PhonepayPlus Consultation

[Hamlet]

[offtopic]

Erm, I'm sorry but I find this bit sexist and gratuitously offensive....

Originally Posted by mike99

Why? Even our German chancellor Angela Merkel was called "my girl" by the former German chancellor

I'm a (very) strong critic of PP+ and its appalling record (as you know) but I wouldn't necessarily expect PP+ to discuss the new CoP on this forum.

We don't know if ElGringo is right ("Mr Littlemore thought TS was an industry forum") but they did post here and if they do not want to discuss it here they should at least say so

Also, I don't think we should assume that everyone who speaks for PP+ is being disingenuous. Naive perhaps, but not necessarily disingenuous. It has, I think, become very clear over the years that it is mistake to regard PP+ as a single unified monolith of apologists for premium rate fraudsters.

You've said this before and you may be right here. By the way: This is also true for the German regulator. Maybe it is because "regulators" are "ambiguous" everywhere...

It is my belief that the public would be better served if PP+ were wound up and an arm of Ofcom were made responsible for ensuring that the networks took full responsibility for the PRS value chain and its misdeeds.

yessssss

I realize, however, that there is little prospect of this happening in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, people like us (in our small way) can put pressure on PhonepayPlus to make some improvements in consumer protection and I think we (and others) have had some minor success in doing this.

Do we?
I'm going to check this...

[mike99]

[El Gringo]

guys this is just my opinion but this latest consultation has little if nothing to do with consumer protection or protecting the public from this thieving industry.

We are proposing real and significant changes to the way in which we regulate. We hope that the new Code will allow you to offer innovative services with less regulatory “red tape” – but – will involve changes to the way in which you work and conduct business.

Originally Posted by Alex Littlemore

I completely fail to see how this tosh is going to improve matters for the public.

This to me is the situation as it now stands and in effect as always been.

The Furniture Removal Industry.

House/property owner (consumer)
----------------------------------

Door Key holder (Networks)

Removal Companies/Vans/removal men (Level 1)

Companies that advertise Removal Services and obtain the customers(level 2)
---------------------------------------------

this is how the Furniture Removal Industry would look if set up using the Premium Rate Industry model.
the simple question-how are known burglars able to repeatedly use this 'industry' to nick your tv?

[El Gringo]

This organization has, historically at least, included a full range of different interests from premium rate fraudsters in their own right through to people who were genuinely working hard to try and protect the public.

Originally Posted by mike99

Thank you for your comments relating to our proposed changes to the Code of Practice.

I would like to reassure readers of this forum that - as always - consumer protection is very much at the heart of this new Code. The Code is simplified but that does not mean it is any less robust. In fact we believe our proposed approach - with the focus squarely on outcomes for consumers that must be achieved rather than prescriptive rules that must be followed - will close up any loopholes whereby new services are not covered by a 'rule'. Whatever the service, there are outcomes that providers MUST achieve or be found in breach of the Code.

Consumer complaints are down by 52% this year, in large part due to the regulatory and enforcement action we have taken that has driven rogue providers out of the market. We believe the proposed Code will consolidate this positive trend. We very much share your concerns about unscrupulous providers but I would also emphasise there are many services that consumers want and that they make the choice to engage with fully informed of the facts.

We are listening to consumers and we want to hear your opinions. Please do respond to the consultation and if you have any further questions please contact me at sdent@phonepayplus.org.uk

Dr Shirley Dent
Head of Communications
PhonepayPlus

Originally Posted by Shirley Dent

@mike
would you describe Shirley Dents PR statement as 'genuinely working hard to try and protect the public'.

and by being paid to make the statements she makes doesn't she bare some responsibility for 'consumers' (mostly young children) being suckered in and ripped off by these Premium Rate crooks?
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/700

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/700046033
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/82018

[El Gringo]

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/outpu...-extended.aspx
PhonepayPlus consultation on new Code extended by one week
06/07/2010

PhonepayPlus today announced that it is extending the deadline for responses to the consultation on its proposed Code of Practice by one week.

The consultation was due to close on Thursday 8th July. The new date to receive responses by is no later than Thursday 15th July 2010.

The consultation is extended to allow organisations collating responses on behalf of clients and members enough time to do so effectively. This follows requests from a number of trade associations and aggregators for additional time when responding on behalf of others, ensuring that these responses are an accurate reflection of the views expressed.

Throughout the consultation, PhonepayPlus has emphasised the importance of responses from those who will be most affected by the shift in regulatory focus. PhonepayPlus remains committed to listening to and taking into consideration the views of Level 2 providers, who will shoulder more direct responsibility for compliance under the proposed new Code. For this reason, an extension of one week has been granted to enable the regulator to receive valuable responses from these providers via trade associations and aggregators, while at the same time not unduly delaying the delivery of the new Code.

Providers and others can respond to either the full consultation or the summary consultation and fast-track survey response.

@ all
a serious but amusing point

why are Phonepayplus having trouble obtaining the views of the (many?) 'industry' content providers.

[El Gringo]

I’d like to invite the forum to join in the PhonepayPlus new Code consultation. If you have been aware the phone-paid market for a while then you may remember us as ICSTIS.

We are proposing real and significant changes to the way in which we regulate. We hope that the new Code will allow you to offer innovative services with less regulatory “red tape” – but – will involve changes to the way in which you work and conduct business.

If you would like to have your say on these proposals it is vital that you offer your opinion before 8 July.

We have made this even easier than ever by offering a one-click short consultation which we think will only take 20 minutes to respond to – so please follow this link and take this opportunity to shape phone-paid regulation

Originally Posted by Alex Littlemore

and why after such a sort time since last tinkering with the Regulations which they claimed were actually successful in reducing 'consumer' complaints do they want to alter them again.

http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t28565.html
Suhail Bhat(MEF) alarming response to Paul Whiteing(Phonepayplus)

[mike99]

1. Do you agree with PhonepayPlus’ proposed definitions for the different parties involved in phone-paid services? If not, why not?

Disagree

These are not "parties". These are *roles* or activities which may be played / executed by 1, 2, 3 (or more) different parties.

Network operators have sometimes played all three roles themselves. More often, they have subcontracted the Level 1 & 2 roles.

2. Do you agree with PhonepayPlus' proposals to reform our existing Guidance, and to convert Section 7 of the 11th Code into Guidance wherever possible? If not, why not?

Agree

Partially. The industry has, hitherto, devoted a lot of energy to attempting to find loopholes in detailed prescriptive and proscriptive rules. General guidance along the lines of "PRS must not be dishonest or misleading" (similar, in principle, to the ASA approach) may prevent this. On the other hand, there is very little evidence that "loophole finding" has been a significant obstacle to regulation of PRS in practice. The main problem has always been, and remains, the absence of meaningful deterrence when it comes to fraud and theft committed under the rubric of "premium rate services".

3. Do you agree with the proposed outcomes and rules? If not, please highlight any with which you disagree, and explain your reasons, providing evidence where possible.

Disagree

I agree that premium rate service must comply with the law. The problem is the PhonepayPlus doesn't - and disguises this fact by re-defining the word "legality".

As far as PhonepayPlus is concerned, "illegal" means "illegal under the 2003 Communications Act as that act is interpreted by PhonepayPlus".

The only activity that PhonepayPlus will concede is covered by that act is the sending of unsolicited (normally free though sometimes charged) *promotional* SMS.

As far as PhonepayPlus is concerned stealing money from people by sending unsolicited reverse charge SMS "services" or by hacking people's phone lines to artificially inflate traffic; or defrauding people with "free" offers and with bogus competitions is not "illegal" at all.

The effective decriminalization of various forms of fraud and theft under PhonepayPlus's stewardship has been at the root of most of the problems seen over the years.

All cases of fraud and theft should be pursued through the criminal justice system. PhonepayPlus should concentrate on mis-selling rather than fraud and theft.

I also disagree with the statement on complaint handling. In my view, the networks should be made fully responsible for stopping "services" and providing refunds when the consumer goes (as PRS victims almost always do initially) to them with a complaint. The networks should not be permitted to pass PRS victims along the "value chain" and force them to ring a series of 087 numbers in search of the guilty party.

If Argos deliver and erect a shed in my garden that I didn't order, I can go to Argos and get them to remove it and cancel my bill. Argos can't simply claim that the manufacturer of the shed told them to do it and that I need to speak to them. Moreover. Argos can't simply help themselves to funds from my bank account because they know my address. It should be just the same in the premium rate industry.

4. Do you agree that the follow spending caps and thresholds, set out at Rule 2.3.12a, are appropriate?

All sexual entertainment services must be ended by the company providing the service when a maximum of £30 per call has been spent.

Disagree

"Subscription services" should simply be outlawed. They are too open to abuse and are almost always abused. If I wish to buy a ringtone I should be able to buy it at the price advertised without being tricked into a "subscription". If I want another ringtone and I have not been tricked, I might well go back to the same company and buy another one. These are the sorts of business practices PhonepayPlus should be encouraging rather than facilitating mis-selling (and often outright fraud) with vulnerable groups like children as the victims.

5. Do you agree that the follow spending caps and thresholds, set out at Rule 2.3.12b, are appropriate?

Services aimed at, or which should have been expected to be particularly attractive to children, must be ended by the company providing the service when a maximum of £3, or in the case of a subscription service a maximum of £3 per month, has been spent.

Disagree

"Subscription services" should simply be outlawed. See previous comments.

6. A new Rule, 2.3.12c, says providers of Virtual chat services must remind customers every time they have spent £10, stating that they have spent £10, rather than just repeating the cost of the service, and obtaining reaffirmation of the customer’s original decision to use the service before continuing. This must be separate from the customer’s interaction with the service itself, i.e., not within the text of a chat message

Disagree

"Virtual chat" "services" should be outlawed. This is blatant exploitation of vulnerable and inadequate people.

7. Do you agree that the follow spending caps and thresholds, set out at Rule 2.3.12d, are appropriate?

Other subscription service customers must be reminded what they are paying every month or every time they have spent £20.

Disagree

"Subscription services" should simply be outlawed. See comments at #4.

8. Do you agree with the proposals around due diligence, risk assessment, and control (pares 3.1.1a, 3.1.7, and 3.3.1)? If not, why not

Agree

Partially. There has always been a requirement for network operators to exercise due diligence. The problem has been that they never did.

Merely extending this requirement to level 1 & 2 providers will make no difference whatsoever unless this requirement is enforced.

9. Do you agree that 087 services should be exempt from the requirement to register? If not, why not?

Disagree

087 services should not be exempt from the requirement to register, otherwise dishonest firms will simply switch to using these numbers. I realize that such moves will limit the scale of profits that can be made, but if 087 numbers provide a safe haven from regulation, rest assured, this fact will be exploited.

10. Do you have a view on whether breaches from the 11th edition of the Code should be matched across to the proposed registration database, and/or how this could be best achieved? If so, please provide it, along with any supporting evidence.

In my view, there should be a link from any firm listed in the new registration database to all its previous adjudications. Where a firm has changed its name or identity but is still operated by the same people, links to the previous identities of those firms should be explicit and traceble within the database.

Many dishonest PRS firms have a history of changing identity in order to cover their tracks. Such practices should be circumvented under the new regime.

11. Do you agree with the proposed requirement for all parties who are defined as Networks, Level 1 or Level 2 providers to register with PhonepayPlus, and the rules of the registration scheme in terms of sharing that information? If not, why not?

Agree

Partially. Certainly, all parties who are defined as Networks, Level 1 or Level 2 providers should have to register with PhonepayPlus. The registration information: company name, company number, directors, real UK address (not a virtual or offshore address), complete breach history should be available to the public and to all other parties.

12. Do you have a view on whether open investigations against Level 2 providers should be flagged to other parties registered with PhonepayPlus? If so, please provide it, along with any evidence or reasoning.

All investigations should be made public immediately so that the public are assisted in protecting themselves and in negotiating with their network providers. It is indefensible for PhonepayPlus to simply supply the details for a company in response to a number search from a PRS victim and not highlight the fact that the company in question is under investigation - thus, potentially, giving a false sense of security to whoever has looked up the number.

13. What do you consider to be an appropriate fee for registration? Do you agree that the Registration Scheme should be funded by fees, or should its cost be incorporated into the general industry levy that funds PRS regulation?

No opinion

14. Do you agree with the proposed requirement that Level 2 providers register all their services with PhonepayPlus? If not, why not?

Agree

Of course. The days of offshore tax haven registration for content providers should have ended years ago. In fact it should never have been allowed in the first place.

15. Do you agree with the proposed investigation procedures? If not, why not?

Agree

Though the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

16. Do you agree with the proposals around sanctions and refunds? If not, why not

By far the most urgent measure required is the same as it has always been: the clear and explicit right for all phone users (and especially the parents/guardians of minors) to be allowed to choose to opt out of all PRS - including 09 numbers, short codes, and especially reverse charge SMS.

I realize that PhonepayPlus take the view that the 2003 Communications Act prevents them and Ofcom mandating the networks to take this measure, but

A) I simply don't believe Ofcom and PhonepayPlus are telling the truth here (PhonepayPlus have consistently interpreted this act in favour of the scammers rather than in favour of the scam victims).

B) If it is really the case that 2003 Communications Act prevents PP+ and Ofcom taking action to protect the public, then this act should be overhauled and PP+ and Ofcom should be calling publicly for this act to be overhauled. They are not doing so.

As far sanctions and refunds ...

The penalties for firms that act dishonestly to steal money from or defraud phone users should be increased dramatically so that these penalties can no longer be regarded as an "occupational hazard".

The dishonest firms should be put out of business for good and the thieves and fraudsters should be imprisoned.

[mike99]

So we shall see whether Mr Littlemore and Dr Dent really wished to hear these opinions.

One good thing in the new code is that they have moved on the question of sign-up and verifiability. The burden of proof is now on the PRS supplier rather than on the victim.

In other words (using my analogy of the shed from Argos) the shed manufacturer will (assuming this measure is adopted and implemented by PP+) no longer be able to say (with Phonepayplus's backing) "You can't prove you didn't order it can you? Nuh nuh ne nuh nuh." The shed manufacturer will be required to provide convincing evidence that I did order the "shed".

This is obviously a very welcome change for the better - though it is worrying that some of the people who thought this should be the other way around are still in charge of PhonepayPlus.

[Cormoran]

One good thing in the new code is that they have moved on the question of sign-up and verifiability. The burden of proof is now on the PRS supplier rather than on the victim.

Originally Posted by mike99

@Mike99,

This looks good on paper but don't you think that the PR industry will continue to act as they do now, that being that they will lie through their back teeth telling you that you must have subscribed online/by mobile/by landline or as I was told someone must have subscribed for me using my details! We have already been told that it was not possible for the PR industry to keep a record of each subscription made by its customers, what has now changed?

Let's see what happens......