Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Mobile phone and text message scam. EVERYBODY WITH A MOBILE PHONE PLEASE READ THIS!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5478 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

There are a couple of mobile phone scams that have been doing the rounds for a while now, but are still very successful.

 

The first one is you receive a call from a number beginning with "070". It looks like a mobile phone number, but it isn't. Your phone will typically ring once then hang up. The idea is that you ring the caller back but if you do it will cost you upwards of £1.50 a minute. You may get these on your landline too. DO NOT RING THE NUMBER BACK.

 

The second [problem] is when you receive a text message offering a brand new mobile contract or something similar. You might get 3 or 4 of these messages in a short space of time. the idea is you get fed up of receiveing them, so the text will say "To stop recievng these offers text "STOP" to 87654" (hypothetical example). DON'T REPLY. If you do, again it will cost you upwards of £1.50 - and it won't stop them coming.

 

In both cases report it to ofcom.

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one of these type of scams last week.

 

I had won a free phone select collect to claim the phone.

 

Stupid me selected collect next thing texts were coming with questions to a quiz and at the cost to me of 1.50 a time.

 

On a PAYG and slowly but surely my credit went down. The tow rags left me with 19 pence, I was not too happy.

 

Did some investigating as I saw this as basicly theft, turned out to be a UK based company called SMS Digital Future.

 

Called them and I had to go through the well you signed up for quiz sir (Like Hell I did) after there spill from a script sheet I just ripped into them, cheque with a full refund received 4 days later.

 

If you get scammed by one of these texting rip offs with a little determination you can get your money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say there is another one that is much more expensive, again a call comes to your mobile/home, recorded message saying you have been selected to win a holiday, press 9, if you do then you are charged £20 a minute I'm not sure exactly how it works but my friend's elderly relative was caught out on it, thought something was wrong with the line when nothing happened so waited and ended up with with an astronomical phone bill of several hundred pounds. I know it was on Watchdog a while ago but looks as though it has resurfaced.

  • Confused 1

If you find my post helpful please click on the scales at the top. Thank you

FAQ SECTION HERE

 

Halifax Bank Claim filed and settled

Halifax Credit Card settled

Argos Store Card settled

 

CCA requests sent to

Halifax Credit Card

LLoyds TSB Credit Card

Capital One

Moorcroft (Argos)

NDR

18/06/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I got a call yesterday, same kind of thing as what is described. My mobile rang once and hung up, I did not ring back to find out who it was, if its that important, they will call me back, anyway here is the number !!!!

 

0709 9814898

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see how that £20/min phone line [problem] involving pressing 9 works considering the upper limit ICSTIS put on 090 calls is £1.50

 

From ICSTIS

 

(United Kingdom) January 24th, 2005 -- Over the last few days, ICSTIS has received dozens of enquiries about the above 'scams', which are being widely publicised by e-mail. To help us put an end to the current spate of enquiries, please pass this information on to all contacts. In the first case, the apparent 'deception' takes place when people receive a recorded message informing them that they have won an all-expenses paid holiday and are asked to press 9 to hear further details. It is then claimed that callers are connected to a £20.00 per minute premium rate line that will still charge them for a minimum of five minutes even if they disconnect immediately. It is also claimed that, if callers stay connected, the entire message costs £260.00.

 

In the second case, the apparent 'deception' takes place when people receive a missed call from a number beginning 0709. It is then claimed that, if callers dial this number, they are connected to a £50.00 per minute premium rate line.

 

Please note that these stories are NOT true!

 

£20.00 per minute and £50.00 per minute premium rate tariffs do not exist - the highest premium rate tariff available is £1.50 per minute. Despite the dozens of enquiries received by ICSTIS about these 'scams' (and most people appear to have heard about them second or third-hand), not one person who claims that it has actually happened to them has been able to produce a phone bill to support their story.

 

ICSTIS urges any individual or organisation that receives an e-mail about these 'scams' to delete it immediately. Please do NOT forward it to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There may no longer be £20 a minute scams (but believe me there once were) but there are plenty of companies out there who are still making a fortune one way or another.

 

Another favourite [problem] is SMS Shortcodes - text messages asking you to send a message to, for example, 67890, like the ones you see on TV asking you to send in a competition entry. These can cost up to £2.50 per message.

 

These are often exploited by those companies who put free scratchcards in junk maiol and so on. They ask you to text in for your winning code, but then send up to ten text messages back. It is the INCOMING texts that you pay for whether you read them or not (It's called reverse SMS billing), so NEVER reply to these texts. The system is fully automated, the companies just sit back and watch the money flowing into the bank!

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

i got one, it was 07028759338, my partner called it back!

 

 

Grrr [problematic]!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

070 numbers are not charged at premium rates per se theyre typically charged at about 40p peak and about 12p off peak but no reason to call them at all.

 

As for the £20 per min there may well have been but every single instance ive come across has been the same old spam recirculated stuff it has to start somewhere but most of it is total rubbish (hence the icstis announcements).

 

Pressing 9 cannot leave you to get charges according to both BT and ICSTIS all it does is run you through their call management system and seeing as theyre calling you it cant charge they typically then use hard sell to convince you you've won a free holiday then attempt to fleece as much cash out of you as possible :(

 

The short message codes are a real pain though and very much real theyre a menace and should be banned theyre as good as unregulated and it seems anyone can send you a message and bill you £1.50 and then its down to you to prove you didnt subscribe.

 

On the plus side Bulldog have blocked all 090 number access by default on all their lines now unless you put a £50 deposit down first so very handy to stop kids etc, shame BT charge for the luxury

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume it's these people?

 

http://www.smsdigitalfuture.co.uk/

 

There's contact info there for those who might need it.

NatWest:

6/6/06 - Data Protection Act sent - £10 paid.

8/6/06 - Data Protection Act & £10 signed for.

29/6/06 - Statements received.

30/6/06 - Prelim letter £1397.94

11/7/06 - Prelim letter rejected

12/7/06 - Sent LBA

18/7/06 - LBA Rejected

24/7/06 - Moneyclaim £1779.56

31/8/06 - AQ Received

1/9/06 - Sent AQ + £100 (New Total: £1879.56)

16/9/06 - Received Cobbetts AQ

19/9/06 - Offer £1000 (Rejected)

22/9/06 - Settled in FULL £1879.56 (with disclosure)

Capital One:

6/6/06 - Data Protection Act sent

1/9/06 - Settled in FULL £775.37 (Default NOT removed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're just the service provider. There are dozens, probably hundreds of them in the UK alone. Tens of thousands in the USA. It's their customers, the clients that are using and abusing the service that are the theives.

 

For example, BT may supply your broadband service but it's you who decide how you use the internet. You can't blame BT if you use the broadband service they have supplied you with to download, for example, illegal music or video.

 

Likewise with the SMS services, these companies just provide the service but there is little control over how it is used. The easy solution would be simply to make these premium rate services illegal but that's never going to happen.

 

ALWAYS report these scams to Ofcom, they are legally obliged to investigate and take these things very seriously but if they don't know about them they can't stop them.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right though in believing you can only report them if they are based in the UK?

 

A telephone number 0778148513 keeps texting me. It belongs to 0778148513.com (Hostworld Ltd), which provides 'free' texts and other c**p, even though it charges you £1.50!!! They are based in Hong Kong so how would you go about reporting them?

Lloyds Current A/C DPA sent 7th May 2009 Closed and charges wiped Summer 2010.

 

Barclays A/C DPA sent 4th June 2009: no reply, no correspondence as of 2011.

 

Littlewoods Data Protection Act Section 10 sent 09/06/2006 - Fraudulent A/C closed and CRA data removed November 2006.

 

HSBC Default & Debt wiped March 2009 (6 yr Statute barred reached)

 

RBS - Claim 1 - Settled in FULL £766.00 20/06/2006.

RBS - Claim 2 - Settled in FULL £777.95 08/09/2006

 

 

BOS A/C No. 1 & 2

Amount - £586.39 claim plus 8% interest

SETTLED IN FULL 08/09/2006 - CHEQUE FOR £625.25

 

Halifax Visa Data Protection Act Disclosure Received

 

First Direct Data Protection Act Disclosure received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact Ofcom in the first instance, the chances are they will have to go through a UK service provider at some point and it's the service provider who can stop it and also be held responsible.

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact Ofcom in the first instance, the chances are they will have to go through a UK service provider at some point and it's the service provider who can stop it and also be held responsible.

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

 

If it's 0778148xxxx (you're missing a number on the original post), it's C&W Guernsey. Let me know what the full number is and I'll drop C&W a mail.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

07781485153

Lloyds Current A/C DPA sent 7th May 2009 Closed and charges wiped Summer 2010.

 

Barclays A/C DPA sent 4th June 2009: no reply, no correspondence as of 2011.

 

Littlewoods Data Protection Act Section 10 sent 09/06/2006 - Fraudulent A/C closed and CRA data removed November 2006.

 

HSBC Default & Debt wiped March 2009 (6 yr Statute barred reached)

 

RBS - Claim 1 - Settled in FULL £766.00 20/06/2006.

RBS - Claim 2 - Settled in FULL £777.95 08/09/2006

 

 

BOS A/C No. 1 & 2

Amount - £586.39 claim plus 8% interest

SETTLED IN FULL 08/09/2006 - CHEQUE FOR £625.25

 

Halifax Visa Data Protection Act Disclosure Received

 

First Direct Data Protection Act Disclosure received

Link to post
Share on other sites

07781485153

 

Ta, will drop an email now..

  • Confused 1

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanking you very muchly :)

 

I had a wee shifty on Google For C&W Gurnsey and there's a forum called 'This is Gurnsey' and it's full of complaints about Cable & Wireless! The Marketing Manager has been trying to answer some of them but looks like he's kinda failing miserably!!

 

AHA HAHAHAHA!!!

Lloyds Current A/C DPA sent 7th May 2009 Closed and charges wiped Summer 2010.

 

Barclays A/C DPA sent 4th June 2009: no reply, no correspondence as of 2011.

 

Littlewoods Data Protection Act Section 10 sent 09/06/2006 - Fraudulent A/C closed and CRA data removed November 2006.

 

HSBC Default & Debt wiped March 2009 (6 yr Statute barred reached)

 

RBS - Claim 1 - Settled in FULL £766.00 20/06/2006.

RBS - Claim 2 - Settled in FULL £777.95 08/09/2006

 

 

BOS A/C No. 1 & 2

Amount - £586.39 claim plus 8% interest

SETTLED IN FULL 08/09/2006 - CHEQUE FOR £625.25

 

Halifax Visa Data Protection Act Disclosure Received

 

First Direct Data Protection Act Disclosure received

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I've just noticed this old thread, and whilst I'm sure the respondents meant well, much of the information contained therein was completely inaccurate, there has NEVER been any method of charging a mobile of fixed phone £20 per minute, Complaints about pricey content is handled by ICSTIS, not OFTEL, and that numbers commencing 070 are so-called Personal numbering ranges and are not premium or mobile numbers.

 

It is also worth remembering that spoof SMS messages can be sent to mobiles with fake return numbers, or indeed NO originating number. Each network has its own SMS Spam department which you can forward the messages you receive (for free) so they can investigate. Current advice is to forward and delete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also forward sms spams/scams to 07TEXT 0SPAM (078398 07726), their website is at 07text0spam.com - Don't can it, zero spam it!.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just noticed this old thread, and whilst I'm sure the respondents meant well, much of the information contained therein was completely inaccurate, there has NEVER been any method of charging a mobile of fixed phone £20 per minute, Complaints about pricey content is handled by ICSTIS, not OFTEL, and that numbers commencing 070 are so-called Personal numbering ranges and are not premium or mobile numbers.

 

It is also worth remembering that spoof SMS messages can be sent to mobiles with fake return numbers, or indeed NO originating number. Each network has its own SMS Spam department which you can forward the messages you receive (for free) so they can investigate. Current advice is to forward and delete.

 

Sorry but it's your post that's misleading. In the very early days there were Premium rate numbers around that charged upwards of £5 a minute before the cap was put on it. Premium rate text message services can still cost £3 per incoming text, possibly more.

 

I actually complained to O2 about such a [problem] not that long ago, with one of those free scratchcards you get in junk mail and even popular TV listings magazines and so on. It asked to text in for your winning number. O2 said that there was not much they could do unless I actually had sent in the text and been charged but agreed to a refund if I tried it. I did and got SIXTEEN texts back at at cost of £3 each - a total of £48 in the space of a couple of minutes. Not an 090 number admittedly but the same thing.

 

As for 070 numbers I CANNOT EMPHASISE ENOUGH THAT THESE ARE NOT CHARGED AT STANDARD RATES!!! They may call them "Personal" numbers (but who cares what they're called?) but they are charged at much higher rates than normal calls and more importantly they LOOK like mobile numbers thus duping people into believing they can phone them as part of their inclusve minutes - not so.

 

Take this excerpt from Inweb Networks, one of the hundreds of service providers out there:

"How much will an 0700 number cost me?

Setting up an 0700 number is free, the caller will be charged 37.5ppm daytime, 25ppm evening and 12.5ppm weekend for dialling an 070063 number."

 

That's just one example but costs vary and may be much higher. You will find that if you look at service provider's websites they are often very cagey about 0700 number call charges, in many cases they are not given at all.

 

As for complaning, ICSTIS is merely an offshoot of Oftel and ther Oftel site is a good starting place for your complaint (ICSTIS can be accessed from the Oftel site). Furthermore, because 0700 numbers are not classed as premium rate numbers it is Ofcom and not ICSTIS that monitor 0700 numbers and charges - don't take my word for it, phone them and ask them!

 

Ofcom: 0845 456 3000 (local rate from your landline, may be chargeable from your mobile, if calling from your mobile using your inclusive minutes use 020 7981 3040 instead)

ICSTIS: 0800 500212 (free from a landline)

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on something.. ICSTIS is not an offshoot of OFTEL (or OFCOM for that matter), it's an independent organisation funded by the telecoms industry.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5478 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...