Jump to content

goodwill

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by goodwill

  1. some background information.

     

    Crooks obtain International Revenue Share Numbers (IRSN). These are ordinary international numbers that are being used in the same way as 09 UK premium rate numbers are used. When the IRSN are called the crooks (and Orange) will receive a share of the revenue.

     

    The 'fraud window' for the crooks to generate revenue is from when the phone is stolen till when the phone is reported stolen and Orange disconnects it. To increase the revenue the crooks use conference call technology. They call several IRSN's simultaneously.

     

    this explains how it works.

    http://bswan.org/revenue_share_fraud.asp#.Uf0pw9K-pcb

     

    this would be my advice.

     

    Firstly do not pay Orange a penny of this money (Proceeds of Crime).

     

    Pay what you normally pay and put in writing that you are disputing the fraudulent part of the bill.

     

    Go to the police (with the bill) and report it as an attempt to steal money from your bank account. Ask their advice and they will almost certainly advice you not to pay the bill.

     

    Contact your local MP and get them on your side. It's important you make the police and your MP understand your case is not an isolated incident.

     

    Contact the press with your story

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?396171-Barcelona-Stolen-Phones-Fraudulent-Bills-Networks-waive-charges-after-Press-interst(26-Viewing)-nbsp

     

     

    Orange Terms and Conditions State that you are liable for all calls up to when you notify them that the phone has been stolen. To my knowledge these terms have never been tested in court.

  2. some background.

     

    The company behind LottobyText was Marketing Craze Limited.

     

    On 06 December 2012 they were fined by the Regulator (PhonepayPlus) £250,000 and ordered to refund all complainants.

     

    PhonepayPlus don't allow links but here it is.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58055745&postcount=14

     

    Marketing Craze recently changed their name to Bitstacker Limited.

     

    On 2nd July PhonepayPlus launched an Emergency procedure against Bitstacker.

    http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2013/7/Emergency-procedures-initiated-2-July-2013.aspx

     

    Emergency procedure investigation

    2 July 2013

     

    PhonepayPlus, the UK regulator for premium rate telephone services, has launched an Emergency procedure investigation under paragraph 4.5 of its Code of Practice (Twelfth Edition) (the Code), following internal monitoring conducted by PhonepayPlus. This monitoring evidenced affiliate marketing that appeared to utilise a form of malware known as ransomware to lock consumers’ internet browsers and force them to interact with online offers which directed them to the Level 2 provider, Bitstacker Limited’s “lottobytext” subscription service(s).

    Bitstacker Limited has been identified as the Level 2 provider responsible for the service. A Tribunal will decide whether the service is in breach of the Code as soon as is reasonably possible after PhonepayPlus has received a response from the Level 2 provider to its Emergency procedure breach notice, which is to be sent to Bitstacker Limited in due course. The service has now been suspended pending conclusion of the investigation and a decision by the Tribunal.

    In the meantime, other providers are reminded that enabling this service, or any other services that operate in a similar way, may result in breaches being raised against them.

     

    Update to Emergency procedure investigation against Bitstacker Limited published on 2 July 2013

    Update published 4 July 2013

     

    Following the instigation of the Emergency procedure, Bitstacker Limited (Bitstacker) requested a review of the use of the procedure in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3(b) of the Code. The Tribunal considered Bitstacker’s written and oral submissions in relation to the grounds on which it asserted that the Emergency procedure should not have been used and, in the alternative, that access to the service shortcodes should no longer be prevented and all withheld monies released. During the course of informal representations Bitstacker withdrew its assertion that the Emergency procedure should not have been used and agreed that its use had been appropriate.

    Having considered all the information before it including the particular nature of the service, the Tribunal decided that the Emergency procedure should continue pending completion of the normal Emergency procedure process, but concluded that in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3© that access to Bitstacker’s service shortcodes should be permitted, subject to the following conditions:

    The Level 2 provider is to immediately cease all promotion of the service through online affiliate marketing of any form or description;

    The Level 2 provider is to forthwith provide written confirmation to PhonepayPlus that it has ceased all promotion of the service through online affiliate marketing and provide an undertaking that it will not promote any part of the service using online affiliate marketing until such time as a determination has been made by a Tribunal on the substantive case;

    Access to the service shortcodes may only resume once the Level 2 provider has provided evidence that its use of all online affiliate marketing has ceased, to the satisfaction of the PhonepayPlus Executive;

    If PhonepayPlus reasonably suspects that the service is being promoted through online affiliate marketing prior to the Tribunal determination, PhonepayPlus may direct the Level 1 provider to immediately terminate access to all service shortcodes.

    The Tribunal also decided, in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3© of the Code that the Level 1 provider should be directed to cease to retain all monies in excess of £250,000 held by it under PhonepayPlus’ direction. The Level 1 provider is to continue to retain the sum of £250,000 in accordance with PhonepayPlus’ direction.

     

    You should make an official complaint to PhonepayPlus and contact Bitstacker again for a full refund (or something that approaches a full refund).

    • Confused 1
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298750/Recruitment-worker-23-left-21-000-phone-thief-uses-stolen-mobile-premium-rate-spending-spree.html

     

    25 March 2013

     

    A recruitment worker whose phone was stolen while she was on holiday is facing a £21,000 bill.

     

    Vodafone initially offered to reduce Miss Harris' bill by £1,500 as a ‘goodwill gesture

     

    The 23-year-old realised her phone had been taken when she arrived back in Britain after a trip to Barcelona.

     

    Records show the thief had used the phone for several conference calls to premium rate international numbers from 7.52am on the day it was lost.

     

    A spokesman said: ‘This is a very unusual case

     

    ‘However, this phone seems to have been used as part of a deliberate and organised crime which we will be investigating.

    ‘In this case, we will waive all of the charges raised by this fraud.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10146634/My-1000-Vodafone-bill-for-a-lost-mobile.html

     

    'A £1000 Vodafone bill when I lost my mobile'

    28 6 13

     

    One reader was told to foot the bill when fraudsters got hold of his Sim. took on the telecoms giant. When Jon Barrett lost his uninsured iPhone on holiday in Barcelona,

     

    "We make it clear in our terms and conditions that the customer is responsible for all charges on a lost or stolen phone up to the point that he or she reports it to us."

     

    A spokesman said: "We've looked again at Mr Barrett's case and it seems that, rather than a straightforward case of fraudulent usage, this could be part of an organised [problem]. On that basis, we've waived all the charges. We're sorry that we missed this initially, but it is an extremely rare occurrence."

    So my advice would be to properly dispute these bills in writing and if necessary to contact your MP and the Press

     

    This is how it works.

     

    Fraudsters obtain International Revenue Share Numbers (IRSN). They are normal international numbers that are used in the same way as UK 09 numbers are used.

     

    They then steal phones and use the SIM's to to call their IRSN's. Very often to maximize the revenue from the fraud window they will use the SIM to make 'conference' calls to several IRSN's simultaneously.

     

    The following article explains how the fraud works with SIM's that are stolen in the UK and taken abroad and what the Networks are (not) doing to combat it.

    http://bswan.org/revenue_share_fraud.asp#.UdcWaju-pcb

  4. http://bswan.org/revenue_share_fraud.asp#.UaKSpNK-pcZ

     

    November 2012

     

    The basic GSMA roaming agreement for example, which is bilaterally agreed between two operators says that the originating operator must pay for all calls originating from his network — whether it is fraud or not.

     

    ..........

    IRSF (International Revenue Share Fraud) is a huge problem that the industry finds difficult to manage. Unless we start getting some localized legislation in countries to stop the money flow, it will continue to be difficult to manage. Stop the money and you stop the problem.

    In my view, the operator shouldn’t be paying money when they know that at the end of the payment chain, a percentage of this is going to get into the hands of fraudsters. In my view, this money is the proceeds of crime and payment could constitute money laundering.

     

    from the previous head of Fraud Management at the Vodafone Group who left the post a few months ago.

    the above article is a must read for anybody who wants to understand how the industry is being allowed to defraud the customers.

    and this

    http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/finance/work-cost-tariffs/events/tariff-seminars/Geneva-OriginID/pdf/Session5_Maxwell_GSMA_v3.pdf

     

    the only protection the customer has would be to dispute the bill and wait for the Network to take you to court. I have not seen a single case where they risked doing this.

  5. I decided to put my son on a Monthly SIm only contract on his phone as he was topping it up to £20-£30 a month and I got one for £11.50 from T Mobile.

     

    I have just got the bill and he has been charge £27.30 for text messages from a lottery syndicate where they had been charging upto £5 per text.

     

    He is 11

     

    I asked him what happened and he said he tried to download some wallpaper on his laptop and a page came up that he couldnt close until he entered his mobile number. Being naieve he did and thats when it started.

    http://www.lottobytext.co.uk/

     

    I believe the above is the company looking at the texts.

    To be honest, I wont be asking for a refund as a goodwill gesture as he is 11.

    Marketing Craze Limited/lottobytext uses affiliate marketers to promote their service and acquire new 'customers'(mobile phone numbers). Marketing Craze pays their affiliates for each customer they acquire.

     

    As far as I understand UK consumer Law there is no legal agreement between you and Marketing Craze. Irrespective of your son's age somebody entering your mobile phone number on the internet does not constitute a legal sales agreement.

     

    On 06 December 2012 Marketing Craze/Lottobytext was fined £250,000 for this type of swindle.

    http://www.phonepayplus-services.org.uk/output/search-adjudications.aspx

  6. David,

     

    I really do believe that in many cases people like you are being robbed by the NetworKs. You may want to look into this deeper.

     

    When you say 'international calls' it's possible these calls are not genuine international calls. They may be 'premium rate calls' that are using international numbers that have been set aside for that purpose. If they are then they are 'revenue share' numbers that Orange is profiting from.

     

    The crook that stole your phone and called the numbers will be the same person that 'owns' the numbers.

     

    If the calls show abnormal call patterns that indicates they were being made to generate Artificial Inflated Traffic (AIT) then Orange will have clauses in their carrier interconnect billing agreements to not pass on this revenue and even 'claw back' any revenue that has already been paid.

     

    There is absolutely no reason why you or Orange or anybody should have to be out of pocket due to this kind of criminal activity.

     

    Could you post the numbers that were called and the times and durations.

  7. 78878

     

    http://www.phonepayplus-services.org.uk/output/search-adjudications.aspx

     

    10 November 2011

    Information provider txtNation Limited

    Service provider OpenMarket Limited

     

    CASE REFERENCE: 01224

     

    THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INFORMATION PROVIDER

     

    (i) The Complaints

     

    Over the period from April 2010 to 6 September 2011 (together with one earlier complaint received in August 2009), PhonepayPlus received a total of 53 complaints in relation to the GP Service ‘gangparadise.com’. Of these complaints, 11 related to minors, including one disabled minor.

     

    and the Regulator (and Networks) are still fielding complaints and agreeing to do business with this 'company'

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/78878/12

    this may be of particular interest

    79555

     

    16 August 2012

    Information provider Connect Ltd (t/a SMSBill)

    Service provider Tribecton Trading Limited, NTH AG, txtNation Limited and OpenMarket Limited

     

    Having taken into account the aggravating factors, the Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the case should be regarded overall as very serious.

     

    Sanctions Imposed

     

    Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided to impose the following sanctions:

     

    • A formal reprimand;

    • A fine of £50,000;

    • A requirement for the Level 2 provider to submit all premium rate services to PhonepayPlus for prior permission for two years; and,

    A requirement that the Level 2 provider make refunds, within three months, to all consumers who have used the service for the full amount spent, regardless of whether or not they have claimed a refund. Refunds should be directly credited to the users’ mobile accounts and the Level 2 provider must provide evidence to PhonepayPlus that the refunds have been made.

    hopefully you will be able to obtain a re refund for 79555 with not to much bother. Also ask Vodafone to put a Premium Rate Bar on your son's account (it does exist but you have to ask and insist).

    Thank you.

     

    This is my reference number #9830056.

  8. Avoid traffic to Sierra Leone 7 from same CLI

    March 24,2009

    Dear partners

     

    due to complains from Sierra Leone 7 traffic we ask you to not send too many minutes to the same SL number from the same CLI.

    As always if possible the best way is to hide CLI or at least to spread the calls over a large amount of numbers.

     

    If you need more numbers please do not hesitate to ask.

    Traffic from ITALY to EAST TIMOR and SAO TOME is forbidden

    March 24,2009

    Dear partners

    please DO NOT send traffic from ITALY to EAST TIMOR and SAO TOME

    Carrier got some complains from Italian mobile operators and is now investigating.

    For everybody's safety we kindly ask you to not send ITALIAN traffic to such terminations till further advice from our staff.

     

    Thanks for understanding

    Sierra Leone (ALL) delay of payment

    April 15,2009

    Dear partners

     

    We just got informed from carrier that all Sierra Leone payments will be delayed of about one week / two weeks therefore we will be have to adapt ourselves to this delay accordingly.

     

    We will give you more news about payments release asap.

     

    You are free to keep sending traffic to Sierra Leone but you will have to accept this payment delay

    Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for understanding.

    Clarifications on payouts

    April 19,2009

    Dear partner

     

    we would like to inform, or just remind you, that our payments are done only after traffic confirmation from the carrier statistics since their payout to us is based on them.

     

    Our reports, as statistics or active calls, are purely indicative, since many factors can affect our realtime reports.

     

    Nonetheless, we think that it's very important for you to see how traffic is going: see CLIs, time of call, volumes and so on.

     

     

    Finally, the chargebacks claimed by the carreir have also to be reversed back to you since we are obliged by contract to pay back the carrier in case of fraud traffic.

     

    Chargebacks claimed by the carrier have to be proved, then we will supply the same proof to you as well.

     

    Any comment is welcome.

     

    We wish you a long and prosperous cooperation with us.

    [problem] ALERT : SAO TOME + EAST TIMOR Beware!

    April 24,2009

    DEAR PARTNERS

     

    Sao Tome Carrier is doing huge chargebacks without showing proof.

     

    They are retroactive since november 2008!

     

    We removed ALL Sao Tome numbers from our pool and we strongly recommend you to not use any Sao Tome / East Timor from other sources for your own safety.

    Sierra Leone payments update - 50% PAID TODAY!

    April 28,2009

    Dear Partners

     

    We are paying today 50% of all the withheld Sierra Leone payments till April 22.

     

    We will inform you when the remaining part will be paid as soon as we get informations from the carrier.

    Sierra Leone payment 50% April due in the next couple of days

    June 3,2009

    Dear partners

     

    today or tomorrow we will received the missing 50% of Sierra Leone payment from carrier for April period.

     

    As soon as the money touch our account we will remit your due to you

    The above are a sample of typical news bulletins from a well known legitimate international premium rate number supplier.

     

    So leaving aside what the above comments are referring to it's a complete myth to say the Networks will lose out if the victims of the theft of stolen phones do not hand over the money for those obviously criminally generated bills.

     

    and remember the UK Networks are part of multi-national groups. T-Mobile UK deals with 'T-Mobile SA' and Vodafone UK deals with 'Vodafone Spain' and o2 UK will deal with 'o2 Spain' etc etc

  9. Morning everyone,

    Not sure if this is the correct forum, but I've just been [problem]med. I received a large number of unsolicited texts on a rarely used mobile from 60699 (Zamano PLC) based in Dublin. I noticed about £35 extra on a usually very small monthly bill. orange, my service provider were completely useless and downright uncoperative.

    I have complained to Zamano but received the usual bland response. Any ideas on which regulator I should contact, or indeed anything else would be most welcome.

    You should complain to PhonepayPlus

     

    http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-the-Public/Make-a-complaint.aspx

     

    they have already adjudicated on this

    15 March 2012

    Information provider Zamano Solutions Limited, trading as Everneo

    Service provider Zamano Solutions Limited, trading as Everneo

    Information provider location Dublin

    Service provider location Dublin

    Service type Subscription Service

    [....]

    (i) Summary

     

    During the period from 1 September 2011 to 16 February 2012, PhonepayPlus received 277 complaints relating to a subscription service called ‘Zingtones’, which was also referred to as ‘Play n’ Win’. The service operated for several years. Following notification by the Executive of its concerns relating to the service, the Level 2 provider voluntarily suspended the promotion of the service and billing mechanic on 1 February 2012.

     

    The Level 2 provider’s marketing campaign for the service involved the use of various affiliate marketers, who provided lead-in web pages encouraging consumers to visit the service and enter a competition.

    [...]

    SANCTIONS

     

    Sanctions Imposed

     

    Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the revenue of the service, the Tribunal decided to impose the following sanctions:

     

    A Formal Reprimand;

    A Direction to Remedy the Breach;

    A Fine of £35,000; and

    A Direction to make refunds to all complainants who claim a refund, for the full amount spent by them for the service, save where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid, and to provide evidence to PhonepayPlus that any such refunds have been made.

    it might be worth logging a complaint with PhonepayPlus first then telling Zamano that it was PhonepayPlus that had instructed you to request a refund from them.

     

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/60699

  10. I agree that the PIN security won't deter the act of the initial theft but it would mitigate the secondary act and make it difficult for the thief to make the calls which they commercially gain from and therefore result in the number of these cases occuring being decreased.

    So why do you think the Networks have chosen to have the PIN security default to OFF (completely opposite to credit card companies). You don't believe the Networks bare any responsibility for this security flaw?

     

    I would also agree that more should be done within the telecoms industry globally to combat this issue.

    The problem as it affects UK customers lies in the UK. UK customers are targeted abroad because the crooks know UK Networks are being allowed to force the victims to accept liability for obviously fraudulent bills run up on stolen phones.

     

    These are not normal calls. The only purpose of the call is to commit criminal fraud.

     

    The only reason the criminals continue to target UK customers is because UK Networks continue to forward the proceeds of these obvious frauds onto them.

     

    But until this happens and customers continue to show negligent tendences

    to help further potential victims, apart from forgetting to put the PIN lock on after every single call, what 'negligent tendences' are you referring to.

  11. However, something which seems to escape many peoples attention is that the customer can take precautions in order to protect themselves from such instances. As well as PIN protecting the phone the SIM can also be PIN protected. PAYG is also an option which offers limited liability.

    It's about time people started to understand how they are being conned by the Networks.

     

    The victim of a theft all to often has to bare the cost of that theft. In this case it was the loss of the phone. The fact that the phone was PIN protected or PAYG would not have protected the victim from the theft of that phone.

     

    After committing the initial crime the thief went on to make calls on the stolen phone. THESE WERE NOT CALLS TO HIS MATES. These were AIT (Artificially Inflated Traffic) calls to premium rate lines they had set up with the sole intention to defraud from the Networks.

     

    The company/thief operating the premium rate lines would have had a revenue share direct/indirect billing agreement with the Networks and the Networks are fully aware of the problem of fraud and AIT on international/national premium rate lines.

     

    Apart from forgetting to put the PIN lock on the victim of the initial theft has played no part what soever in this 'crime' against the Networks

     

    and yes it would be nice if the PIN protect on the SIM was ON by default (as credit/debit cards).

     

     

    There really are important issues here that really should be considered and talked about. It's one thing for a Network to hold a customer liable for the cost of legitimate calls made on a stolen phone but should a Network hold a customer responsible for loss due to fraud simply because it was their stolen phone that was used to commit that fraud.

  12. hi TrAdam25,

     

    So Vodafone UK believe you are liable for £2,000 worth of International Premium Rate phone calls run up by a thief using your stolen phone in Spain.

     

    Vodafone and the other UK Networks refuse point blank to allow customers to impose spend limits on their accounts but instead decided the customer's accounts should be loaded with unlimited credit (that the customer is totally responsible and liable for).

     

    The only possible reason for having customers accounts loaded in this way is the Networks can maximize the 'profit' from accidental and criminal/fraudulent use of the phone.

     

    Vodafone UK want to share that money with this company http://www.vodafone.es/particulares/es/ (Vodafone Spain).

     

    This is the service Vodafone Spain allows their customers to use to protect them from having grotesque fraudulent bills run up on stolen phones.

    Ayuda (Help)

     

    Help Topics

    Billing

    http://www.vodafone.es/ayuda/particulares/es/facturacion/

     

    FAQs

     

    What is the control of consumption?

     

    The consumer control is a service that lets you control your spending.

     

    It's as simple as setting spending limits and, before reaching this limit, we will notify you that your consumption is approaching the limit. You can set a limit for voice, data, messaging or one that covers all full.

     

    Once you reach the limit and you can not use the service for the control that you set during the current billing cycle unless you request an extension of the proposed limit. In this way, you make sure not to spend more than you intended. We suggest adjusting well to limit your usual consumption as each extension has a cost of 0.6 € (0.71 € VAT included).

     

    so any crook seeing 'an Englishman abroad' is seeing somebody that has been 'setup' to be robbed (literally).

     

    VF have a rep here called Lee who should catch your post.
  13. Thu 24 May 17:54 Invoke CLIR Vodacom divert 0m 0s 0.000 0.000 VAT at 0%

    http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/1995_98/technical/cli698.htm

     

    If CLIR has been invoked, then all CLI information shall be classified as ‘withheld';

     

    I,m guessing wherever the call was terminating they did not want it to be linked to the stolen phone.

     

    Thu 24 May 17:55 37745302153 Vodacom 17m 44s 14.400 14.400 VAT at 0%

    Kosovo number used for 'international premium rate billing'

    many countries set aside some of their number range to be used for billing premium rate services.

     

    these numbers are allocated to 'sellers' and 're-sellers' who supply them to the end users. (the mugger in your case)

     

    here's an example of the type of thing on the internet. notice the test numbers from the blocks they have.

     

    KOSOVO 386 497 45�Days�EOM 0.065 EUR +386 49796052 1327

    KOSOVO 6 377 453 Daily 1/0 0.075 USD +377 45302726 1328

    KOSOVO 6 377 453 Weekly 7/1 0.095 USD +377 45302726 1329

    KOSOVO 6 377 453 Monthly 30/45 0.120 USD +377 45302726 1330

     

    Also, how are the thieves profiting from this exactly?

    The call is billed as an expensive international call to Kosovo. Vodacom SA (after taking their share) passes the revenue down the carrier chain (who also take their share) until it gets to the company that 'sells' the numbers. This company's server will not be in Kosovo but may be in London or Australia for example. It's called 'short stopping'. So the victim is billed for an expensive international call but much of this revenue ends up with the company that supplies the number. This is then shared with the mugger.

     

    Is this useful information that I should pass a long to the South African police?

    all they would need to do was follow the money so why don't they?

     

    another question I have always asked myself is why do the Networks insist on passing on such obvious proceeds of crime. If they refused to do this the multimillion dollar business of stealing phones to make fraudulent premium rate calls would cease overnight.

  14. I got a call from Vodafone this afternoon with some terrible news. More charges are still coming in on my account, since the billing can take weeks to sort out. I'm now up to £1600 and counting.

    Unfortunately I have now received notice from Vodaphone that there were actually over £500 of charges that occurred during the hours between the mugging and my call.

    firstly you are only liable from the time the phone was stolen till the time time you contacted Vodafone UK. Have you seen the itemised bill with the dares and times that these calls were made.

     

    It's possible Vodafone SA continued billing these calls after you told Vodafone UK and are leaving it for you to notice. If this is the case then it is a bloody disgrace.

     

    ps. The 'international' numbers that were called were actually 'international premium rate' numbers. The revenue that was generated on them is shared between the mugger, the number supplier, Vodafone SA and Vodafone UK.

  15. Unfortunately I have now received notice from Vodaphone that there were actually over £500 of charges that occurred during the hours between the mugging and my call.

    it's almost certain that the SA telecom company that is billing Vodafone UK haven't actually passed any of this 'charges' onto any third party yet (they do have billing periods).

     

    By the way it's this SA telco that Vodafone UK wants to send the questionable monies to

     

    http://www.vodacom.co.za/personal/main/home/

     

    you are being mugged (but South Africa?)

    • Haha 1
  16. I know it is often the case that poor or ineffective service is reported and commented upon, but I just wanted to add something slightly different and THANK vodafone and particularly Lee for all the help I received in sorting out my problem with the bill and unsolicited text messages. It was pleasing to know that they (and presumably other networks as well?) were monitoring the discussion forums and offering their assistance. so WELL DONE vodafone.

    yes I'm sure Lee is a decent person and genuinely believes he's helping people (which he does) ....but at the end of the day it's called a 'public relations exercise'. What about the hundreds/thousands who complain to the Networks directly who are told to pay these bills despite the Network being aware there is a problem with a particular service.

    You're more than welcome Frustrated billpayer.

     

    Thanks for updating the thread to confirm that this has been resolved for you.

     

    Best wishes and if I can help with anything else in the future you know where to find me.

    hi Lee,

     

    1/ does Vodafone still offer the 'premium rate' bar to customers accounts?

     

    2/ if yes is it available for pay as you go?

     

    3/ if this barring service exists should there not be a thread 'sticky' to refer to.

     

    thanks

     

    If this service was readily available on the Vodafone Network I know which Network I would advise to customers especially parents.

  17. The texts are chargable, as it MUST say on the website. (post a link to this advert and we'll double check)

    hi Locutos hope you all are keeping well.

     

    this is a typical method the '[problem]mer' uses. It's called iframe or i-frame. An iframe is a web page with a open window in it. Another web page can be placed under this iframe and the part of the web page that can be seen through the window can be interacted with (eg phone number entered).

     

    1/ The victim will be directed to the [problem]mers web page (iframe) from an advert to 'win an ipod'.

     

    iframe with real web page beneath/masked

    04237_ApD.jpg

     

     

    The input box from the legitimate web page can be seen but none of the costs or the fact that no prize has been won and it is in fact a weekly subscription.

    legitimate web page

    04237_ApC.jpg

  18. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/nov/10/moneysupplement.internetphonesbroadband

    BT gets its lines crossed with a fee for all

    Home movers must pay £125, even if it is already a BT line.

    10 November 2007

     

    People moving home are being charged a £125 reconnection fee by BT - even if the previous owner was a customer of the telecom giant. Those who call BT to complain have been left waiting on hold for hours.

     

    Two weeks ago, Guardian Money told how BT was penalising people moving into a new home where the previous occupant had switched their landline to a rival supplier.

     

    Now it appears the former monopoly provider has been taking advantage of consumer confusion, and its dominant position, by applying the same charge randomly to thousands of customers moving house.

     

    The £125 fee, which, some might say, makes a mockery of Ofcom's attempts to bring down the cost of phone and broadband services, came about because it seems no one at the regulator considered what would what happen to "movers" under its new regime.

     

    It does not help that the BT department responsible for connecting new customers appears to be in chaos. People are complaining it is impossible to contact - and those that do get through are often given contradictory information.

     

    Some customers told Guardian Money they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone trying to resolve the problem, while others complain the £125 fee was "absurd" and "exorbitant".

     

    Meanwhile, engineers are not turning up to appointments. In 2005, Ofcom insisted that BT create a separate company (now called Openreach) to manage the engineers who connect homes to the exchange. The split was intended to give all the telecoms companies equal access to the exchange network, to stimulate competition.

     

    However, one of the unintended consequences of the decision appears to be much higher reconnection charges when a customer moves house.

     

    BT's residential arm is allowed to charge the £125 fee if the previous occupier switched their landline to a rival supplier, through what is known as local loop unbundling. It appears to have plucked this unregulated figure out of the air, as it pays Openreach considerably less for the switch.

     

    The problem is occurring when someone informs their telephone provider they are moving and that they want to terminate their contract.

     

    After extensive questioning this week, BT revealed that the imposition of the charge largely depends on whether the house is near a busy exchange, where demand for lines is high. In that case, lines freed up are being quickly offered for re-use. In quiet areas, they can sit undisturbed for up to five years.

     

    New occupiers are automatically charged the £125 fee, regardless of who used to supply the phone service. However, BT said this week that the charge should not be payable if the previous occupier was with BT. This has been refuted by readers' experiences.

     

    Police officer Fred Trott contacted Money after reading our original article. He said he and his wife had been charged £125 when they moved into their home in Haslemere, Surrey.

     

    The previous owner had been with OneTel, but had agreed to switch their service back to BT before they moved out. The Trotts moved in but faced an endless battle to make BT see this - its staff insisted the £125 fee was payable.

     

    The pair, loyal BT customers for many years, say they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone to various BT departments trying to get the charge repaid - but to no avail.

     

    A spokesman for BT says the current position regarding the £125 fee is "not ideal" and that it is looking at how it can be changed. "Where a working line exists, our intention is that reconnection should be free - but a charge of £125 applies where we have to involve an engineer.

     

    "Where a customer is returning to join BT from a local loop unbundled competitor, our systems default to charging £125. We do intend to change this as soon as possible. It is one of a number of complex changes arising from BT Retail's adoption of a new IT system to comply with its commitment to the regulator, Ofcom."

     

    It also confirmed that it has now refunded Mr Trott's £125 charge.

     

    Ofcom says it is aware of the situation and that it is working with the Office of the Telecoms Adjudicator (OTA) to rectify this problem. "The matter should be resolved by next spring," says a spokeswoman. "It is important that customers are confident in the switching process and it is essential that there are no obstacles in the way. We are working via the OTA and industry to have all telecoms providers on the new system by spring 2008."

    Confusion around this charge has been ongoing for several years. It appears from what I am reading, BT have their default set to bill and leave it up to the customer to notice whether the bill is correct.

     

    back on topic

    OK, you have a phoneline but BT cannot find it on their systems... pick up the handset, dial 150 and see who answers (as that will be the provider for that line) IF it is BT, let them know your account number and see if they can marry up the details there?

     

    Another route would be to email the CEO [email protected]

     

    Let us know what works for you

  19. http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/Number-Checker/Check-a-Number-Results.aspx?ncn=09012250008

    Check A Number - Result

    Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the number 09012250008.

    If you want to log a complaint to PhonepayPlus online please click here.

    Alternatively, you can call our helpline on 0800 500 212 (Mon-Fri, 0900-1700).

    You could alternatively contact your mobile phone network and ask them for details about this number and advice about what to do next.

    Want to find out more about Phone Paid Services?

    all four numbers give the above which is a bit odd if they were Sky numbers

     

    from this

    http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/index.htm#geog1

    all four numbers belong to Thus Plc

     

    so I'm guessing they may be 'free' to play games from the Sky box but not Sky.

     

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09016550003

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09016550001

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09040430000

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09012250008

     

    I wouldn't necessarily blame your kids at this point...there really are some very unscrupulous companies about

     

    sorry I can't be much help but keep us updated

×
×
  • Create New...