Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Unsolicited reverse billed SMS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5910 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have recently started receiving reverse billed sms texts. I did the reply STOP thing and immediately informed Vodafone that these charges were both unsolicited and fraudulent. They said that it was up to me to reclaim the charges from the companies concerned ( which they supplied to me).

 

I asked vodafone to block all such messages on my account but they state they cannot do this. Also that they are not in anyway responsible for the activities of companies using their network, even if it is to commit fraud.

 

I have been left wondering weather this is a technical issue or a profit led

decision?

Surely a company that facilitates a fraud or profits from a fraud must be liable in some way shape or form.

The final slap in the face ... they even charge you to text STOP back :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adastra, I have been getting the same on the BT landline at our business. Bt give you a number to ring to stop them, sometimes they stop and then they start again. One day I got telephone calls from someone saying they had dialled another number and got mine, on the third call I gave our number and about five minutes later someone appeared in the business trying to get us to switch to their company, it drives you mad!:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

TRy texting "STOP ALL" to the number. PhonePayPlus (the artist formerly known as Icstis) are your next port of call if you can't resolve it with the owner of the number or if you don't know who they are.

 

PhonepayPlus - welcome to the PhonepayPlus home page

 

BB

BTONBADGER vs

 

HSBC Current Account - Settled £400 and closed acccount.

Egg Loan - Settled £106.32

 

Nat West Current Account - full resolution thanks to BCOB's. Refund of £5k unfair charges and interest plus £80 compensation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has definately got to be a profit con job. They instigated the reverse billing system, and they can stop it.

 

If you want a reverse call with BT, they ask the receiver if they will accept the charge before connection.

 

I think your beef is with the phone company and not the sender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently started receiving reverse billed sms texts. I did the reply STOP thing and immediately informed Vodafone that these charges were both unsolicited and fraudulent. They said that it was up to me to reclaim the charges from the companies concerned ( which they supplied to me).

 

I asked vodafone to block all such messages on my account but they state they cannot do this. Also that they are not in anyway responsible for the activities of companies using their network, even if it is to commit fraud.

 

I have been left wondering weather this is a technical issue or a profit led

decision?

 

Surely a company that facilitates a fraud or profits from a fraud must be liable in some way shape or form.

 

The final slap in the face ... they even charge you to text STOP back :mad:

 

 

Hi Adastra,

 

This is an old thread on the subject.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/91992-unsolicited-reverse-bill-texts.html

 

Also a thread from Vodafones own forum about blocking short codes, the method by which this [problem] is made;

 

Vodafone eForum -> Product and Service Support ( See 'Blocking Short Codes')

 

 

Hope it helps

 

Note: Do you have the five figure short code from the text?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last a minor success, having spent alot of time on the phone to vodafone and 20 or so emails, I received this 5 minutes ago:_

 

As a gesture of kindness on this occasion I would like to offer a refund of the charges incurred. Please note that as these companies are not regulated or controlled by Vodafone we are not obligated to refund these charges to you.

 

This still doesn't solve this problem but there is a glimmer of hope that they will introduce a bar

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last a minor success, having spent alot of time on the phone to vodafone and 20 or so emails, I received this 5 minutes ago:_

 

As a gesture of kindness on this occasion I would like to offer a refund of the charges incurred. Please note that as these companies are not regulated or controlled by Vodafone we are not obligated to refund these charges to you.

 

This still doesn't solve this problem but there is a glimmer of hope that they will introduce a bar

 

Adastra,

 

Don't raise your hopes, I can tell you from my own exerience from being in the same situation as you with VF, They will not bar these texts because they can earn up to 35% of the cost of the text acting for the company that has scammed you. I have moved to T-Mobile the only network that will bar short codes.

 

IMPORTANT: You still have to get yourself off the data base of the company that has scammed you. Do you still have the text? If so it will have the short code, a five figure number, post it and I will try to trace the company contact details for you. If you don't have it VF will, request all the info from them. If you dont get yourself off the data base these text will continue to arrive @ £1.50 each.... Then your detail will possibly be sold on to another company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no technical issue preventing the blocking of premium texts. For example, if you are out of pre-pay credit, these texts are automatically blocked, so you are being lied to.

 

However, since Vodafone have refunded you, why not respond whilst it is still fresh in their minds, stating that whilst you take your responsibilities seriously, you will not accept responsibility for the delivery of premium rate tests you did not request or authorise. Ask them again to ensure that a block on these is placed on your mobile number, however if they choose NOT to do so, you will call on them each and every time an unauthorised premium rated text is delivered, and copy the correspondence to OFCOM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no technical issue preventing the blocking of premium texts. For example, if you are out of pre-pay credit, these texts are automatically blocked, so you are being lied to.

 

However, since Vodafone have refunded you, why not respond whilst it is still fresh in their minds, stating that whilst you take your responsibilities seriously, you will not accept responsibility for the delivery of premium rate tests you did not request or authorise. Ask them again to ensure that a block on these is placed on your mobile number, however if they choose NOT to do so, you will call on them each and every time an unauthorised premium rated text is delivered, and copy the correspondence to OFCOM.

 

Buzby

 

Click on this link on VF own eforum and go to page 2, thread titled 'BLOCKING SHORT CODES'. I think you will be surprised.

 

Vodafone eForum -> Product and Service Support

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware of your debate in the Vforum, but there were a number of cross- issues being discussed and the responses were disparate and confusing (now THERE's a surprise!).

 

With regard to the VSPAM solution, this is bogus, as this is not what was being complained about. SPAM is free, and is sent in a scattergun manner via direct input or SMS gateways. There is no way for premium content to be sent in this manner, so Vodafone and all the other mobile networks eventually provided a Text spam alert service where recipients forwarded the messages they received (at no cost) and the network either investigated or blocked them from further misuse.

 

The short-code mechanism, developed by OFTEL/OFCOM for mobiles opened the way for premium rated texts, and despite my representation at the time (2002 or so) 'adequate safeguards' would be in place to prevent the situation complained of arising.

 

Vodafone's explanation of their Vbilling system - or to be more precise, the ability of a contractor to upload a list of numbers expecting an immediate payment irrespective of the status of delivery doesn't seem logical from anyone's point of view. We're being asked to believe that Vodafone will happily pay out the percentage of the call revenue for what could be a substantial number of mobiles that are disconnected, out of credit or a variety of other issues, simply on the say so of the message instigator?

 

I do recall being told (although this was on the Orange platform) that only messages deemed successfully delivered can be billed - and I'm currently on a tariff that simply will not allow the delivery of premium texts, so what Vodafone describes may be true for the way they set up their premium rated SMS handling (and more fool them) expecting punters to take the hit for their shortcomings is wrong, and if it came to court I do not see them winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to sum up, we all know that it is a fact that the technology to bar short codes is available now to all networks dispite the excuses and explanations that they want to give us. The problem is that the networks (except for T-Mobile) are not willing to make the choice of blocking short codes available to its mobile phone accounts for reasons which we can guess.

It's a fact that no one has ever taken this issue to Law. I was informed that it is such a grey area it would drag on for months. Can you see an individual taking such a risk for the sake of 3 x £1.50 texts. Sadly all those involved also know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would come to that. Unless your terms of service specifically stated that your phone would be capable of recieving reverse charge SMS which you could not opt out of, the issue is clear. Just the same as if a taxi driver delivered you to your destination with a £3 additional fee because he chose to take you via a congestion charging zone (yes, I know taxis are exempt), unless you agree beforehand, there's no liability.

 

I have only ever had 3 premium SMSs that were never requested, and after much shouting the fee was refunded 100%, so a class action would be unneccesary - just like other unfair penalties, they'll often take the easy route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile phone firms on edge as Ofcom prepares to set out plans for 3G auction - Times Online

January 3, 2008

 

The initial sale of 3G licences, at the height of the dot-com boom, attracted bids at unimagined levels.

The operators, convinced that it was make-or-break technology, paid a total of £22.5 billion during frenzied bidding.

However, after the technology and telecoms market crashed they were left with significant debts and technology that had failed to live up to its promise. One industry executive remarked that the early handsets were hot enough “to fry an egg on”.

While 3G was supposed to transform handsets into mini-computers, consumers remained uninterested in using them for anything other than calls and texts.

The Government/DTI allowed a 'better regulation' market place where this 'inward investment' could be repaid (with interest).

Mobility: Content: A cut above

1/9/2007

 

Based on the model of a premium SMS costing 1.50, Orange UK keeps 68 pence including VAT while Virgin Mobile keeps a whopping 98p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...