Reverse billed SMS - money taken without consent

[Zamzara]

My partner was looking at mobile phones online and entered her number expecting to be called with more information. It turned out that the box she entered it into was an advertising box belonging to a third party company.

 

She was then had around £5 removed from her Vodafone credit to pay for three or four texts sent to her by this third party.

 

Now, I am not sure exactly what was written on this advert, but my view of the matter is as follows:-

 

1. The essential features of a contract were not present, particuarly intention to be bound, and,

2. How can Vodafone, who are not a party to any alleged transaction on this website, deduct money from my partner's prepaid balance to pay this charge? Surely if X company of [problem]mers insist that this charge was agreed, it is up to them to pursue it, not just deduct it directly from money prepaid for telephone services entirely unconnected with them? Or in other words, on what basis could Vodafone defend passing on money like this for something unconnected to them?

[dreadpiratesteve]

Normally there would be a statement (usually in small print at the bottom) of the advert explaining the charges.

 

As far as I am aware, by entering your number and clicking "ok" you agree to the terms. The company would then "invoice" Vodafone for the charges which are taken from your credit.

 

If you dispute the charges, the first point of contact would be Vodafone and see if they would refund the charges or at least give you a contact number/ email address of the 3rd party.

 

If you do not want to be billed in this manner you can ask Vodafone to disable the feature (again, as far as I am aware this is possible) though this would mean that you would not be able to pay for things like ringtones, music downloads and games if that is a feature of the phone you use!

[Zamzara]

I still think that misses the point though. If someone agrees to something online while not using their phone, how does that concern Vodafone at all? There is no connection between the 'service' offered and my partner's phone contract other than her putting in a contact number!

[locutus]

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

 

Get the vodafone rep Lee to look in on this (top stickie in this forum)

[Zamzara]

The advert has long disappeared but, I suppose it might pop up again randomly though.

 

Perhaps I'm not explaining my point very well but I do get the bit about agreeing, I am qualified in contract law. I can fully understand that if someone uses their phone to access content or send messages then they agree to pay any advertised fee to the phone company.

 

But in this case, there is no conenction to the phone account - it was on an unrelated web site. So whatever was agreed to on that web site, Vodafone is not a party to that agreement- so why are they paying this 'debt' on my partner's behalf?

[locutus]

Basicly, some premium rate numbers you pay to send, some you pay to recieve. I agree that this setup is open to abuse. Contact Lee as I said above and let the Webteam investigate this for you.

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

My partner was looking at mobile phones online and entered her number expecting to be called with more information. It turned out that the box she entered it into was an advertising box belonging to a third party company.

 

She was then had around £5 removed from her Vodafone credit to pay for three or four texts sent to her by this third party.

 

Now, I am not sure exactly what was written on this advert, but my view of the matter is as follows:-

 

1. The essential features of a contract were not present, particuarly intention to be bound, and,

2. How can Vodafone, who are not a party to any alleged transaction on this website, deduct money from my partner's prepaid balance to pay this charge? Surely if X company of [problem]mers insist that this charge was agreed, it is up to them to pursue it, not just deduct it directly from money prepaid for telephone services entirely unconnected with them? Or in other words, on what basis could Vodafone defend passing on money like this for something unconnected to them?

 

Hi Zamzara,

 

From what you've posted I'd say that your partner has made a genuine error here.

 

In order for me to investigate this further could you ask her to email me with her account details via the contact information in our pinned thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?213340-Vodafone-Webteam-for-Customers-With-Problems-**UPDATED-jANUARY-2012**(2-Viewing)-nbsp?

 

Once sent she'll receive an automated reply with a reference number. Could you then update your thread with this so I can make sure it's received and I'll get back to her as soon as possible?

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[Zamzara]

Thanks Lee. I will get here to email in the next couple of days.

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

You're welcome Zamzara.

 

I'll look forward to hearing from her soon.

 

Best wishes,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

 

 

[CrappoMan]

I don't think anyone has raised the point that this could be maliciously used by someone to run up a bill or drain prepaid credit of someone else's phone. If I visited the website and entered YOUR phone number, you would be the one who has to pay any associated bill.

 

If the number had to be entered using the phone, there would be no argument, as vodafone would have a record of you sending the information to the company, but by using a third party website, vodafone had no proof that YOU entered the information.

[Zamzara]

I don't think anyone has raised the point that this could be maliciously used by someone to run up a bill or drain prepaid credit of someone else's phone. If I visited the website and entered YOUR phone number, you would be the one who has to pay any associated bill.

 

If the number had to be entered using the phone, there would be no argument, as vodafone would have a record of you sending the information to the company, but by using a third party website, vodafone had no proof that YOU entered the information.

 

There was more to the process than I knew about to start with. Nevertheless the process is highly misleading and predatory. My partner has corrected some of my earlier information. What actually happened was she answered a question correctly online, was told she had won a prize and was asked for her contact number to claim it. A text message contained a PIN to verify that it was her phone which she entered back on the website. However the information about the cost of entering this PIN was hidden on the next screen of the text message, so was not visible unless she actively scrolled down, which there was no reason to do as the PIN was immediately visible. This is bordering on a criminal bait and switch as she was told she was already entitled to the prize at this point.

 

It looks like it may have been this company as the modus operandi is the same. Phone companies should not be passing money on to these people. The fine they have been given is just the cost of doing business.

[locutus]

Did ya get Lee onboard? If it is someone like this he may be able to refund ya.

[Zamzara]

Did ya get Lee onboard? If it is someone like this he may be able to refund ya.

 

Yes we are in contact, but it's not quite resolved yet one way or the other.It has also just been pointed out to me at work that what happened is an offence under Sch 1 31. of the CPUTR 2008. It's not a lot of money individually, but spread over a lot of people it is.

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Hi Zamzara,

 

Thanks for updating the thread.

 

As you'll aware I spoke to your partner on Monday and am currently getting this looked into.

 

As promised, I'll update them later on in the week.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[Zamzara]

Just to update this with the outcome that we did receive a refund of the money directly from the company. I don't particuarly feel that this excuses them from their conduct in wrongly taking it, but I am very grateful to Lee for his assistance.

[goodwill]

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

 

 

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

Edited April 3, 2012 by goodwill

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Just to update this with the outcome that we did receive a refund of the money directly from the company. I don't particuarly feel that this excuses them from their conduct in wrongly taking it, but I am very grateful to Lee for his assistance.

 

Hi Zamzara,

 

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

 

Kind regards and if I can assist with anything else in the future please let me know.

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[jacktheband]

Sounds like a good result for this case. However, if you feel that there is an issue with this sms-charging company trying to charge yourself via Vodafone without good reason then log your compliant with http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk

[goodwill]

Just to update this with the outcome that we did receive a refund of the money directly from the company

which company was it

[goodwill]

which company was it

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

Edited April 5, 2012 by goodwill