Booking.com scams are on the rise: Here's how to avoid them
It is one of the biggest online travel agencies, which since 2007 has been responsible for more than three billion bookings. It's a one-stop-shop for booking flights, hotels and rental apartments, attractions and transport.
What scams have been happening?
There have been a number of very convincing scams concerning hotel or apartment/villa rental bookings which are on the increase as holidays loom.
How do they work?
Hackers obtain details of hotels' and rental companies' accounts on Booking.com. They then email customers who have legitimately booked to stay in these locations via the Booking.com website, and demand that they must urgently make a payment (first or final instalment) or give credit card details or be at risk of losing their booking. Typically, if users have paid a deposit or first instalment, Booking.com will have saved their payment details in order to fulfil further payments on an agreed date.
[
Banks warn customers to be vigilant over holiday scams
Opens in new window
]
The scammers will have precise information about a customer's booking, including dates of the stay or reservation number, and when a payment is due, so these emails can be very convincing. The same messages will also appear in the direct messaging function on the Booking.com app, that customers use to talk directly to rental companies or hotels. The bogus messages will typically include an external link prompting the victim to a dupe payment page where the scammers can take money directly from the victim's account.
Who has fallen victim to this scam?
It has been an ongoing issue, but based on anecdotal and online accounts, incidents are on the increase. Notably, in January of this year, the consumer rights champion Brendan Burgess, founder of askaboutmoney.com, fell victim to such a scam.
Bogus messages will typically include an external link prompting victims to a dupe payment page where the scammers can take money directly from an account.
How can I avoid getting scammed?
If you have booked with Booking.com and receive an email or an in-app message telling you that you must pay up right away or you are at risk of losing your reservation, be suspicious. If you receive any messages that you find suspicious, call the hotel directly and ask them to verify the message you have been sent. Never click on an external link that is trying to take you away from the Booking.com website – this will be scammers trying to take you to a dupe payment page to capture your banking information.
What does Booking.com say?
If you are in doubt about a seemingly bona fide message from the site, you should contact Booking.com's customer service team (easier said than done) and/or the accommodation provider directly.
Be suspicious of links you are sent. Genuine payments will be made on the Booking.com app or website only.
Look out for common fraud tactics and giveaways. 'Scam messages often include urgent language and may contain spelling or grammar errors,' Booking.com says.
If you have put your card details into a site, call your card provider. You may need to block or cancel your card.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on EU climate targets: vital to avoid backsliding
The European Commission finally announced on July 2nd that it would retain the target of a 90 per cent CO2 reduction by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This is a positive development as there had been fears that there would be backsliding on the headline target amid pushback from some member states. However, the Commission's latest set of proposals included a compromise that has attracted much criticism from environmental campaigners. Following intense lobbying, the commission announced new 'flexibilities' that would help member states reach their obligations. The most controversial of these is the proposal that from 2036, member states can use carbon credits to reach their overall target. Carbon credits is a system whereby countries can invest in carbon offsetting programmes in developing countries and include the reduction for domestic use. Critics of the measure claim that it will divert much needed investment from the EU to the developing world, which will result in member states rolling back on their decarbonisation efforts. It should be noted, however, that as it stands, member states can only use carbon credits for 3 percent of their reduction efforts. While it is a fudge, its overall impact will be limited. The package must to be signed off by all EU member states by September 19th. The Czech Republic, Italy and Hungary, want more compromises on the 90 per cent reduction target. READ MORE Meanwhile, it emerged last week that the Patriots for Europe, a far-right grouping in the European Parliament, will take the lead in the parliament's response to the legislation, which will be deliberated this autumn. This has prompted concerns that there will be further 'flexibilities' before the EU's final package is agreed. Broadly, the argument among sceptical member states and European Parliamentary groupings is that because Donald Trump has dropped America's climate change commitments, on the basis that they were a threat to economic growth, this will undermine the EU's competitiveness. This is an entirely spurious argument. The devastating effects of climate change are becoming more frequent. It is the biggest threat to long term economic growth and prosperity. Any backsliding on commitments now to reduce the CO2 levels will have incalculable future costs. The good news is that the EU is on track to reduce its CO2 emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2040. But there is a significant disparity between member states. Ireland is among the worst performing , as the latest figures from the EPA show that the country is on course for a 23 per cent CO2 reduction by 2030. Just as it is incumbent upon the EU to retain its 90 per cent 2040 reduction target, it is also crucial that each member state, including Ireland, abides by its legally binding commitments.
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
Does it make sense to hold onto my husband's bank shares and his stockbroker account?
I know that you have done your best to try to explain the misery that befell many of us when the banks were taken over by the Government. But some of us are remedial and still don't quite understand where we now stand. My late husband worked in AIB and had his life's savings in AIB shares. (For safety he diversified into equally 'safe' BOI shares!). I recall that, before the crash, his AIB shares were worth about €450,000. They were held with Goodbody's . I don't know why. My December 2024 statement states that, as of now, I have close to €25,000 invested roughly evenly across the two big banks. READ MORE Last month, I paid an annual charge of €701,61 to Goodbody's (Cumulative Effect of Costs and Charges on Returns), of which €501,61 was in non-Goodbody charges My questions are as follows: Should I close this account with Goodbodys since I have never done – and don't plan to do – any trading. Is there any point in hanging on to these shares in the hope that, when the banks are making millions again, they might feel sorry for those of us who lost everything and offer some kind of compensation? In fairness, AIB continues to pay my widow's pension. Ms J.R. The first rule in making sense of investments is understanding what you are paying for the opportunity of gain. Charges can fundamentally affect your return so it is important to get a proper fix on them. I get the sense you're not too sure why you are paying the amount you are paying Goodbody's to manage this portfolio of shares and cash. I've spoken to Goodbodys who, no more than their rivals, can be difficult o tie down on the question of fees. To their credit, they have suggested you contact them directly so that they can walk you through exactly what the charges are and for what service. As usual, I have not given any of your identifying details to them as I did not have your explicit permission to do so but they tell me they have offered an experienced person on standby to deal with you directly on this matter. I'll pass those details on to you. Charges aside, there are a couple of big issues here. First, should you hold on to the shares and second, should you continue to hold an account with Goodbody's or any other broker? Let's take those in reverse order. You have kind of answered the second question with your assertion that since your husband died and you inherited these shares, you have never done – and do not plan to do – any trading. There is no obligation to hold your shares through a broker although you will need to engage a broker should you ever decide to sell them. These days, shares are 'dematerialised'. This means that any paper share certificates you hold – which used to be the legal proof of ownership – are now worthless. Instead, details of your shareholdings are held in electronic form by the 'registrar', the company that manages the list of shareholders for each of these banks. In this case, a company called Computershare is share registrar for both banks. You can keep track of your shares and any dealings in them by registering with Computershare here for access to their online investor centre. You'll need very basic details – your unique shareholder reference number for each shareholding – which you should be able to find on communications from the companies, or from Goodbody. The key thing here is that you do not need to hold your shares through a stockbroker and, if you are not trading in shares, it makes little sense to be paying annual charges for the privilege – never mind over €700. Based on the current value of your account, as outlined in your query, the Goodbody's annual charge amounts to over 2.75 per cent, which certainly strikes me as very high, especially for an account with no activity. I cannot think of an explanation Goodbody's could provide that would make this a sensible proposition for you. Unless you plan to sell the shares now given you already appear to be paying Goodbody for the service, I would pull the plug on the Goodbody account and keep track of the shares through the Computershare Investor Centre. If you do want to sell later, you can always 'shop the market' to see who will sell them for you at the lowest charge. That brings us to the other issue – should you hold on to these shares at all? As an AIB lifer, it is not entirely surprising – if not exactly sensible – that he invested heavily n the bank's shares. Back then, he may have been able to do so at preferential rates or through some employee share programme. He was correct that it made sense to diversify given the concentration of his investment. I have no idea if he took advice at that time but the notion of diversifying from having all your investments in one bank stock by investing in the State other large listed back was mad even back then. All his eggs were still in the banking basket and we all know what happened there. People like your husband saw their savings effectively go up in smoke. In AIB's case, quite apart from the bank bailout that saw the value of his shareholding crash, he also went through the one for 250 share consolidation in 2015 that knocked a further 75 per cent of the value of his savings. In the case of Bank of Ireland, in 2017, it gave shareholder one new share for every 30 previously held but, of course, it too saw the value of existing investors' shareholdings decimated by the post-crash bailout. Given the number of shares your husband, and now you, hold in both banks, it is clear his investment in both was significant. You do not say when you inherited these shares which is a key point. Any investment gains (or in his case losses) die with a shareholder. So when you inherited the shares, their base value will be whatever they were worth at that time. The losses your husband suffered are, unfortunately, irrelevant. Assuming you inherited some time since late 2010, you are actually in profit on both those shares right now – albeit a long way of recovering the sort of level they traded at when your husband had them before the crash. So if you do sell, and assuming your gain is more than €1,270, as I assume it will be, you will be paying capital gains tax at 33 per cent on those 'profits'. I'm not a share analyst, nor a qualified financial adviser, so I cannot say what you might expect these shares to do in the future, though it is fair to say that most analysts see some upside for both as the State has now exited their bailout investment despite cuts in European Central Bank interest rates that have padded their profits in recent years. The bigger question is whether you are comfortable with stock market investments in individual shares. Even if you are, it would be advisable to consider proper diversification – something you might discuss with Goodbody when you meet them and before you make any decision to close that account. Whatever you do, I would certainly not bank of either lender offering any compensation to the shareholders it gutted during the crash, now that they are back to earning millions of euro. They may say how sorry they are for what happened – and have done – but they're not that sorry. And, to be fair to them, that is the nature of stock market investment. It carries risk – hence the good sense in diversification – and when things go wrong, shareholders will find themselves at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to people being taken care of. That is the reality of shareholder investment. Investing in Ireland's banks used to be considered almost as good as investing in government bonds, with dividend income as icing on the cake. The crash reminded us not to take such things for granted. And much and all as investors must take responsibility for their own risk, I would not be giving AIB any credit for paying your widow's pension. That is part of the Ts & Cs of your husband's occupational pension scheme - not some munificence on the part of the bank. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Irish Times
Don't believe the myth: Britain's services industry has been hit hard by Brexit
One by one the supposed pillars of the economic argument for Brexit have been knocked away by the realities. Far from being shackled to a corpse, as some Brexiteers described the European Union economy, both the euro zone and the EU have grown faster than the UK since the 2016 referendum. Britain's goods exports have slumped compared with the rest of the G7. 'Look at services,' Brexiteers cry. Their export growth has been exceptional, according to Policy Exchange, the right-of-centre think-tank. The Office for Budget Responsibility also noted a year ago that UK services trade growth had been the strongest in the G7. Should the UK be happy that its trade in services has performed well? Was this the result of Brexit? The short answers are 'no' and 'no'. Instead it should be annoyed that services exports did not grow even more, and blame Brexit for this disappointment, according to new research from the London School of Economics. READ MORE Before explaining the findings, it is important to note that although the UK economy has many weaknesses, services are a strength. While television crews will always want to picture industries such as manufacturing or fishing to visually describe what makes a country wealthy, this is not relevant to 80 per cent of Britain's economic activity. The UK's success lies in its lawyers, information providers, creative types, management consultants and educators. A handful of universities generate more export income than the entire fishing industry, for example. [ Post-Brexit export drive hampered by UK trade finance regulations, ICC warns Opens in new window ] Unusually for any economy, UK services exports exceed those of goods and not by a trivial amount – almost 40 per cent higher in 2024, with the gap widening. The OBR noticed, however, that not all of the UK's services exports appeared equally strong. Business services including management consultancy and research and advertising – where Brexit barriers were small or nonexistent – were growing strongly. Other services did not perform nearly as well, including finance and transport, where the barriers erected by leaving the single market were significant. But the fiscal watchdog left its analysis hanging. The Juggle: the issues facing women with young children when balancing childcare and their careers Listen | 44:30 Picking up the baton has been left to LSE team economists Shania Bhalotia, Swati Dhingra and Danyal Arnold. Using data that allowed comparison of the growth in services trade across different sectors and between a large number of pairs of countries, they examined how strong UK services exports were in each sector compared with all other countries. They also meticulously examined the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement to document which services exports into the EU faced new barriers after the post-Brexit deal came into effect in 2021. The results are stark. The OBR was right to note that UK services exports facing new Brexit barriers appeared to perform worse. UK exports to countries with greater barriers were hit much harder. Where the most extreme barriers were introduced, services exports fell 90 per cent. [ Brexit was 'single stupidest thing a country's ever done' Opens in new window ] On average there was a 16 per cent drop in services exports to the EU in sectors where Brexit imposed new trade frictions compared with bilateral trade between other countries in the same sectors. Did Brexit allow British companies to focus on trade with the US and other countries? Again, the answer was 'no'. Overall, the research found that UK services exports five years after Brexit were 4-5 per cent lower than they would have been without the effect of new trade frictions. In a nation that struggles to accept its relative economic decline since Brexit, the UK has been far too quick to celebrate the better performance of services. Instead of showing that Brexit might have some benefits, it simply shows that the UK had specialised in the right industries at the right time, allowing many world-class companies to sell globally. Rather than generate 'global Britain', leaving the EU has had one simple effect: economic harm. Without Brexit, they would have done even better. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
