Phone scam victims unable to halt larger bills

[gem]

From The Times
October 02, 2004

Phone scam victims unable to halt larger bills

VICTIMS of internet phone scams facing large bills are now finding that their telephone companies are recouping the money by increasing their direct debits without their approval.

In some cases, more than £100 a month extra is being taken from their current accounts, and they are powerless to intervene.

The phone scams, a scandal first highlighted in Times Money, feature a rogue dialler that inserts itself into a computer, often through pop-up boxes, and diverts it from ringing its normal internet service provider. Instead, it calls international premium-rate numbers in remote countries.

Mike Claughton, a freelance writer from Ashford, Kent, found that he had fallen foul of rogue diallers in May, when BT told him that his quarterly bill had exceeded £1,000 instead of the normal £250. He believed that more than £800 was attributable to calls to premium-rate numbers made by a rogue dialler.

He queried the bill with BT and with the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (Icstis), the premium rate regulator. But while the matter was being investigated, BT increased his direct debit payments from £135 to £240 a month to recover the disputed amount. Mr Claughton found that the only way he could stop this would be to cancel the entire direct debit.

Mr Claughton and other victims of the scam, who are disappointed with Icstis’s inability to stop BT and other phone companies from chasing them for payment of disputed bills, are taking their cases to Otelo, the telecoms ombudsman.

Otelo, unlike Icstis, has the power to order phone companies to waive all, or part, of a bill if it considers it unreasonable. Otelo can be contacted on 0845 0501614 or by e-mail at enquiries@otelo.org.uk.

MARK ATHERTON

[Alphabetex]

They (the customer) can order their bank not to pay direct debits ............also BT etc. must write to the customer to say that they are going to increase the direct debit, otherwise under the direct debit guarantee the bank will have to refund the money!

So that cannot be right, it must be credit cards direct debit authority ........that on the other hand is more difficult but not impossible.

The credit card company will continue to pay unless you agree with BT or whoever it is that you are in dispute with .........of course BT won't give in .........

THE TRICK IS YOU PHONE YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANY AND TELL THEM YOU LOST OR HAD YOUR CARD STOLEN.........THAT WILL FORCE THEM TO REISSUE ANOTHER CARD AND NUMBER ..........NOW IF BT TRY dd IT THEY NEED THE NEW NUMBER..........

now you to negotiate with your credit company and point out the situation and tell them that you have no intention of ever paying BT a hapenny.....and that if the credit card company pay them ..........you will NOT reimburse them..................

Believe me..... this works......................

SHOULD GIVE YOU BREATHING SPACE......... ULTIMATELY IF NEED BE: DEFAULT ON PAYING THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY.........................

Whatever you do......... do not pay these companies.......

[deezel]

I agree with the last post.

If you dispute payments of this nature with BT, can BT cut you off?

[Alphabetex]

No doubt they would freeze your outgoing calls and very possibly cut you off...........................

Though given the circumstances you could actually take BT to court ( they don't take people in this to court because they rarely win and theres the excellent chance a unfavourable precedent set for BTs disadvantage)

Now when you win your case they'd have to supply a incoming line!

But the point is a ludicrous bill for £800 to some conman in Belize or Nepal isn't on............if BT have paid them that's their loss and not the victims. ( a company makes £100 or more a second too .............surely needn't worry too much about this)

The dearest mobile and tariff would be peanuts compared to this .......not to mention my last bill to from BT was £48 for the quarter ( with their new "improvements" £6 up from the last one) and I'd only made £2 worth of calls .............. that's the additional cost of having to have a adsl line provided by our english phone pied piper conmen BT. Unfortunately I wish was in the cable district I'm forced to have a BT line. ........... Now that's choice for you!

If it was a question of having simply a phone then these the mobiles could prove to be much cheaper.
Essentially BT would be using a blackmail threat to force customers to pay a bill that should never be legal in the first place............. If everyone defaults then BT would no longer pay the setup in Nepal, Switzerland or Belize.........

Could well be them behind these anyway especially with their track record?........... the inland revenue, MI5 and special branch really ought to look into it, before another poor bailiff or debt collector just doing job gets savagely murdered.
Did you hear about a case where two bailiffs/thugs went to collect a debt and took the mans car and he then used his imobiliser to lock them in it and killed the pair of them with an automatic weapon?

The VC should given out for the man.

Hopefully sooner something like this does happen then seriously then we can expect BT to keep these inmoral tactics going.

[Conbhaill]

I agree with the last post.

If you dispute payments of this nature with BT, can BT cut you off?

Originally Posted by dee

Look to the BT code of practise on this one, pay what is not in dispute and go to the wire on the rest especially if it involves premium dialer scams since I believe there is sufficient law on the books to make a case that BT are in effect guilty of handling stolen money if they insist on collecting for these criminals. Make it clear to them that this will be mentioned in court, the chances are they wont cut you off.

[DaveL]

Is there anyone who makes their calls with another provider? People on this site seem to be hounding BT, but that is because the majority of people are with BT, is it not?

It is an industry wide problem, brought about by the lackadaisical attitude of the regulators.

[gem]

I'm with OneTel, but I've not had the problem of dialers and I'm on Broadband and I don't have a phone modem plugged in.

However, the other day I came home to see that I'd missed a call. I used 1571 and a message about Merry Christmas started. I deleted it within about 5 seconds but when I looked at my OneTel unbilled calls there was a charge (can't remember the exact amount) of over £1 but with no telephone number against it. I looked at the unbilled calls a few days later and it had been removed. I've since received the full bill and it's not on there.
The point I'm trying to make is that it implies that you COULD be charged for a call that is made to YOU (as opposed to a call made by you).

Something to think on maybe?

[kenji]

I was brousing forums and read this thread so Ive signed up here .

My story is that I used to be with aol , swapped to Wanadoo anytime . Had a lot of trouble signing on so eventually after a week phoned wanadoo and they asked what number was in the dial up box , I told them and they said that wasnt the correct number and gave us another one.( now! should they have said to me then and there that this number was a premium rate one)
Never thought anything about it until I got a phone call from BT enquiring about the unusual amount of calls to an international number. Turns out I had a rogue dialler and have acquired an extra £158 for the one international number .That was just for a week , god knows how much it would have been if BT hadnt got in touch when they did!!

I phoned Wanadoo because I am convinced the rogue dialler came into their dial up box when I downloaded their software from the internet . I asked to speak to a manager who after a short but serious conversation as much as said they would reimburse me if I sent the phone bill into them . My bill is due in any day now.Im a little worried that I have no proof that wanadoo agreed to pay it and wonder if when I send the bill they will deny agreeing to pay it.But Im hoping they will keep their word.

Im not sure what to do with BT , if I should refuse to pay anything of the disputed amount until I know what Wanadoo are going to do.BT have said it is nothing to do with them and my problem is to do with Wanadoo .

I have heard information that BT were sent a list of affected oversees numbers that used these rogue diallers some time ago and that they banned these numbers . but looking at this list I saw that the number that was in my Wanadoo dialler was on this list .So whether this would be of some use in a court stating that they knew of this number then I dont know.

I am so lost in these kind of things and am sure i willl just end up paying it , even though it will have to be at a small amount a week.

Edit.. Looking at the dates on some of the other threads on this matter , why has Bt not been brought to book about this before now.
Why has this been left to go on for years . Bt have been allowed to line their pockets with the procedes of this crime for long enough .

Its about time action was taken .

[banjoman]

Jeffrey Robinson’s excellent Sunday Times article “Why This Man Wants To Hit BT With A Baseball Bat,” (13 February 2005) deals with direct debits to BT.

He says that if you pay your phone bill by direct debit, before filing any claim in county court, send a copy of that claim and all your documentation, along with a copy of his article, to your bank’s branch manager.

Your covering letter should state:

“The debit charged to my account by BT (or whatever phone company) in the amount of _____, dated _____, includes illegally accumulated charges that are a direct result of dialler fraud. As laid out in the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002), sections 327, 328 and 329, you and BT (or whatever phone company) are specifically prohibited by law from concealing, arranging, acquiring, using and/or possessing criminal property, including money. Therefore, I am asking that you immediately, as required by law --- including and especially the statutes governing direct debits in the UK --- to reimburse these charges to me and charge-back the telephone company for them. I also understand that you are required by the Proceeds of Crime Act to report these illegal BT (or whatever phone company) charges to the National Criminal Intelligence Service."

Robinson’s claim is that, because banks are already in such a panic over the UK money laundering laws and their increased responsibilities to the Financial Services Authority, the better ones will rebate the disputed amount post haste. That, in turn, would force BT to sue the banks, a messy business at best, turning the banks into national heroes for protecting their customers while exposing BT and the others to even greater reputational risk.

If the bank refuses, you still have the county court claim option. I understand several court cases are proceeding. BT only needs to lose one.

[Worldlife]

Welcome to "The Scream!! Banjoman.....

A superb and informative first post - thanks.