09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 1

Chapter 3: Plastic Card FraudCoverage: England and WalesDate: 09 May 2013Geographical Area: Local Authority and CountyTheme: Crime and Justice

Summary

Plastic card fraud in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is defined as using plasticcard payments (such as bank, debit, credit or store cards) to take money without the accountholder’s permission or prior knowledge from a bank or building society, or to charge money to acredit or debit card. The main findings from the 2011/12 CSEW show:

• The trend in plastic card fraud in the CSEW shows rises in the proportion of plastic card ownerswho were victims of plastic card fraud between the 2005/06 and 2008/09 surveys, with ratesof crime subsequently falling. Based on the 2011/12 CSEW 4.7% of plastic card owners werevictims of plastic card fraud in the last year, equivalent to around 2 million adults. This is downfrom the 5.2% reported in the 2010/11 CSEW and sees the proportion of card owners who werevictims of plastic card fraud return to levels last seen by the 2007/08 survey

• The pattern of plastic card fraud victimisation by age shows a peak in the middle age groups,with lower rates of victimisation in the youngest and oldest age groups. Those with higherincomes were more likely to fall victim than those with lower incomes. For example, 7.8% ofcard owners in households with an income of £50,000 or more were a victim of plastic cardfraud, compared with 3.2% of card owners in households earning under £10,000. Also, those inmanagerial and professional occupations were more likely to be victimised than those in othertypes of employment or the unemployed.

• Just over half of victims (51%) discovered the loss themselves, primarily through anunrecognised transaction on a card statement (42%). Forty six per cent of victims discovered theloss when they were contacted by a financial institution, for example to enquire about an unusualpattern of card use. Of victims who discovered the loss themselves, 11% reported it to the policeand 90% reported to the bank, building society or credit card company.

• Sixty-eight per cent of plastic card fraud victims said they did not incur any personal monetaryloss. This represents a significant change to the pattern found when the questions were firstincluded in the survey in 2007/08 when just half of victims incurred no monetary loss.

• Just under half (46%) of plastic card owners said that were very or fairly worried about being avictim of plastic card fraud (13% were very worried), levels of worry compared with the 2007/08CSEW showed a decrease of 9 percentage points.

The CSEW also asks whether respondents had money taken from their bank or building societyin some other way which involved their personal details being used without permission or prior

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 2

knowledge (for example a cheque being fraudulently cashed). The 2011/12 CSEW showed that 2%of adults were victims of other bank or building society account fraud, this is equivalent to around911,000 adults. This percentage has remained fairly stable since the question was introduced in the2007/08 CSEW.

Introduction

The offence of fraud is defined by the Fraud Act 2006 as dishonestly making a false representationto obtain property or money. Fraud covers a wide spectrum of criminal acts and affects organisationsas well as individuals. It is known to be under-reported to the police and difficult to measure using

a household survey1. Fraud has been committed for many years but advancing technology andspecifically the internet has brought about many new ways of committing fraud and has providednew opportunities for fraudsters to more easily target potential victims. For example, a single email

‘phishing’2 for personal data can be distributed to potentially affect thousands of victims in a matterof seconds. Unlike conventional crimes, fraud committed via cyber space is problematic to assign toa geographical territory. For example, while a victim may reside in the UK, the fraudster may havecommitted the crime abroad.

This chapter focuses on one type of fraud – plastic card fraud. The Crime Survey for Englandand Wales (CSEW) has included a module of questions which asked respondents about theirexperience of plastic card fraud since 2005/06. Plastic card fraud is defined in the survey as usingplastic payment cards (such as bank, debit, credit or store cards) to take money without the accountholder’s permission or prior knowledge from a bank or building society, or to charge money to acredit or debit card. Business account cards, fuel cards and Oyster cards are not included.

Incidents which involve the theft of a plastic card are included within the CSEW count of the relevantoffence category such as robbery, burglary or theft from the person, but subsequent fraudulent useof stolen cards is not included within the main crime count. One reason for excluding fraud offencesis that the survey is victim based and measures victimisation against households and individuals,whereas the cost of fraud offences is often borne by the commercial organisations (either the bank,building society or credit card company or the merchant whose goods or services were purchased).

This chapter looks at the extent of plastic card fraud victimisation alongside personal and householdcharacteristics of victims. Survey questions about the nature of victimisation relate to the mostrecent incident of plastic card fraud experienced by the victim. The chapter also looks at:

• The levels of worry about becoming a victim of plastic card fraud.• Perception of plastic card fraud.• Measures taken by card owners to avoid becoming a victim of plastic card fraud.• If victimised, satisfaction with the handling of the matter.• Victims of other bank or building society account fraud.

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 3

Notes

1. See User Guide Section 5.4 for more details.

2. Phishing refers to the act of sending an e-mail falsely claiming to be an established legitimateorganisation (such as a bank) in an attempt to scam the user into surrendering personalinformation, such as their account passwords, credit card and bank account details.

Card ownership and victimisation

The 2011/12 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showed that the majority (92%) ofadults owned a plastic card, equivalent to around 42 million adults. As expected there has beenan increase in levels of adults who own a plastic card since 2005/06 when the questions were

first introduced in the survey1 (83% or 36 million adults) and 2008/09 (89% or 40 million adults)(Appendix table 3.01 (829 Kb Excel sheet)).

As in previous years, levels of card ownership varied by age and socio-economic indicators(Appendix tables 3.02 and 3.03 (829 Kb Excel sheet)):

• Older people were less likely to own a plastic card; 82% of people aged 75 years and overowned a plastic card compared with 94% of 35 to 44 year olds.

• Card ownership amongst adults in economically inactive groups, such as those classifiedeconomically inactive due to illness (82%) and students (83%), showed lower levels whencompared with those who were in employment (96%).

• Those resident in households with lower incomes were less likely to own a plastic card; 83%of people in households earning less that £10,000 owned plastic cards compared with 98% ofpeople in households with an income of £50,000 or more.

The 2011/12 survey showed that 4.7% of plastic card owners were victims of card fraud in the lastyear, down from the 5.2% reported in the 2010/11 CSEW (Table 3.1). This is the second consecutivestatistically significant fall and sees the proportion of card owners who were victims of plastic cardfraud return to levels last seen in the 2007/08 survey. This pattern is consistent with the rise and fallin credit card fraud reported by industry sources over a similar time period (as discussed later - seebelow).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 4

Table 3.1: Number of plastic card owners who had been a victim of plastic card fraud andpercentage of card owners who were victims, 2005/06 to 2011/12

England and WalesNumbers/percentages

2011/12compared with:

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

Victimsof plasticcardfraud

% point changeand significance

Number 1,209,0001,357,0001,801,0002,521,0002,565,0002,132,0001,956,000

Percentage2 3.4 3.7 4.7 6.4 6.4 5.2 4.7 0.0 -0.5 *

Unweighted

base2

9,112 9,791

19,076

41,054

39,974

42,183

31,692

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Based on ownership of a plastic card.

Download table

XLS format(38 Kb)

As shown in Figure 3.1, an estimated 2 million adults were victims of plastic card fraud in the lastyear (according to the 2011/12 CSEW) around 24% lower than the peak numbers of around 2.5million found by the 2008/09 and 2009/10 surveys.

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 5

Figure 3.1: Number of plastic card owners who had been a victim of plastic card fraud,2005/06 to 2011/12

Notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format(32 Kb)

As described above, the number of adults who own a plastic card has grown over time and thusFigure 3.2 shows an indexed trend of both levels of plastic card ownership and victimisation.

The indexed trend serves to illustrate that the rise in the volume of victims of plastic card fraud wasnot merely a result of a growth in levels of ownership. Despite the steady increase of plastic cardownership, the trend in victimisation has seen a different pattern as the proportion of plastic cardfraud victims increased until 2008/09 where it flattened in 2009/10, followed by two consecutivestatistically significant decreases.

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 6

Figure 3.2: Indexed proportion of adults who own a plastic card and victims of plastic cardfraud, 2005/06 to 2011/12 (2005/06 CSEW = 100)

Notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format(18.5 Kb)

The ONS quarterly publication2 includes the headline figures on victims of plastic card fraud along

with the levels of financial loss reported by the UK Cards Association3. The recent decline in CSEWproportions of plastic card fraud is consistent with trends reported by the UK Cards Association.They reported plastic card fraud losses of £341 million for UK-issued cards in 2011, which was adecrease of 7% from £365 million reported for 2010, and a decrease of 44% from a peak of £610million recorded in 2008. This fall has occurred despite increases in plastic card usage and thenumber of transactions taking place.

The industry suggests that a combination of the use of fraud screening detection tools by retailers,banks and the cards industry, the introduction of chip and pin technology, enhanced user and

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 7

industry awareness and improved prevention and detection initiatives have led to the decrease in

plastic card fraud4.

Nevertheless, this level of plastic card victimisation remains significantly higher than the moreestablished acquisitive offences such as theft from the person and other theft of personal property(1.3% and 2.1% respectively, Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2012 – Bulletin tables2011-12, Table 15a).

According to the 2011/12 CSEW:

• 19% of victims said they had experienced two or more separate incidents of plastic card fraud(data not shown).

• Of those who were a victim of plastic card fraud, 18% were also a victim of other bank or buildingsociety account fraud (for example a cheque being fraudulently cashed) (data not shown).

• The victim’s card was actually stolen from them in only 6% of cases where money was takenfrom their account, a decrease of 3 percentage points compared with the 2007/08 CSEW (Table3.2).

Table 3.2: Percentage of plastic card fraud victims whose card was stolen from them beforeany money was taken from the account, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 comparedwith:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and

significance2,3

Cardstolenbeforemoney wastaken

9 8 5 6 6 -3 * 0

Unweightedbase

1,123 2,430 2,464 2,181 1,487

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.3. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding.

Download table

XLS format(37.5 Kb)

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 8

The 2011/12 CSEW also asked whether money had been taken from respondents’ bank or buildingsociety in some other way which involved their personal details being used without permissionor prior knowledge. For example this might include money which had been taken as a result of acheque being fraudulently cashed. The 2011/12 survey showed that 2% of adults were victims ofother bank or building society account fraud; this is equivalent to around 911,000 adults (Table 3.3).This percentage has remained fairly stable since the question was introduced in the 2007/08 CSEW.Further tables relating to other bank or building society account fraud are presented in Appendixtables 3.06 to 3.10 (829 Kb Excel sheet).

Table 3.3: Estimate and proportion of victims of other bank and building society accountfraud, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and WalesNumbers/percentages

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Victims ofother bank andbuilding societyaccount fraud

Number 877,000 885,000 915,000 942,000 911,000

Percentage2 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0

Unweightedbase

21,972 46,178 44,395 46,623 34,430

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Based on adults aged 16 and over.

Download table

XLS format(24 Kb)

Notes

1. In 2005/06 and 2006/07 the CSEW question on card use/ownership asked whether respondentshad used a card in the last 12 months. For 2007/08 onwards CSEW respondents were asked

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 9

whether they owned or used a card. As few adults own a card that they have not used in the last12 months, the findings are comparable over this period.

2. Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2012

3. The UK Cards Association collates data on credit card, debit card and online banking fraud.

4. More detailed information including a breakdown of plastic card fraud by type in the UK andabroad is available from the UK Cards Association.

Characteristics of plastic card fraud victims

As in previous years, the pattern of plastic card fraud victimisation of card owners by age showsa peak in the middle age groups, with lower rates of victimisation in the youngest and oldest agegroups. For example, the 2011/12 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showed that 6.1%of 45 to 54 year old card owners were victims of plastic card fraud compared with 3.1% of thoseaged 16 to 24 and 1.8% of those aged 75 and over. This general pattern was similar for both menand women but with victimisation peaking at an earlier age for women (Figure 3.3).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 10

Figure 3.3: Proportion of plastic card users who had been a victim of plastic card fraud byage and gender, 2011/12

Notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format(18.5 Kb)

Rates of plastic card fraud also varied depending on household and area characteristics. Forexample, the 2011/12 survey showed that (Appendix tables 3.04 & 3.05 (829 Kb Excel sheet)):

• 7.8% of card owners in households with an income of £50,000 or more were a victim of plasticcard fraud, compared with 3.2% of card owners in households earning under £10,000 (Figure3.4). This is a similar pattern to that seen for other types of crime.

• Card owners in households in the top 20% least deprived output areas1 were more likely to bea victim of plastic card fraud (6.7%) compared with those in households in the top 20% mostdeprived output areas (3.4%).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 11

• 6.4% of card owners in managerial and professional occupations were a victim of plastic cardfraud compared with those in routine and manual occupations (3.4%), full-time students (3.1%)and those that had never worked or were long-term unemployed (3%).

The above pattern may reflect greater usage of plastic cards by those in employment andparticularly those in higher paid occupations. These patterns are consistent with previous findingsfrom the survey.

Figure 3.4: Proportion of plastic card users who had been a victim of plastic card fraud byannual household income, 2011/12

Notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download chart

XLS format(18.5 Kb)

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 12

Card owners who had used the internet in the last 12 months had levels of victimisation twice ashigh as those who had not used the internet in the last 12 months (4.9% and 2.3% respectively)(Appendix table 3.04 (829 Kb Excel sheet)). Of those card owners that used the internet,victimisation was highest for everyday users (5.4%), with victimisation decreasing as frequency ofinternet reduces (data not shown).

Questions were not asked about the origin of the plastic card fraud incident (for example whetherit was a result of a card being used on the internet) as victims will generally not know whether thefraud originated from a particular transaction. It is therefore difficult to say whether the pattern ofvictimisation by internet usage suggests that the internet is a less safe environment for plastic carduse, or that those who use the internet more frequently are also more likely to generally use plasticcards more frequently in other locations, such as shop, bars, restaurants and petrol stations.

Notes

1. See User Guide chapter 7 for more details.

How the loss was discovered and reporting levels

How the loss was discovered

Victims of plastic card fraud were asked how they first came to realise that money had been takenout of their bank, building society or credit card account. Just over half of victims (51%) discoveredthe loss themselves, primarily through an unrecognised transaction on a card statement (42%).Forty six per cent of victims discovered the loss when they were contacted by a financial institution,for example to enquire about an unusual pattern of card use. In only 4% of cases respondents foundout about the fraudulent use of their card because their card was refused at point of purchase (Table3.4). This pattern is similar to previous years (Acquisitive crime and plastic card fraud: Findings fromthe 2008/09 British Crime Survey).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 13

Table 3.4: How victims of plastic card fraud realised they had lost money, 2011/12

England and Wales

percentages

Themselves 51

Unrecognised transaction or statement 42

Other 4

Card was refused 4

Contacted/told by financial institution 46

Another way 3

Police 0

Unweighted base 1,488

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Download table

XLS format(36.5 Kb)

Reporting levels and satisfaction

Findings from the 2011/12 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showed that 11% of

victims who discovered that they had been a victim of plastic card fraud themselves1 reported theincident to the police. Ninety per cent reported the plastic card fraud to their bank, building societiesor credit card company and only 5% did not report the incident to anyone (Table 3.5).

Around 9 in 10 adults reported the loss to a bank, building society or credit card company in all thesurvey years. Of those victims who discovered the loss themselves and reported to the police, 87%also reported the loss to their bank, building societies or credit card company (data not shown).Smaller numbers of adults reported the loss to the police in each of the last two years.

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 14

Table 3.5: Proportion of victims of plastic card fraud who reported the incident, 2007/08 to2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and significance2,3

Police 18 14 13 9 11 -7 * 1

Bank,buildingsociety,creditcardcompany

93 91 93 92 90 -3 -2

Someoneelse

3 3 3 2 6 3 * 3 *

No-one 4 4 4 6 5 1 0

Unweightedbase

626 1,340 1,319 1,160 766

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.3. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding.

Download table

XLS format(24.5 Kb)

In 2009/10 the National Fraud Authority launched Action Fraud, a national fraud reporting centre thatrecords incidents of fraud directly from the public by phone or internet. Action Fraud has begun totake over responsibility from the police for recording selected incidents of fraud, including bankingand payment related fraud. In 2010/11 five police force areas began directing fraud offences toAction Fraud. The remaining police forces in England and Wales all transferred responsibilities forrecording NFIB fraud offences by 31 March 2013. This could explain why the percentage of victimsreporting to the police has decreased in the 2011/12 CSEW compared with the 2007/08 CSEW andthe percentage of those reporting to some one else has increased in the 2011/12 CSEW comparedwith the 2010/11 CSEW.

Of those victims who discovered that they had been a victim of plastic card fraud themselves, thelevel of satisfaction with the way the matter was handled was higher for those reporting the incident

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 15

to banks, building societies and credit card companies (81% very or fairly satisfied) than for thosewho reported the incident to the police (60% very or fairly satisfied) (Table 3.6 and 3.7).

Satisfaction for reporting to banks, building societies and credit card companies has been stableover time whereas police satisfaction has seen a slight decrease over time, though this is notstatistically significant.

Satisfaction with the police may be lower as, since April 2007, the reporting procedures for plasticcard fraud changed as financial institutions became able to report the crime directly to a singlepoint of contact within the police, intending to make it easier for victims by reducing bureaucracy.However, it is possible that people may not have understood the rationale for the change andinterpreted it as the police not being interested.

Table 3.6: Satisfaction with the way the bank handled the matter2, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and significance3,4

Satisfied 80 80 82 80 81 1 1

Dissatisfied 17 18 16 19 18 1 -1

Tooearly tosay

3 2 2 1 1 -2 1

Unweightedbase

580 1,221 1,222 1,067 684

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Based on victims of plastic card fraud who discovered the loss themselves and subsequently reported the incident

to their bank, building society or credit card company; victims who were informed about the incident by their bank orthe police have been excluded from this analysis. A small number of respondents who found out about the incidentin 'some other way' were included.

3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding

Download table

XLS format(25 Kb)

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 16

Table 3.7: Satisfaction with the way the police handled the matter2, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and significance3,4

Satisfied 69 59 63 63 60 -9 -4

Dissatisfied 31 41 35 33 38 7 5

Tooearly tosay

0 1 2 4 3 3 -1

Unweightedbase

104 180 164 110 79

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Based on victims of plastic card fraud who discovered the loss themselves and subsequently reported the incident

to the police; victims who were informed about the incident by their bank or the police have been excluded from thisanalysis. A small number of respondents who found out about the incident in 'some other way' were included.

3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding

Download table

XLS format(25 Kb)

Notes

1. Victims who were informed about the incident by either their bank or the police have beenexcluded from the analysis. A small number of respondents (n=38) who found out about theincident in ‘another way’ were included.

Monetary losses and emotional impact

It is general practice that UK customers who lose money on their card without being negligentthemselves receive a refund of some or all of the money through their card supplier. The CrimeSurvey for England and Wales (CSEW) includes a question about monetary losses incurredby victims in which respondents are asked to exclude from their response any money that wassubsequently refunded by their bank, building society or credit card company. However they areasked to include any additional charges or costs they incurred as a result of the incident.

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 17

According to the 2011/12 survey, in the majority of incidents of plastic card fraud (68%) the victimincurred no monetary loss, 10% of victims lost £50 or less and 8% lost over £500. This representsa significant change to the pattern found when the questions were first included in the survey in2007/08 where just half of victims incurred no monetary loss, and 15% lost £500 or more (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8 Personal monetary losses2 of victims of plastic card fraud, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and significance3,4

None 50 56 65 64 68 17 * 4

Lessthan £50

8 10 8 10 10 1 0

£50 to£149

11 9 9 10 9 -2 -1

£150 to£499

16 11 9 9 6 -10 * -3

£500 ormore

15 14 9 8 8 -7 * 0

Unweightedbase

1,103 2,388 2,428 2,161 1,477

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Respondents were asked to exclude from their response any money that was subsequently refunded by their bank,

building society or credit card company.However they were asked to include any additional charges or costs thatincurred as a result of the incident.

3. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.4. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding.

Download table

XLS format(25.5 Kb)

Table 3.8 showed that between 2008/09 and 2009/10 the percentage of plastic card fraud victimswho had experienced no loss increased, while at the same time the percentage of victims whoseloss was over £500 decreased. This change roughly co-incides with the introduction of the PaymentServices Directive on 1 November 2009, a set of measures designed to protect banking consumersand increase transparency. This stipulates that where a transaction is found to be unauthorised, thepayment service provider (for example, banks) has an obligation to immediately refund the amount

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 18

of the transaction and, where applicable, restore the account to the state it would have been in hadthe transaction not happened. Explanations for those victims not receiving a full refund may be thatan administrative charge was applied, that the bank concluded that the card holder was negligent(for example, by giving their PIN details to others) or where the bank and the cardholder disagreedon whether the transaction was fraudulent.

As might be expected those who lost the most money were the most emotionally affected by theincident; 27% of victims of plastic card fraud who lost more than £500 said they were ‘very much’affected compared with 14% who lost less than £50 (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9: Monetary loss and emotional impact for victims of plastic card fraud, 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

Very much Quite a lot Just a little

None 7 17 75

Less than £50 14 14 72

£50 to £149 19 21 61

£150 to £499 16 33 51

£500 or more 27 36 37

Average 11 20 69

Unweighted base 163 297 1,017

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download table

XLS format(36.5 Kb)

Measures taken to avoid details being obtained

Additional questions are also asked to obtain more information about the crime prevention behaviourof people who use plastic cards. Respondents were shown a list of typical precautions and asked tomention any that applied to them.

Ninety-six per cent of card owners said they took at least one of the measures asked about to avoidtheir bank, building society or credit card account details being obtained by someone else. Themost commonly mentioned were regularly checking transactions on bank statements (78%) anddestroying financial documents (76%). Other commonly mentioned methods included shieldingthe PIN number when being entered at cash points or in shops (61%), using computer securitymeasures such as firewalls or anti-virus software (54%) and not keeping a record of the PIN numberwith the card (50%). However, only a relatively small proportion of card owners said they changedtheir PIN numbers regularly (6%). Findings suggest that precautions taken by those who had been

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 19

victims of plastic card fraud did not show a notable change after victimisation compared with before(Table 3.10).

Table 3.10: Measure taken to prevent someone obtaining card details, 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

Plastic card fraud victims

All plastic cardowners

Before victimisation After victimisation

Regularly checktransactions on bankstatements

78 83 84

Shred/burn/destroyfinancial documents

76 73 74

Shield PIN number atcash points/in shops/etc.

61 67 64

Use computer securitymeasures

54 68 63

Keep record of PINnumber separately fromcard

50 54 52

Check if cash point hasbeen tampered with

43 51 50

Only purchase itemsfrom secure websites

41 53 49

Keep card in view whenpaying in restaurants,etc.

36 41 44

Taken out insuranceagainst loss of cards/card fraud

20 23 22

Avoid purchasing itemson internet

17 9 11

Only use a credit cardrather than a debit cardonline

16 23 23

Only use cash pointsthat are inside

12 9 10

Never use cash points 9 5 6

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 20

Plastic card fraud victims

All plastic cardowners

Before victimisation After victimisation

Frequently change PINnumber

6 7 10

Have a separate cardfor online purchases

6 9 10

None of these 4 3 3

Some other type ofprecaution

1 1 3

Unweighted base 31,698 1,489 1,489

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.

Download table

XLS format(34.5 Kb)

Perception and worry about plastic card fraud

Perception of plastic card fraud

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) asks respondents questions about theirperception of plastic card fraud and if they think the level of it has been going up or down in the pastfew years. According to the 2011/12 CSEW, 88% of adults thought that plastic card fraud had goneup a lot or a little (63% think it has gone up a lot, data not shown) compared with 3% who thought ithad gone down a lot or a little (Table 3.11).

This compares with a smaller proportion of adults who felt that crime overall was rising; 66% ofadults thought levels of overall crime had gone up a little or a lot over the past few years (CrimeSurvey for England and Wales, year ending March 2012 – Annual trend and demographic tables2011-12, Table D26).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 21

Table 3.11: Percentage of adults who think plastic card fraud has gone up or down over thepast few years, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2008/09 2009/10

% point change and significance2,3

Gone upa lot or alittle

n/a 89 91 n/a 88 -2 * -3 *

Stayedaboutthesame

n/a 9 7 n/a 9 0 2 *

Gonedown alot or alittle

n/a 2 2 n/a 3 1 * 2 *

Unweightedbase

n/a 11,895 14,826 n/a 21,832

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.3. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding.

Download table

XLS format(24.5 Kb)

Worry about plastic card fraud

Questions also explore how worried people are about being a victim of plastic card fraud. Just underhalf (46%) of plastic card owners said that they were very or fairly worried about being a victim ofcard fraud (13% were very worried, data not shown) (Table 3.12).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 22

Table 3.12: Percentage of plastic card owners who were very or fairly worried about being avictim of plastic card fraud, 2007/08 to 2011/12

England and Walespercentages

2011/12 compared with:

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2007/08 2010/11

% point change and significance2,3

Very/fairlyworried

55 53 50 46 46 -9 * 0

Unweightedbase

12,243 41,063 39,980 42,192 31,698

Table notes:1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.2. Statistically significant change at the 5% level is indicated by an asterisk.3. The percentage point change presented in the tables may differ from subtraction of the two percentages due to

rounding.

Download table

XLS format(25 Kb)

The levels of worry shown in the 2011/12 CSEW were similar to the previous year’s survey, thoughcompared with earlier surveys a decline is observed. Levels of worry compared with the 2007/08CSEW showed a decrease of 9 percentage points. This could be due to the advanced technologyand security now used and people having more confidence in the payment and security systemsor their experience of vicarious victimisation where there is a general fall in victimisation amongthemselves, families and friends.

Worry about being a victim of plastic card fraud was much higher than for other crime types, e.g.14% of people were very or fairly worried about violent crime, 11% were very or fairly worried aboutburglary and 10% about car crime according the 2011/12 CSEW (Crime Survey for England andWales, year ending March 2012 – Annual trend and demographic tables 2011-12, Table D32).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the level of worry for those who had been victims of plastic card fraud in the12 months prior to interview was higher than that for those who had not been a victim in the previous12 months (58% and 45% respectively).

Card owners in the middle age groups were most worried about plastic card fraud (and were alsothe most likely to be victimised). For example, 51% of card owners aged 45 to 54 were worriedabout card fraud compared to 32% of those aged over 75 years and 35% of 16 to 24 year olds. Also,employed adults were more worried about plastic card fraud (48%) compared with economicallyinactive students (34%) (Appendix table 3.04 (829 Kb Excel sheet)).

09 May 2013

Office for National Statistics | 23

Contrary to pattern of victimisation, those card owners in households with higher incomes (£50,000or more) had the same levels of worry as those in households earning £20,000 to £50,000(Appendix table 3.05 (829 Kb Excel sheet)).

Card owners who had used the internet in the last 12 months had higher levels of worry than thosewho had not (43% and 38% respectively) (Appendix table 3.04 (829 Kb Excel sheet)).

Background notes

1. If you have any queries regarding crime statistics for England and Wales please emailcrimestatistics@ons.gsi.gov.uk.

2. Details of the policy governing the release of new data are available by visitingwww.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/code-of-practice/index.html or from the MediaRelations Office email: media.relations@ons.gsi.gov.uk

The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, inaccordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance withthe Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:

• meet identified user needs;• are well explained and readily accessible;• are produced according to sound methods; and• are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.

Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that theCode of Practice shall continue to be observed.

Copyright

© Crown copyright 2013

You may use or re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any formator medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visitwww.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team,The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

This document is also available on our website at www.ons.gov.uk.