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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

this may be of particular interest 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).

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

You should complain to PhonepayPlus http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-the-Public/Make-a-complaint.aspx they have already adjudicated on this 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

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? 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. 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.

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.

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

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. 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 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. 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.

sorry double posting

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.

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?)

@what is the number ahh answereed own question....strange numbe to have on billr though...lets know how you get on

what is the number

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. 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.

don't need that now a freind gave me some screen shots of the 'comp'. I f i was your partner i would have been furious. Still good to see Lee sorted it fio you

which company was it

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 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

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

yes you are being billed from the moment the mobile starts ringing.....to be fair to BT it's actually a practice/con the Mobile Networks are responsible for

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