goodwill
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by goodwill
-
-
hi Yesideez
if you post the first part of the url we may be able to see who registered it
-
2. It is not illegal (!darn well should be!) to send unsolicited texts from a mobile number (unless we get involved making case law in stalking etc..).
I have run a case of this kind by ICO and OFCOM, both of which have assured me of the above information
How unhelpfully confusing for a first post. What is being described on this thread is mass marketing using bulk sms. It is not referring to thousands of personal sms messengers being sent from thousands of individual mobiles. Of course the mass marketing spammers (and possibly the ICO) would like us to believe that.
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/faq/#seven
7. Will registering my mobile number on the TPS reduce the receipt of text (SMS) messages?
No. New legislation, which came into force on 11 December 2003, makes it unlawful to send an unsolicited direct marketing SMS to an individual subscriber unless the recipient has previously given their consent to such communications.
Text messages are defined as "electronic mail" under the Regulations and, as such, they should not be sent without the prior consent of the individual subscribers. Companies are therefore, not obliged to screen against TPS because they should already have established prior consent.
If you are receiving SMS marketing and have not given prior permission, you can complain directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), whose details are under the 'Useful links' section on the left hand menu or for more details see the Guidance Notes which the Information Commissioner's Office have produced Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
I get the clear impression that the Direct Marketing Association or somebody appear to believe that by allocating a different 07 number to each message sent they have discovered yet another innovative loophole to exploit!
-
I've been racking my brains theres no way anyone could have used my phone .
I've checked the Dialled numbers log on my phone and weirdly enough it starts the day after the last call was made (which was 25th Nov) the log starts at 26th Nov
09012260902http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09012260902
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09012260902.
The number offers a chat service. This is promoted through the television and internet. Call cost £1.50p per connection and £1.50p per minute thereafter and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs 50p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Tease Me TV
P O Box 51788
London
NW1W 9AN
0870 269 0415
CFL Communications Ltd
Ofcom revokes licence of four adult channelsTease Me channels punished for broadcasting sexually explicit material before 9pm watershed
26 November 2010
In July, Ofcom fined London-based Tease Me owners Bang Channels Limited and Bang Media Limited a total of £157,250 for "manifest recklessness" in its compliance system.
Last week Ofcom suspended transmission of Tease Me, Tease Me TV, and Tease Me 2 and Tease Me 3. Today the regulator revoked their licences with immediate effect.
The channels, all of which were available on Sky's digital satellite subscription service, encourage viewers to call premium-rate phone lines for adult chat.
do you have Sky's digital satellite subscription service?
just out of interest what date and time was this called 09012260902
I'm assuming it was only advertised on Sky. I can't find it on the internet.
It would be interesting to know which 'service' (if not Tease Me) was using this number.
i realise grasping and straws but I am interested
[EDIT]
In addition, on 19 November 2010, Ofcom found evidence that the Licensees had
broadcast material likely to constitute a serious breach of Rule 30.3 of the BCAP
Code, which prohibits the broadcast at any time of material equivalent to BBFC R18
rated material at any time, and the broadcast of pornography other than behind
mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels and between 10.00pm
and 5.30am. In light of this, Ofcom issued a direction to the Licensees to cease
providing the Licensed Services (as defined in the Licences) with immediate effect.
-
Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the premium rate number 09095342433
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09095342435.PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09095342519.
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09095342440.
The number offers an Adult Content service. This is promoted through various sources including magazines, the internet and television and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs 60p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Datapro Services Ltd
BM Box 8027
London
WC1N 3XX
0870 046 5910
28 October 2005Information provider N/A
Service provider Datapro Services
Information provider location N/A
Service provider location Grays, Essex
Telephone network Opera Telecom Limited
Service type Adult entertainment
Cost £1.50 per minute
Number of complaints 4
Source of complaint Public, Intra-industry
Adjudication Details
The Secretariat was advised by a phone network of complaints from customers that calls were being made to premium rate numbers without their knowledge or consent. The network suspected fraudulent activity after observing that call patterns for the service were unusual, especially in the West London area.......
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/31/telewest_icstis/Telewest victim of XXX call [problem]
31st October 2005
Part of the investigation by regulator ICSTIS centred on the fact that the length of the calls made exceeded the usual 20 minute limit for premium rate calls. Datapro Services Ltd - which ran the adult lines - said this had happened because the calls were made by a "skilled engineer" operating in a "position of trust".
[]
A spokesman for Telewest said: "We became aware of a some fraudulent calls made from our street equipment in West London earlier this year.
The following relates to the numbers used. I am not suggesting the companies that owned those numbers were knowingly involved in the Hacking.
Opera Telecom was re-branded as Oxygen8. Telewest/NTL became Virgin Media.
The same London Virgin Media customers were Targeted again in 2007/2008/2009. In 2009 BT finally alerted Virgin Media that it's network had been 'Compromised' and that AIT (Artificial Inflated Traffic) was being generated using Oxygen8 09 premium rate numbers. Virgin Media started withholding this AIT generated revenue from Oxygen8.
At the end of 2009 (early 2010) the same London customers were again targeted this time using numbers supplied by a different company.
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09041948739
One of the numbers mentioned 09090271146 was Datapro again.
Earlier this year I contacted people in the Exeter area to alert them that their phone-lines were being hacked.
I finally contacted Phonepayplus who eventually confirmed that BT were 'working' with the police and were looking into cases going back to 1995. Since then the instances of land-lines being hacked have apparently disappeared.
Whoever was responsible are not opportunists. They are career criminals who will most certainly be using or looking for other methods to place those calls on victims phone bills (land-line and mobile).
-
ar you sure your phone is notbeing used by someone else in your house?
are you sure youknew exactly where it was when the calls wer made?barring that, i'd seriously consider you sim has been copied somehow,
p'haps an SAR to 3 is in order here
to force them to reveal if it HAS happened on your phones IMIE number
dx
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/01/sprint_phone_cloning_scam/Feds crack phone clone [problem] that cost Sprint $15m
Alert Print Retweet Facebook
More than 10,000 accounts spoofed
1st September 2010
Federal prosecutors have uncovered a [problem] that used tens of thousands of cloned cellphones to defraud Sprint out of $15m in lost long distance revenue.
The operation dates back to at least the latter half of 2009, when cellular customers began complaining that they were billed for international calls they didn't make, according to court documents made public on Wednesday. When Sprint employees looked into the matter, they discovered that many of the calls were made from hundreds of miles away from where the customers lived and within minutes of other calls made from the customers' homes.
Eventually, the Sprint investigators discovered that electronic credentials belonging to “tens of thousands of its customers” were used to make international calls that would have cost $15m had they been billed at the going rate. What's more, many of the defrauded customers' online accounts were breached so that changes could be made to passwords, international calling features and other settings.
The fraud came to light in a criminal complaint that accused nine Sprint employees of illegally accessing customer accounts more than 16,000 times between January and June of this year. Among the information they took were the MSID, or mobile station ID, and the ESN, or electronic serial number, that are used to uniquely identify each handset on the Sprint network. By plugging the credentials into new cellphones, people were able to make phone calls that were charged to the accounts of the defrauded customers.
The complaint didn't identify the cellular carrier, but Sprint officials confirmed the fraud after its name came up during court hearings on Wednesday.
“Sprint regularly monitors and works aggressively to identify and respond to fraudulent activity,” Sprint said in a statement. “The company has been assisting authorities in this case. Should a Sprint customer notice this sort of suspicious activity on their account, we would encourage them to contact our Care representatives for assistance.”
Sprint has credited the defrauded customers for the value of the calls, a press release from the US Attorney in the Bronx, New York, said.
Based on the allegations, the employees charged appear to be low-level operatives who used their access to Sprint's customer database to supply the credentials to people higher up in the [problem].
One defendant, Tampa, Florida-based Princetta Dorisma, said a co-worker approached her and offered $1,000 in return for information associated with a range of phone numbers, according to the complaint, which was filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Dorisma received two payments of $500 in exchange for sending the customers' names, cell phone numbers and ESNs associated with each number to an email address specified by the co-worker.
The other defendants named in the complaint are Pedro Rodriguez and Johnny Santana, who worked at Sprint stores in located in the Bronx; Luis Abad, Mathews Angel, Francis Lopez, and Luis Orriols, who worked at a store in North Bergen, New Jersey; and Lesly Esquea and Jacklin Volny, who also worked at a store in Tampa.
They are each charged with one count each of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. If convicted on all counts, they face a maximum of 32 years in prison, in addition to fines. ®
I realise this is the a recent case from the US but the UK Mobile Networks are well aware of the issue. The simple fact is their billing platforms are not secure. They know they're wide open to fraud and the default is the customer pays. It's in their financial interest.
-
09050070911
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09050070911
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09050070911.
The number offers a chat line. This is promoted on Elite TV and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs £1.50p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Primetime TV (UK) Ltd
Unit BMOG 01C, The Barley Mow Centre
10 Barley Mow Passage
London
W4 4PH
0844 243 9888
Affiniti Integrated solutions Ltd
*****************************************
09065173000
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09065173000
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09065173000.
The number offers a chat line. This is promoted Sky and Cable TV and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs £1.50 per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Com & Tel (UK) Ltd
4th Floor, Rivington House Suite 401, Rivington Business Centre
82 Great Eastern Street
London
EC2A 3JF
0844 251 1983
Oxygen8 Communications UK Ltd
*****************************************
09012268912
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09012266912
Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the premium rate number 09012268912.
CFL Communications Ltd
***********************************************
09012260902
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09012260902
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09012260902.
The number offers a chat service. This is promoted through the television and internet. Call cost £1.50p per connection and £1.50p per minute thereafter and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs 50p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Tease Me TV
P O Box 51788
London
NW1W 9AN
0870 269 0415
CFL Communications Ltd
***********************************************
09054245544
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09054245544
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09054245544.
The number offers a chat line. This is promoted through the television and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs 50p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Virtual Universe
Amplefuture House, The Quadrant
135 Salusbury Road
London
NW6 6RJ
0844 554 1909
Virtual Universe Ltd
**************************************************
09077861885
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09077861885
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09077861885.
The number offers a chat line. This is promoted on Sky TV and you use it with your telephone or mobile phone.
This service costs £1.50 per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Oxygen8 Communications UK
12th Floor, Lyndon House
58-62 Hagley Road
Birmingham
B16 8PE
0808 206 0808
Oxygen8 Communications UL Ltd
***********************************************
09061122914
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09061122914
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the premium rate number 09061122914.
There is currently no service operating on this premium rate number. Should you require further information, please contact the Network Operator whose details are given below.
This service costs £1.50p per minute (plus any phone network surcharges - check with your phone company for full details).
If you would like to find out more about this service you should contact the company listed below.
Kingston Communications Plc
37 Carr Lane
Kingston Upon Hull
HU1 3RE
01482 602 147
Affiniti Integrated Solutions Ltd
***********************************
09095342433
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09095342433
Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the premium rate number 09095342433
BT
*******************************************
09095342491
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09095342491
Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the premium rate number 09095342491
BT
**************************************
09092055575
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/09092055575
Unfortunately PhonepayPlus does not have any information about the premium rate number 09092055575
BT
*******************************************************************************
It's interesting that some of the numbers don't actually appear to have any premium rate service on them and don't appear to be advertised anywhere.
Ofcom recently took the licence to broadcast away from the Tease Me channels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/ofcom-revokes-licence-adult-channels
Unfortunately you will discover that the companies involved (including 3) will be very unhelpful and even dishonest.
These numbers are 'revenue share'. Everybody from 3 to the 'service/content' provider will be making from this. Also to make the situation even more galling 3 withholds your money for a period to protect themselves from fraud (but not their customers).
-
could you post the numbers please.
just out of interest-what kind of phone and do you down load and use Apps?
-
locutus have you seen this. Measure of Damages under English law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_Damages_under_English_law
I have no legal training and not sure of what legal basis the Networks are claiming the customers are fully liable for these bills.
Are they claiming using Contract Law for 'Damages' or on the basis that the customer is responsible for some kind of commercial/retail transaction?
Considering the Network would never take these types of claims to court I suppose it's a bit academic anyway but I thought it might be of interest.
@ albacale just out of interest could you post the numbers they dialled?
-
Of course, if users PIN protect their SIM cards, they'll have nothing to worry about.
It's the same as leaving you front door unlocked. It's careless and just asking for trouble when criminals become involved.
now is that really relevant to the actual specific point of the post
'I just wanted to post this to highlight the double standards the Networks are using concerning fraud affecting them and fraud affecting their customers'
-
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/news071210.htm
A criminal gang who used stolen SIM cards to con mobile phone companies out of more than £2million has today been sentenced for a total of 26 years at Southwark Crown Court.
Ashok Kumar, from Twickenham, and Mohammed Akmal and Fahad Lone, from Birmingham, were yesterday found guilty of their part in a complex national and international telecom fraud.
The court heard how a joint City of London Police and O2 investigation found the men using fraudulently obtained bankcards and false utility bills to obtain pay monthly mobile phone contracts in stores across London.
The gang used the SIM cards to make unlimited calls from locations in Twickenham and Birmingham to their own premium rate international phone numbers, without ever paying the bill.
In some cases a ‘group call system’ was used to multiply the cost of the calls six-fold by making six calls at the same time from the same SIM card. These calls were usually logged after midnight to try and avoid detection.
From these lines multiple long duration calls were being made to numbers associated to Latvia, Estonia, Sierra Leone, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
At the end of the month the phone companies were contractually bound to pay the bill, with part of the revenue being paid to companies owned or operated by the fraudsters who had made all the calls.
O2 has identified around 500 accounts that were using fraudulently obtained SIM cards, which have now been closed down by its investigations team.
Det Supt Bob Wishart, from the City of London Police Economic Crime Directorate, said:
"21st century policing presents new challenges as organised criminal gangs seek to exploit technological advances for illegal gain.
This complex and extensive international telecom fraud set up by KUMAR, LONE and
AKMAL provides further evidence of the challenges the counter fraud community is facing. But this successful prosecution shows what an effective force the telecom industry and police is when they work in collaboration to combat crime.
"I want to pay special tribute to the 02 investigators, who, along with my staff compiled an effective prosecution case on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. Their hard work has ensured these three fraudsters have been brought to justice and that mobile phone companies are more alert to the threat organised crime gangs pose to their business."
Ashok Kumar, 26, Mohammed Akmal, 46, and Fahad Lone, 38, were all found guilty of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering and were given concurrent prison sentences of five years each.
To easier make my point I'm going to simplify that above story by saying the above crooks used only two SIMS.
As in the above:
SIM A stolen from shop
but lets also imagine they used:
SIM B stolen from house (for example)
As in the above article they used both SIMS to rack up huge bills to International premium rate numbers. Presumably the exact same criminal laws were broken relating to both SIMS.
As in the above article O2 sent these huge bills that they obviously must have suspected were the result of some criminal activity to the billing addresses. One to the false address(SIM A) the crooks set up and one to the real address(SIM B).
In all cases like this the Networks always insist the 'owner' of SIM B is liable for these types of bills despite the bill obviously being the result of fraud.
Now if the SIMS A and B were credit cards the same "Cardholder Not Present" would be used to decide whether criminal fraud has been committed. The Network Operator appear to be using a "Victim Not Present" policy.
Yes I know there is a legal contract on SIM B but whether that would be enforceable in court to force the victim to pay this type of bill is another question.
I just wanted to post this to highlight the double standards the Networks are using concerning fraud affecting them and fraud affecting their customers.
-
it would be almost impossible to find the companies in the revenue chain if the numbers were international premium billing numbers.
this is how some of the numbers start(40 is the Romanian dialling code)
Romania 3 40.338 VOICE/ADULT
Romania 375 40.3375 VOICE/ADULT
Romania 385 40.3385 VOICE/ADULT
Romania 4 40.312 VOICE/ADULT
It's equally likely the numbers on your bill will be numerous unrelated domestic if the thief/thieves were just using it to phone home but it would be interesting to see if the call patterns indicated (AIT) Artificially Inflated Traffic or similar.
-
I think the first thing I would do is insist T-mobile supply a fully itemised bill of these calls. dates/durations/costs.
It would be interesting to see if the calls were to ordinary Romanian domestic numbers or a premium rate service that was using 'Romanian' numbers to bill to.
In other words were the calls being made to a company that T-mobile had a revenue share billing agreement?
-
hi exasperated,
not much to add but here's some background on how the networks protect themselves.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-3042733.html
I find the whole issue of networks continually using these situations to profit from morally indefensible and legally questionable.
Very often the loss they claim the customer is liable for only exists on paper.
Just out of interest what were the Romanian phone numbers. If they are used to bill for international premium rate services for example then it is very likely T-mobile has lost no money.
-
hi Julia2010
I've posted something here that may be of interest to you.
Ok, I hope Lee could do some magic! baby due in 3 weeks! -
Same here, by the time I realized my phone was either lost or stolen, it was 3 days and I have a bill for £1200 for calls made every 3 mins to Nigeria. I have spoken to Vodafone and of course they said the fault was on me. But if for the past 12 month, my bills were barely £20, surely they should be a way to alert the customer service people to notify the owners of the mobile phone that there's something strange on the calls made?
My bank calls me if a bogus transaction is made? Isn't there a regulation with regards to the mobile company? Apparently as this is a work phone, there's no limitation in terms of the usage, but I don't think I was ever informed.
When I did call customer service 2 days after to put a bar on the phone, I made sure they had a look at the bills and they said they were no charges on to the phone, so I was quite relaxed but a month later, to my surprise I got the bill for £1200! and when I called again, the customer service said, oh, for international calls we sometimes can't track upto 3 months! They could have told me that but they didnt....
I am a mum to be just about to go on to maternity and there's no way I have this amount of money and wish the government put some regulations to the mobile phone companies knowing that there are so many theft going on.
Any advice, much appreciated.
I have spoken to Vodafone account manager and they are not willing to negotiate as this will not be fair for those other people within the firm who had to pocket out the money (so they say) as apparently about 10-12 similar cases happens per year all of them calls to Nigeria on premium rate. So if this has been happening, why couldn't they alert their customers when there are about 50-70 calls a day made..... apparently unless the phone call is not more than £50, it doesn't alert them and criminals know about the limit so keep their phone calls below that level.I should try to get some sort of petition.... although I do understand liability lies on me, but surely this is fraudulent usage....
hi Julia2010
Vodafone and the other Network Operators (mobile and fixed line) have systems in place to detect this type of fraud. Unfortunately it's only used to protect the Networks.
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/ka4/10187.pdf1) &RQWUDFWXDO)UDXG - all frauds in this category generate revenue through the normal use of a service whilst having no intention of paying for use. Examples of such fraud are Subscription fraud and Premium Rate fraud.
Subscription fraud can take many guises, but can be divided into two classes, one where people enter the contract with no desire to pay for service, and the other where people decide part way through a contract that they will no longer pay for service. The latter case usually results in a dramatic change in usage behaviour. However, the former case has no usage history to compare the initial heavy usage against. In this case additional subscriber information is required to try and assess the risk associated with the subscriber.
Premium Rate Fraud involves two actions - the setting up of a Premium Rate Service, and the acquiring of a number of phones to call this number. The actual mechanism used for perpetrating the fraud will depend upon the payment scheme used for the Premium Rate Service. If the Premium Rate Service receives a share of the revenue generated for the Network, then the phones will make long duration calls to the Premium Rate number. If the Premium Rate Service receives money from the network according to the number of calls received by the Service, then the phones will make a high number of short duration calls. The phones that have been calling this number will then not have their bills paid. The signature of such fraud is therefore dependent on the payment scheme used for the Service, but will be a number of high risk phones either making repeated long duration calls or many short duration calls to certain Premium Rate numbers.
so why does it appear in your case although the Vodafone AIT (Artificially Inflated Traffic) monitoring system would have flagged up possible fraud did they still passed on the revenue?......or did they!
How did they know it wasn't you that had obtained the Nigerian International premium rate numbers to call and collect the revenue?
ps
the numbers almost certainly are not terminated in Nigeria. In many cases they are 'short stopped' in London for example to increase revenue share between the Networks and companies in the revenue chain.
And was Vodafone really at risk of losing money due to fraud? Here's the 'carrier' agreement companies sign with BT.
If you had been a genuine fraudster, Vodafone would have simply asked the company in the revenue/share chain to return that money('charge back')
All the Networks(fixed line/mobile) have very similar agreements.
-
@ Forum Moderators,
it really is no surprise so many people post once and leave after some of the daft unhelpful remarks they are met with.
still @ Forum Moderators,
As for 'your' question. Why hijack someone's thread? Start your own if you feel strongly about it.actually this thread was 'hijacked' at post #3' and here's another example:
Did BT infringe Proceeds of Crime Act in 2004
Hi my family were victims of the infamous "rogue dialler" [problem] of 2004.........
.......
I would be interested in hearing from anybody who were victims of the "rogue dialler" [problem].
thanks goodwill
first cracker from the barrel
The trouble is, as a participant in the [problem],.............
I've noticed this type of thing on numerous threads. I really do believe somebody ought to get a grip of it. Continually causing arguments and claiming they are based on 'Law' is not good.
-
'Not the question was asked.'
no it's a question I am asking so it should be of little concern to you
Short-Codes.comWhat is the Short Codes Management Group
In response to the increasing demand for cross-network shortcodes, O2, Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone and 3 have formed the Shortcode Management Group (SCMG), which manages the availability of shortcodes and agrees on guidelines related to services operating on available shortcodes.
@ Vodafone Company Rep
Lee,
assuming all the Network Operators operating billing platforms in the UK are all subject to the same UK Consumer/Criminal Laws which company in the value chain is responsible for the security of the customer' account?
I'm referring to instances when an unscrupulous individual or company sends an unsolicited chargeable sms with the sole intention of causing an unauthorized debit?
thank you
-
Sending unsolicited text messages whether marked 'chargeable' or free is spam.
@ Vodafone Company Rep
Lee,
which company in the value chain is responsible for the security of the customer' account?
-
overandunder,
if these premium rate messages are unsolicited then your Network Operator is debiting your account without authorization.
Mblox is the Service Provider in this case and they have an agreement with their Content Provider Contactsms ltd (sender).
You do not have any legitimate commercial relationship with Mblox or Contactsms Ltd.
Mblox has the agreement with your Network Operator to bill its customers(you) for any premium rate messages sent through the Mblox gateway.
Your only commercial agreement is with your Network Operator and that agreement will state nowhere that you have agreed to pay for unsolicited premium rate messages.
When your Network debits your account they keep approximately 50% before passing the rest on to Mbox to share with Contactsms Ltd.
lots of people are being robbed and fobbed off by the phone networks
80160 - who calls me from 80160? 1/5
Write a letter to your MP and your Network and insist your Network refund the unauthorized charges.
ps
the main method [problematic] use to obtain mobile numbers is to buy lists from third party marketing companies.
-
personal data being used to cold call mislead and con..........Sorry, the point you're trying to make is.... what?
Firms are dishonest?
WalesOnline - News - UK News - Four in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to 5mFour in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to £5m
Apr 21 2010
A WOMAN and three men were being questioned last night about a mobile phone insurance [problem] said to have netted up to £5m over the past five years.
South Wales Police have so far identified more than 300 victims of the bogus insurance operation but there are many more.
In the culmination of a two-year investigation yesterday, a team of 40 officers raided business premises in the centre of Swansea and homes in the city’s Sketty, Manselton and Birchgrove areas.
All four arrested – three men aged 43, 29 and 28 and a woman aged 25 – were in custody at Swansea Central Police Station.
The investigation into the insurance [problem] was carried out by South Wales Police’s western division and the economic crime unit. It began in Swansea after customers who bought mobile phones contacted trading standards officers claiming to have been contacted by locally based businesses attempting to sell them mobile phone insurance.
I think buzby should have a read up on the Data Protection Act and laws/regulations.
who can and cannot pass on customer personal data?
who that data can be supplied to.
the obligation to carry out due diligence checks.
-
this is just one typical example of hundreds concerning Carphone Warehouse and o2
08443350424 - who calls me from 08443350424? 1/3
I set up a new contract with the Carphone Warehouse on Saturday after purchasing a new iphone. Carphone Warehouse offered me there expensive insurance at £10.99 per month which I took out as the phone was so expensive to buy. By Tuesday, Michael Davies, from 02 rang to offer me cheaper iphone insurance. He knew my name and asked me to confirm my postcode and house number which I did (because he was from 02) He was offering me £105 for 18 months or he could split it, apparently over my first and second bill which I was prepared to do at £52.50. Michael then asked me to confijrm my long card number on my debit card which aroused suspicion. I told him I wasn't prepared to do this as he could be anyone. He assured me he was from 02 and that with it being a new number, not many people, if any would have it only 02 and Carphone warehouse and my friends. Michael then read out the first 4 digits of my RBS debit card and asked me to confirm the rest. I told him no and that he could be anyone trying to [problem] money. He told me due to confidentiality and security purposes, Carphone Warehouse had blanked out the rest of the card and assured me that this was good practice on there behalf. He needed my account details to cancel the existing insurance deal with Geek Squad in order for 02 to set up there insurance. I didn’t give Michael any details and said I would cancel my own direct debit with Geek Squad and call him back to take out there insurance. Michael Gave me his 02 extension number of 150, and then a separate number of 0844 335 0424 which I could call back on to take up this offer. After googling this number I found that they are conning bastards that are in no way connected to 02 or Carphone Warehouse, just trying to con money out of trusting, honest people. I'll be ringing 02, I’ll be going in to the Carphone Warehouse and I’ll be in touch with Watchdog.Trying to blame a firm for passing on personal details when they've got every right to is a case in point, no point trying to push toothpaste back into the tube.Of course lots of people can 'claim the same thing' - it doesn't mean to say anything illegal or improper has occurred.
personal data being used to cold call mislead and con but "it doesn't mean to say anything illegal or improper has occurred."
-
What? Incompetence in protecting their marketing preferences? These will be the same people who on calling these Meerkcat, Opera Lovin' comparison companies who make their money on selling on the details of enquirers, including home address and full DoB, feign surprise anyone would do such a thing.
ignorant maybe
wouldn't it be more constructive if you kept your personal views to your self and let forum members educate themselves as to how customer data is being supplied and used by unscrupulous con merchants?
-
my cousin had the same problem,took out a new phone,phone call soon after saying that CPW had passed her details on & would you like insurance etc
site:whocallsme.com whocallsme o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw
site:whocallsme.com whocallsme o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw - Google Search
site:whocallsme.com whocallsme "2010"o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw
site:whocallsme.com whocallsme "2010"o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw - Google Search
a lot of people are claiming the same thing
-
Consumer law (written) is kicked into touch when modified by a DD or card mandate.
buzby, consumer law that protect the public from unsolicited goods and services and unauthorised billing are not kicked into touch and or modified depending on what method of payment is used.
DD is purely a method of payment in the same way as paying by credit card or cash in a shop are methods of payment.
That fact that each method of payment can be abused by unscrupulous companies has no bearing on the law.
If somebody went into a shop and asked for a tin of beans it doesn't mean depending on the method of payment the shop keeper could also slip a tin of soup into your bag and charge you.
It doesn't mean that if you didn't notice then that represents a legal sales agreement.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Premium numbers on phone bill
in Telecoms - mobile or fixed
Posted
ErikaPNP,
the guy from BT is talking nonsense. Last year criminals were placing these calls on customers lines from roadside boxes in order to collect the revenue from the Networks. Her's the email reply I reived from PhonepayPlus.
could you post the numbers