! - Fraud Checks?! - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Hungryhouse Ban! - Fraud Checks?!

£0.00 @
Hey guys, like many others here (probably) I used many, many of those £5 off new customer hungryhouse codes. New names, new numbers for each. I recently moved and tried it again.. with my real name, a… Read More
JoeLando Avatar
1w, 2d agoPosted 1 week, 2 days ago
Hey guys, like many others here (probably) I used many, many of those £5 off new customer hungryhouse codes. New names, new numbers for each. I recently moved and tried it again.. with my real name, a new card, and my new address yet somehow they realised, and they cancelled my order and said they'll carry out a fraud check?

Legally, is there anything they can do about me using the code many times other than banning me? Can they make a claim for me to repay them?

Bit worried!
JoeLando Avatar
1w, 2d agoPosted 1 week, 2 days ago
Options

All Responses

(20) Jump to unreadPost an answer
Responses/page:
#1
They'll send the boys round to hammer frozen sausages into your lawn....
#2
zombrex
They'll send the boys round to hammer frozen sausages into your lawn....


Thankful I dont have a garden... where else are they going to hammer them? confused ;)
#3
I don't know if or what happened as an outcome but a few years ago Tesco reported quite a few people to the police that were reusing vouchers on self service tills. All I can say is anything you say can and will be used against you, do not deny, do not admit, just say nothing.

Edited By: dozstanford on Jul 11, 2017 20:09
#4
Hi Joe,

I work for the fraud department that handles queries for Hungryhouse and several other retailers. There has been a change in policies recently which consumers will begin to notice the effects of since the last annual conference. The issues of consumer mis-use of voucher schemes has been well documented and a certain group of retailers sought legal counsel on it a couple of years ago. They were basically advised then that it was too costly to pursue unless a legal firm was set-up to streamline the prosecution in bulk.

That has now been done, and consumers found mis-using various schemes are being tracked by various means and having their data flagged and collected. This is then forwarded to the magistrates who will sign off in bulk on the collection of costs to the bailiffs. You'll see the first bailiff letters dating back since February 2017 arriving mid August from what I've been told. Should hit the news no doubt shortly after. You'll notice that Tesco as one example is holding back from issuing vouchers again until they see how successful the consumer petty fraud scheme is. Tesco were hit pretty hard with it and at a time when they couldn't really afford it.

You have to understand that retailers were hoping that mis-use of voucher schemes would die down without having the PR nightmare that will no doubt follow the prosecution and collection of petty fraud. Prosecution will only be for the worst offenders (ie. 3 or more attempts in a year), most will only have outsourced collectors knocking on doors, calling, etc.

Hope that helps clear things up somewhat. Happy to answer any questions.

Michael.
#5
Is that a sick joke or is this for reals ^
#6
dbibby1988
Is that a sick joke or is this for reals ^

Hi dbibby,

it's very much real and been quite a while in the making. It would have happened much sooner if it weren't for the reluctance on the part of certain major online retailers based on what they thought would be bad PR. The other problem was one I mentioned above, that there simply wasn't an entity that could handle what would be an enormous case load of this particular type until now. The other was that due to the small sums involved in the petty fraud, it would be obvious to the media that this was punitive and most of the recovery action would actually be administration fees to the legal firms. A new calculation for fees of this kind was introduced in a parliamentary Bill in 2016 which basically increases significantly the fees that legal firms can charge which means that now they know they can profit even at less than 40% success rates making the scheme feasible in a way that is wouldn't have been previously.

Michael.
#7
Best starting saving up to get a good lawyer. Never overdo anything is the best policy ;)
#8
Thankfully I've always been too lazy to bother with different email addresses/accounts etc for this to affect me, but for those who it does this is some scary news and probably would be worth making this into a wider known issue, maybe a heads up on the whatsapp group or something
#9
Yeah Im thankful to, but It just seems a pointless/petty exercise to me. It reminds me of the article I read of a porn director who was trying to sue people for illegally sharing his films online. He sent letters demanding money or else theyd find themselves in court, but nothing came of it because there wasnt enough evidence to back up his claim (from what I read any way). That sounds way worse than Barry from down the road using the same voucher code more than once.
#10
Vanderlust
Hi Joe, I work for the fraud department that handles queries for Hungryhouse and several other retailers. There has been a change in policies recently which consumers will begin to notice the effects of since the last annual conference. The issues of consumer mis-use of voucher schemes has been well documented and a certain group of retailers sought legal counsel on it a couple of years ago. They were basically advised then that it was too costly to pursue unless a legal firm was set-up to streamline the prosecution in bulk.That has now been done, and consumers found mis-using various schemes are being tracked by various means and having their data flagged and collected. This is then forwarded to the magistrates who will sign off in bulk on the collection of costs to the bailiffs. You'll see the first bailiff letters dating back since February 2017 arriving mid August from what I've been told. Should hit the news no doubt shortly after. You'll notice that Tesco as one example is holding back from issuing vouchers again until they see how successful the consumer petty fraud scheme is. Tesco were hit pretty hard with it and at a time when they couldn't really afford it.You have to understand that retailers were hoping that mis-use of voucher schemes would die down without having the PR nightmare that will no doubt follow the prosecution and collection of petty fraud. Prosecution will only be for the worst offenders (ie. 3 or more attempts in a year), most will only have outsourced collectors knocking on doors, calling, etc.Hope that helps clear things up somewhat. Happy to answer any questions.Michael.


yeah you don't know what you're talking about. This would have to be done down the small claims track, and they would have to win the cases, get a CCJ, even before they could instruct bailiffs. For what a £10 voucher code? come on this is utter ****.

You also mention magistrates, which again shows your lack of understanding of the legal system. CCJs are granted by DJs not Mags

Edited By: MrMoonX on Jul 11, 2017 22:20: typo
#11
I tend to agree MrMoonx, HungryHouse is not a company in its own right and as such would not have an annual conference, they would take direction from their parent company the German business Delivery Hero, at present Just Eat is trying to buy them for £200 m so why would they seek bad publicity? my opinion only, dyor as always
#12
[email protected]

No one is going to be coming after you for misuse of a voucher.
#13
shauneco
[email protected]
No one is going to be coming after you for misuse of a voucher.

Very did .
#14
philmitchell
shauneco
[email protected]
No one is going to be coming after you for misuse of a voucher.
Very did .
Good point.
They added the charge to peoples credit accounts if they deemed the voucher was void for whatever reason.

It's slightly different in this case as it's not a credit account and doubt they'd go to the trouble of sending big Dave around.
#15
I would think they may make an example of large scale fraudster, i doubt 3 attepmts at £1 off in a year is going to get very far with the judge. The police dont have time dealing with people who has used their one pound off voucher for the third time this year. OMG. Call the moral dilemma police!

however, someone who has done it 10 times or more in the year and the amount involved is over £50 may get a caution for first time offender. Lets put things into perspective people.

the OP however, may have done this big scale for all we know as each voucher is £5.
#16
Vanderlust
Hi Joe, I work for the fraud department that handles queries for Hungryhouse and several other retailers. There has been a change in policies recently which consumers will begin to notice the effects of since the last annual conference. The issues of consumer mis-use of voucher schemes has been well documented and a certain group of retailers sought legal counsel on it a couple of years ago. They were basically advised then that it was too costly to pursue unless a legal firm was set-up to streamline the prosecution in bulk.That has now been done, and consumers found mis-using various schemes are being tracked by various means and having their data flagged and collected. This is then forwarded to the magistrates who will sign off in bulk on the collection of costs to the bailiffs. You'll see the first bailiff letters dating back since February 2017 arriving mid August from what I've been told. Should hit the news no doubt shortly after. You'll notice that Tesco as one example is holding back from issuing vouchers again until they see how successful the consumer petty fraud scheme is. Tesco were hit pretty hard with it and at a time when they couldn't really afford it.You have to understand that retailers were hoping that mis-use of voucher schemes would die down without having the PR nightmare that will no doubt follow the prosecution and collection of petty fraud. Prosecution will only be for the worst offenders (ie. 3 or more attempts in a year), most will only have outsourced collectors knocking on doors, calling, etc.Hope that helps clear things up somewhat. Happy to answer any questions.Michael.


What a load of TOSH.

'Change of policies recently' - companies change their policies all the time, cancel the accounts of individuals, but you have no legal standing for prosecution because of a policy change.

'Consumer mis-use of voucher schemes' - is not a crime, and has no legal basis. If you produce generic voucher codes, vouchers et al to be used then consumers can use them all they want, the company has produced them en masse to be used. It is the company own making, to stay on top of these and withdraw them from market once the budget has gone.

'Consumers... are being tracked by various means' - in the ops example, there is no data to gather. Different names, different details. no accountability, and no blame. Again if you produce a generic voucher to be used it is the companies responsibility to withdraw from market.

'Magistrates will sign off in bulk..' - Deal with criminal offences of 3 categories. motoring and minor offences, middle of the road offences which could be heard in crown or magistrates, and serious offences such as murder and rape. They do not deal with mis-administration from a company too lazy to offer individual one use only voucher schemes, the only thing they will be signing off is the 'sod off letter'.

'Pr nightmare... prosecution' - There can only be a prosecution if there has been a crime committed, reusing a generic, mass created multiple use, global voucher or code is not petty fraud. Ergo there will be no prosecution because there has been no crime.

'petty fraud' - There is no such thing, fraud is fraud - it would need to be criminal and proven. Mis-administration by an ignorant company will never been heard in criminal court. And you will never gather enough data whilst complying with the data protection act to fully supply the burdens of proof to even be considered in civil court - These voucher schemes are generic and produced on en masse with the sole purpose of driving secondary sales.

Wanderlust. Try again.
#17
mutley1
I would think they may make an example of large scale fraudster, i doubt 3 attepmts at £1 off in a year is going to get very far with the judge. The police dont have time dealing with people who has used their one pound off voucher for the third time this year. OMG. Call the moral dilemma police!
however, someone who has done it 10 times or more in the year and the amount involved is over £50 may get a caution for first time offender. Lets put things into perspective people.
the OP however, may have done this big scale for all we know as each voucher is £5.


''someone who has done it 10 times or more in the year and the amount involved is over £50 may get a caution - there would have to be a criminal investigation, and the police wont touch it because there will always be merits that the voucher has been used for its intended purpose.

To defraud someone you would have to leave them out of pocket - these vouchers have been created for the sole purpose to be used en masse. New account, new customer - new profits on each transactions.

Any attempted prosecution will never win because of these merits. The voucher has been used for its intended purpose.
#18
Go into the kitchen of your new house and see if it has got a cooker. If so, use it to cook your own food. Quicker , cheaper and healthier than takeaway and less chance of being done for petty fraud.
#19
MrMoonX
yeah you don't know what you're talking about. This would have to be done down the small claims track, and they would have to win the cases, get a CCJ, even before they could instruct bailiffs. For what a £10 voucher code? come on this is utter ****. You also mention magistrates, which again shows your lack of understanding of the legal system. CCJs are granted by DJs not Mags

Have to be done in a small claims court? Why?
#20
ipswich78
Have to be done in a small claims court? Why?

i think it was because vanderlust said that the bailiffs would be sent round, which would only happen through the smalls claims court process. otherwise the police would be round not the bailiffs.

Post an Answer

You don't need an account to leave a response. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!