O2 bill for B4U 84010 text scam despite police warning

[El Gringo]

http://www.grumbletext.co.uk/search.php?mode=results

StealthNET
Riverside Centre
Riverside Rd
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR33 0TU
Tel: 01493 660066
Fax: 08701351069

[mike99]

Yep, even ICSTIS has noticed them:

http://www.icstis.org/consumers/adju...ubmit=+search+

[Hamlet]

They have been noticed in Germany long before, because they had nice partners in Germany... but that's a long story...
@mike99 Maximum applause for your correspondence. Is it possible that you took my correspondence with the German regulator and translated it into English? It sounds so similar... Just kidding... According to the lobbyists from the "Network for Online Conmmerce" it's no surprise that we had similar questions... Why?

- In the 1980's the UK adopted a self-regulatory model, financed by the industry (36 carriers currently fund the regulator ICSTIS) and the market continues to demonstrate successful growth and low customer complaints - see www.icstis.org.uk.
- This model has been successfully copied in other European and world-wide markets.

Originally Posted by NOC SIG 9 - USA Meeting, Ambassador Hotel, Miami, 10th August, 2002

There have been many kidding Georges in Europe...

[mike99]

Just imagine you tried to report a burglary to the Police and had the following conversation:

Crime victim: "I'd like to report a burglary."
Police: "I'm sorry we don't prosecute burglars."
Crime victim: "Yes you do."
Police: "Well, ok we do. When we say 'we don't prosecute burglars' what we really mean is that 'we don't prosecute burglars unless we have investigated and found some evidence against them'."
Crime victim: "So are you going to investigate my burglary?"
Police: "Well, ok then."

Hard to imagine is it not? And yet this is an exact analogy of the conversation I have been having with ICSTIS.

I reported two unsolicited SMS messages (from 62666 and 09081231231) to ICSTIS on 2006 November 11. Two different people wrote (snail mail) letters back refusing to investigate my compliant and providing the following text by way of explanation:

ICSTIS does not have to power to force a service provider to refund customers.

I wrote back to point out that this was untrue and received the following:

I have received your letter and will be replying to you within the next few days. I am very sorry for any delay, but I before I replied to you I wanted to discuss all of your points with my manager and the various case officers that are involved in your ongoing cases. I also wanted to look at any discrepancies in our procedures.

After a month I had still not heard and wrote again, receiving the following reply:

ICSTIS does not deliberately misinform the public and the sentence relating to refunds is intended to set realistic expectations instead of misinforming consumers. ICSTIS as an organisation can request that Service Providers refund consumers only by way of a sanction imposed as a result of a breach of our Code of Practice. What this means is that for the majority of consumers who call ICSTIS regarding a similar issue, if no investigation or breach has occurred, ICSTIS is powerless to demand refunds are given. Only once a case has been adjudicated on by the panel, a breach has been identified, and the panel agrees that redress is required, can ICSTIS enforce refunds. The letter sent to you advised that we would not be investigating the matter further, this would mean that no investigation would occur, the case would not go to panel and therefore ICSTIS would be unable to assist with any refund required. I understand that this may not be extremely clear however as stated in my previous email, all correspondence is now being reviewed to ensure that our role and remit is clear.

ICSTIS went on to say that they would be investigating my complaint after all.

So to summarize the ICSTIS position:

We shall not investigate your complaint because we have no power to impose sanctions and when we say we have no power to impose sanctions what we really mean is that we have no power to impose sanctions unless we have investigated your complaint so as a special favour to you we shall investigate your complaint after all.

I hope that is clear to everyone.

[El Gringo]

You may find this interesting reading.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...k&ct=clnk&cd=2

CONSULTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY ON
A DRAFT ORDER RAISING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR THOSE
THAT MISUSE PREMIUM RATE SERVICES, AND ON DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION

Issued
29 June 2005

Policy Proposals and Argument – Disclosure of Information
Both Ofcom and ICSTIS have asked DTI to make the additional change to the Act to
enable Ofcom to disclose information to ICSTIS on which CP has applied for which
number. We have concluded that an order under section 393(3) and (4) is necessary
and that it will help ICSTIS more easily to identify which CP has control of which
PRS number. This should help ICSTIS speed up its whole regulatory process for
identifying and policing TCPs linked to miscreant SPs, the aim of which is in line
with recommendations 1-4 in the Ofcom report, which aim to improve information
sharing and gathering.

What possible reason can there be for big UK companies wanting to trade anonymously?

The Profits And Revenues Rogue PRS Providers Can Make
In assessing how much to raise the level of penalty by, the level of profits made by
rogue providers needs to be assessed. But it is not only a question of quantity, it is
also a question of the extent to which consumers are harmed.
As mentioned above, a company was fined £100,000 by ICSTIS in 1998 for
misleading consumers into believing they had won a prize. This and similar
adjudications over the years had constituted a de facto fines ceiling which ICSTIS felt
was proportionate up to 2003.
What is notable from the adjudication relating to the 1998 case is that it was estimated
that £80,000 was made from callers using PRS who in actual fact had not “won” a
prize. In fact the £100,000 fine has been used since 1998 by ICSTIS on 5 occasions (4
in 2004). However, recent increases in profits made have caused ICSTIS, Ofcom and
DTI to consider raising the maximum penalty.
The recent Ofcom report on PRS argues that the fine should be at least comparable
with the profits made from PRS. The report cites three companies as having made
profits over £250,000 in the past year. ICSTIS’ evidence suggests that vast profits are
regularly made by SPs relying on only a tiny percentage of recipients responding to a
text or call inviting them to contact a PRS number (ICSTIS is of the view that 1% call
return is quite normal for such a venture). This would make a maximum fine of
£250,000 seem proportionate to this level of profits.
Page 12

So, if a SP sends a text message to only half the UK active handsets at 3p each on a
bulk delivery arrangement
1
from overseas and just 1% of the recipients dial the
“service” promoted on an 090 number at £1.50 per minute, and stay online for 5
minutes to see what “prize” they have “won” and may claim, then the revenues will
be as follows:
Cost of text messages outbound to 29,000,000 mobile @ 3p each £870,000
Revenue from 1% of 29M recipients dial 090 at £1.50 for 5 minutes
£2,175,000
Net profit
£1,305,000

Other examples provided by ICSTIS also illustrate the enormous revenues that are to
be made from fraudulent PRS:

Example 1
This SP ran a dialler in 2004 that was non-compliant with the Code. There were
nearly 900 complaints from the public about this service. ICSTIS was advised by the
network that the revenues generated on PRS were £3,619,376. The company was
fined £100,000.

Example 2
A company provided a dialler service which was found to be non-compliant with the
Code. £3,779,942.80 of revenue was found to have been generated of which just
under £3,000,000 was in one month (June 2004) alone.

These examples are quite typical of cases ICSTIS sees and these examples both relate
to modes of promotion to consumers which are widescale utilising the Internet or
other means (such as automated calling equipment) to contact thousands, if not
millions, of consumers very quickly. The other related factor seen from these
examples is that revenues are amassed quickly in days and weeks, not months.

According to what Ofcom told Mike half the active mobiles in the UK would have previously opted in to this typical fraudulent PRS example.
OK so how many complaints was M* S* P* and his Majorcan banditos generating. Some of their sp's were using 500 prn's

[El Gringo]

no no no we should pad this example out with a few example "stake holders" and we get a different result.
Icstis
BT
government
Telecom One
M* S* P* (for want of a better name)

So, if a SP sends a text message to only half the UK active handsets at 3p each on a
bulk delivery arrangement
1
from overseas and just 1% of the recipients dial the
“service” promoted on an 090 number at £1.50 per minute, and stay online for 5
minutes to see what “prize” they have “won” and may claim, then the revenues will
be as follows:
Cost of text messages outbound to 29,000,000 mobile @ 3p each £870,000
Revenue from 1% of 29M recipients dial 090 at £1.50 for 5 minutes
£2,175,000
Net profit
£1,305,000

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/ec.../ec-fraud.html

At what point in a fraudulent act is it considered ‘complete’?
If a fraudster causes funds to be moved out of the control of the victim, the fraud is complete, though the funds may have never been in the possession of the fraudster, and the victim secures their recovery immediately.

Originally Posted by city of london police

Lets look at the pie chart
BT bills= the fraud is "complete".
From this point on anybody who touches that money is committing an illegal act.
If they suspect the money was the result of an illegal act they are committing a criminal act.

ammount defrauded = £2,175,000
Government 17.5% VAT.
the rest
Icstis 1/2 of 1%
BT~ 6p in every pound (I think)
Telecom One £870,000 for sending unsolicited texts and what ever 09 arrangement they have with M* S* P* for sharing the 09 money.
M* S* P* net profit is "09 arrangement"-£870,000

[Hamlet]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...367088,00.html

Posing as a potential client, a Sky News reporter met one of Telecom One's directors, Darell Curtis.
He agreed to send out two million unsolicited texts for £50,000, and was not worried about the law.
When Sky News said to him "What we're doing is effectively illegal", he replied: "It's not sort of illegal, it's bending the law".(::
Telecom One was not only willing to spam two million British mobile phone users, they also offered ways to help dodge the regulator.

£50,000/2.000.000 = 2.5 p per message
29.000.000 * 2.5 = 725,000
How much would be the profit, if *** was ***

[mike99]

Did I "solicit" the free spam advertising the PR spam after all?

Today I had another text message from the aforementioned 69977 people promoting pornographic premium rate SMS on my work phone.

FREE Info:
It's been ages since we heard from u. Are u horny.Wanna b relieved?
Dial 69977 from yr mobile,we’ve loads of new Girls,they’re DIRTY!

I tried to report this on the ICSTIS web site but it was not working this afternoon - nothing happened when I hit the "make complaint" button.

So I rang ICSTIS and spoke to someone who refused to take my complaint over the phone. He could only suggest that I text "STOP" to 69977 from my mobile and repeated the standard ICSTIS line that there is no such thing as an *unsolicited* PR text message.

The deal these days seems to be that ICSTIS will only take on your complaint if you investigate it yourself and can prove you were scammed - which begs the question as to what they then "investigate".

So I took up the suggestion that I get in touch with the spammers myself - but I rang the (currently) unregulated semi-premium rate 087 number provided on the ICSTIS site from my land-line rather than taking any risks with my mobile.

The person I spoke to confirmed that the messages I have received from 69977 were from Ftxt but claimed that that the 62666 message I received was not from Ftxt.

When I pointed out that 62666 was listed as an Ftxt number on the ICSTIS site, he changed his mind and said that I had initiated both sets of calls when I rang 69977 from my mobile.

He then located the details and the recording and said that I had rung 69988856 in August 2005 and stayed on the phone for 10 minutes 31 seconds without saying anything "you have obviously phoned by mistake" was his conclusion.

This time, it seems, the "service provider" was actually telling the truth. My bill for August 2005 (held by the firm I work for) confirmed the existence of this call - something I could not, of course, have confirmed as a PAYG customer.

This is obviously one of the big "advantages" of short codes (from the point of view of the "industry"). It would be almost impossible to accidentally dial a normal 09 premium rate number after forgetting to lock the keypad. There is a much greater chance of accidentally dialing a short code. This also must explain why short codes tend to have runs of repeat digits.

So, I have (I hope) stopped these messages and I must now withdraw my earlier allegation that Ftxt sent me completely unsolicited spam .... not that I find their activities in any way acceptable.

I have asked my firm to ask my service provider (in addition to registering with TPS) to bar all PR calls from my phone to prevent this happening again. Now I shall only have to worry about the likes of Hybyte, Dialogue and Zamano; and foreign firms who ignore TPS; and firms that use 087 numbers; and firms that use virtual mobile numbers .........

[mike99]

One down two to go:

http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...ult.asp?mode=3 scroll down to "hybyte".


ICSTIS seem to be taking a very long time over the Dialogue and Zamano cases though.

[Hamlet]

£10,000 fine: The Panel noted that the fine would have been higher if the service provider had not already incurred other costs in relation to refunding consumers and acted pro-actively.

A bar on the service on any numbers on which it may be operating for a period of two years from the date of this decision.

The Panel formally ordered that the service provider continue to pay redress to complainants, whist noting that it had already paid refunds of over £16,000 to consumers.

10,000 + 16,000 + x? How much must x be to take them 10% of the profits?

[El Gringo]

Yes and how many ways is "x" being sliced?

Does one of the slices(17.5% of (10,000 + 16,000 + x)) go to a body with the power to in effect change the
Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) to the Proceeds of Consumer Act (POCA).

[El Gringo]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/investi...name_page.html

JOKE'S ON PEST TEXTER
Penman & Sommerland 15/02/2007

* More Investigates

PREMIUM-line pest Chenin Thomas doesn't know when he's taken a joke too far.

Last summer, his outfit Hybyte Solutions and Services Ltd was slapped with a £25,000 fine for sending dodgy joke text messages.

Nearly 100 people complained to watchdog ICSTIS that the joke was on them - they hadn't asked for the text but were charged £1.50 for each one.

Hybyte was also ordered to pay back everyone and barred from running the service for six months.

But the jokes - one a week - kept on coming.

Hybyte claimed it hadn't sent them but another 86 victims stepped forward to complain - and ICSTIS backed them up.

Call logs showed the jokes started before the ban was in place but continued after it kicked in on June 15.

This time round, Hybyte has been fined another £10,000, barred for two years from the service and ordered to pay back the latest victims.

Thomas, 47, who started Hybyte in 2000 and his codirectors are Bhanu Choudhrie, 28, and Matthew Barbieri, 38, are all from London.

They've been given a formal reprimand by ICSTIS - their fifth - along with nearly £50,000 fines, in the past 12 months.

says it all.

[El Gringo]

There is something here but I don't know what.

It's is to do with how BT bills. The "bad debt surcharge" and “NTS Retail Uplift”.
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=uk

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 6.08.2004
SG-Greffe (2004) D/203444
Office of Communications
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
United Kingdom
For the attention of:
Mr Stephen Carter, Chief Executive
Fax: 44-20 7981 3504

II.1. NTS Retail Uplift
Ofcom underlines that providers terminating NTS calls (“terminating communications providers”, or “TCPs”) do not have a commercial retailing relationship with the customer making the call. It also recalls that under the current regulatory regime, BT is required to originate and retail calls on behalf of TCPs and pass the revenue after applicable discounts to the TCP, net of charges for conveyance of the calls on its network and for retailing those calls
(including, for example, the provision for billing and payment collection services). The so-called NTS Retail Uplift is the charge that BT can make to TCPs for the retailing of NTS calls.

So it appears BT is responsible for the actual billing and retail of calls and charging Telecom One for this service.

Now the only thing different I can find for BT's agreement for billing for Premium rate services is they are allowed to charge a "bad debt surcharge".

If BT is selling a "billing service" isn't the onus on BT to ensure they are not billing for services that contravine UK consumer/criminal law?

[mike99]

Update: It seems that there really is such a thing as a "text scam".

(see below for background)

email from Ofcom:

Unsolicited reverse charge premium rate SMS

Further to my earlier emails on the above subject, I can confirm that I have completed my enquiries and can respond to your questions as follows.

1. Did Ofcom advise the ICO that reverse charge premium rate SMS messages cannot be randomly generated by the sender?
Response: I understand from the ICO that its standard letter includes the following text: "We have been advised by Ofcom that such reverse charged messages cannot be randomly generated by the sender". Apparently, in making this statement, the ICO referred to technical advice it received from Ofcom at the time, although they do not have a copy of this advice. However, Ofcom does not hold a copy of any advice given to the ICO on this issue, and Ofcom has been unable to confirm internally whether any such advice was given either verbally or in writing.

2. Does Ofcom believe this statement to be true?
Response: No; Ofcom's current understanding is that it is technically possible for a Service Provider to send a reverse charge SMS to any mobile number. These SMS can be generated randomly by the Service Provider. Consumers can be misled or not realise that they have entered into a contract to receive reverse charge premium rate SMS. Therefore, in some cases, these SMS could be unsolicited.

3. If Ofcom does believe this statement to be true, how do Ofcom explain the phenomenon of unsolicited reverse charge premium rate SMS messages?
Response: N/A; in view of our response to question 2.

4. You refer to ICSTIS adjudications in this area and ask whether Ofcom is aware of these adjudications or does not regard them as evidence that reverse charge premium rate SMS messages are sent.
Response: Ofcom is aware that ICSTIS publishes details of cases that have been adjudicated on by its Board, including cases of reverse charge SMS.

Executive summary: "ICO are a pack of liars. We (OFCOM) are a pack of liars too .... except that you have now rumbled us and so we have finally had to come clean. We (and the other regulators) do our best to protect the criminal enterprise known as the "premium rate industry" but despite our best efforts people like you sometimes see through our subterfuges."

Background:

So is there really such a thing as a "text scam"? Is it really possible for firms to send out unsolicited reverse charge text messages?

Not according to The Information Commissioner's Office:

reverse charged messages cannot be randomly generated by the sender. You are probably receiving such messages as a result of a service that you have, at some point, signed up to, e.g., a downloaded ringtone, a sports results service, a daily joke/horoscope. If you do not recall doing so, you should consider the possibility that a friend, family member or colleague may have signed up to this on your behalf. You may also be receiving these messages as a consequence of entering a competition. If you do not recognise the name of the sender it may be that they are another trading arm of a company with whom you have had contact.


How do The Information Commissioner's Office know this?

We have been advised by OFCOM

So did OFCOM really advise the ICO that there is no such thing as unsolicited reverse charge SMS? I wrote to them and asked:

1) Did OFCOM advise the ICO that reverse charge premium rate SMS messages cannot be randomly generated by the sender?

2) Does OFCOM believe this statement to be true?

3) If OFCOM does believe this statement to be true, how do OFCOM explain the phenomenon of unsolicited reverse charge premium rate SMS messages?

In reply (yes I received a reply) I received the most extraordinary letter which I reproduce in full below (albeit with the names removed):

Dear ********

Freedom of Information request: right to know

Thank you for your enquiry concerning information provided by Ofcom to the ICO, which Ofcom received on 30 November 2006.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

Question 1

Did Ofcom advise the ICO that reverse charge premium rate SMS messages cannot be randomly generated by the sender?

Response

We provided background information to the ICO on the use of text messages (SMS) for unsolicited direct marketing purposes. The advice was:

" Under the Regulations individual subscribers (consumers, sole traders and (except in Scotland) partnerships) have to give their prior consent to the sender before they receive SMS for direct marketing purposes from the sender.

The exceptions to this rule are:

• The sender obtains a recipient’s mobile telephone contact details in the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale of a product or service to the recipient, i.e. an existing customer relationship;

• The direct marketing is in respect of the sender’s similar products or services only; and;

• The recipient is always able by simple means and free of charge to refuse the use of his mobile telephone number for the purposes of future direct marketing by SMS.

Corporate subscribers

The rules about unsolicited SMS for direct marketing purposes do not apply to corporate subscribers (legal persons and, in Scotland, partnerships).

Identity and address of the sender

The person sending SMS for direct marketing purposes must not disguise or conceal their identity and must provide a valid address to which the recipient of the SMS may send a request that such SMS should cease. "

Question 2

Does Ofcom believe this statement to be true?

Response

Ofcom's view is reflected in the position set out above.

Question 3

If Ofcom does believe this statement to be true, how do Ofcom explain the phenomenon of unsolicited reverse charge premium rate SMS messages?

Response

Ofcom does not have any evidence that unsolicited SMS messages can be received outside of the circumstances outlined above. It may of course be possible for consumers to be misled or not realise that they've entered into a reverse-billed PRS SMS arrangement. This is why ICSTIS provides clear code provisions to ensure these services can be effectively regulated.

You should ensure that when using the provided information in any way, including publishing the information, you comply with all relevant legislation. For example, the information provided may be protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice. For Ofcom’s policy on copyright and related issues, please refer to our website at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/disclaimer/

If you have further questions about the legal issues raised concerning SMS messages, we would suggest that you obtain independent legal advice.

Regards

OFCOM

My summary: It is forbidden (cf "impossible") to send unsolicited reverse charge SMS and we do not have any evidence that anyone does this.

We must conclude therefore that either OFCOM is unaware of the dozens of ICSTIS adjudications in this area or does not regard these adjudications as "evidence" that unsolicited premium rate reverse charge SMS messages are sent.

Or perhaps Ofcom are simply dissembling (to put it as politely as possible). The legalisitic tone of their letter would seem to suggest that they have something to hide and that my direct questions have put them on the defensive.

But what are they hiding and why?

Originally Posted by mike99

NOTE: My reply to this mail met with a stonewalling response so I went higher up the OFCOM chain of command and solicited the most recent response.

[mike99]

Final Demand

Having given up trying to persuade O2 that shovelling large quantities of their customers’ cash into the pockets of offshore crooks is rather immoral and (if anyone were prepared to enforce the law) illegal, we decided in November last year to end our contract with O2 – we had been with them for about 10 years, had not had an upgrade for about four years and had no continuing contractual obligations to them.

It turns out that the small print says that you have to carry on paying them for a month after you finish with them, so we resigned ourselves to that.

We stopped using our phone at the end of November 2006. We took out the battery and sim card and stopped our direct debit. We informed O2 in writing (in an email) that we wished to end our contract with them on 27 November 2006 and we confirmed this in a phone call the following day. After explaining our intentions in great detail to two successive people in different departments, we were cut off. So, just to be on the safe side, we sent them a recorded delivery letter which they received on 1 December 2007. Not that O2 actually sign for recorded delivery letters nor that the delivery of recorded letters to O2 is actually recorded on the royal mail track & trace system, but we managed to get a letter from the Royal Mail confirming that our letter had been delivered and then an admission from O2 that they had received it.

It is now March 2007 and we are still being billed – or at least we were for December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. I wait to see what happens in March.

Meanwhile, in spite of all the emails and phone calls in the intervening period and paying the December bill on time, we received a final demand today for January 2007, and February 2007 – which we have so far refused to pay. We have also been threatened with debt collectors unless we pay in 4 days.

Of course if, once we have been through the entire O2 complaints procedure and appealed to Otelo, we lose our case, O2 will receive a cheque the following day. In the meantime, however, I am rather reluctant to part with any money.

Funnily enough, our next door neighbours and a colleague at work have also had huge problems disconnecting from O2. Moral of the story: Have nothing to do with the firm and their crooked friends in the BVI.

[mike99]

Good news:

O2 have relented and waived our "debt" - as a "gesture of good will".

To be scrupulously fair to O2, we did confuse their system by originally indicating that we wished to transfer our old number to our new service provider and then changing our minds (after reflecting upon the fact that the crooks who O2 bills on behalf of still have our old number). But I could never see O2’s argument that we should pay three months extra rental because of this. We had made it absolutely clear at the outset that we were transferring to an alternative network.

As a parting shot, the following from O2:

I can confirm that the O2 network bills for the use of the network and not on behalf off specific companies who set their own charges for their services. I can confirm that O2 do not work with premium rate companies such as Goldeford Investments. These services are provided by third party companies, who also set the charges to access them. Some premium text services may incur multiple charges. An example is a ringtone or game that costs £3.00. Some companies may charge this as a single premium text message costing £3.00, while other may charge it as two messages priced at £1.50 each.

The premium service company can only provide these chargeable services if a customer has either requested an individual service or has subscribed to a continuing service. These requests can be made via text messages, phone calls or via a website.

Translation:

We do not bill directly on behalf of the out and out crooks. The crooks hide behind legal (though dishonest) “service providers” who launder the money we collect from our customers before it is passed to the out and out crooks.

The premium service companies are only allowed to provide these chargeable services if a customer has either requested an individual service or has subscribed to a continuing service, but as the repeated adjudications on ICSTIS demonstrate, the premium rate companies take very little notice of such constraints.

O2 is a aware that many of the companies with which it deals, directly and indirectly, regularly break the ICSTIS code of conduct and the law of the land, but this business is very lucrative for O2 and despite warnings from the police that our acquiescence in the activities of the premium rate “industry” may well be criminal in its own right, it does not look as though anyone is ever going to actually enforce the law.

[Hamlet]

Translation:

Originally Posted by mike99

could you please translate the following as well?
http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/Consult_gov_code.pdf

ICSTIS’ ongoing aim is to provide a high standard of regulation that meets public and industry expectations.
As a result of the considerable increase in premium rate activity
over recent years, ICSTIS has been involved in a series of policy, operational and governance changes.
ICSTIS places a high degree of importance on the need to ensure that its Code of Practice and related enforcement work stays best suited to the needs of a dynamic, growing and increasingly complex market.

The last is amazingly amusing, isn't it?
see
http://www.icstis.org.uk/news/consul...CondocOpen.asp

[El Gringo]

ICSTIS places a high degree of importance on the need to ensure that its Code of Practice and related enforcement work stays best suited to the needs of a dynamic, growing and increasingly complex market.

The last is amazingly amusing, isn't it?
see

Originally Posted by Hamlet

this appeared on the news as you were writing that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6420885.stm
Last Updated: Monday, 5 March 2007, 18:46 GMT

ITV to suspend premium phone-ins
Fern Britton and Phillip Schofield of This Morning
This Morning is among the shows with regular phone-in competitions
ITV is to suspend all premium-rate phone-ins, interactive competitions and votes from Tuesday.
Quiz channel ITV Play will come off air while independent auditors conduct a review of all ITV programmes.

The review follows a string of problems with TV phone-ins, including a mistake on ITV's X Factor, which led to viewers being overcharged a total of £200,000.

Investigations are also being carried out into the BBC's Saturday Kitchen and Channel 4's Richard and Judy.

ITV's chief operating officer John Cresswell said: "It is critical that our viewers have absolute confidence in the services that we offer.

"We believe that all programmes currently on air are compliant.


KEY AFFECTED PROGRAMMES
Melanie Lambert and Kyran Bracken in Dancing on Ice
Dancing on Ice (above)
ITV Play
This Morning
Loose Women
Who Wants to be a Millionaire
"However, in light of recent concern around this issue, something affecting every major broadcaster, we are conducting this independent review to ensure that ITV is meeting all relevant codes and regulations."

ITV said its interactive services would return on a programme-by-programme basis, with each production facing scrutiny in the investigation.

Skating show Dancing on Ice will only return at the weekend if phone-in procedures have been shown to be sound.

The review, carried out be Deloitte, will also cover programmes broadcast in the past two years and the results will be made public.

Premium rate phone line regulator Icstis welcomed the review, calling it "evidence of a broadcaster taking its responsibility to its viewers seriously".

Investigations

The watchdog is already investigating allegations that viewers were encouraged to ring in to the You Say, We Pay segment on Channel 4's Richard and Judy show even after all contestants had been chosen.

It is also examining BBC One's Saturday Kitchen over allegations viewers were told they could ring up to appear on a show which was recorded just minutes after the announcement was made.

The BBC said it was not following suit by suspending its premium rate phone lines.

A statement from Eckoh, the company that provides ITV's phone-in services, said it took its obligations "very seriously" and supported the review.

It said: "As one of ITV's suppliers in this area, we will work with the broadcaster and its appointed auditor Deloitte to help them complete their review and rebuild consumer confidence in the industry as quickly as possible."

ha ha

[mike99]

Would this perhaps be the same Eckoh that was fined four times last year by ICSTIS? They clearly take their obligations "very seriously" .... but not quite seriously enough to actually stop scamming the public.

I think it would take a rebuilding project on the scale of the post-war Marshall Plan to rebuild my confidence in this "industry".

[Hamlet]

Eckoh bought Intelliplus in 2003
http://www.computerwire.com/industri...type=CW%20News
with all Intelliplus could offer, I guess...

Greenbay Ltd, Intelliplus Group Recorded £75,000 fine, bar
British Virgin Islands plc, Redstone plc information on access & redress

see here:
http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/s...322#post199322

That was the story among others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...150241,00.html

And here (in german) one of the best postings about that interesting topic...
http://www.antispam.de/forum/showpos...50&postcount=1

[mike99]

I saw Sir Alistair Graham of ICSTIS (a first for me) interviewed last night on News Night. I should not go so far as to say that the man appears to be a complete oaf, but I did begin to realize why those of us who are concerned about what goes on in the premium rate industry face such an uphill struggle.

[El Gringo]

I agree Mike.
Kidd and Sir Ali* G* are chalk and cheese.

Interesting reading not to be taken too seriously
It concerns Eckoh

The Sun
Lid lifted on TV phone scandal
MARCH 07, 2007
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007100754,00.html
The worker from ITV’s quiz operator Eckoh said shows including I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here! Soapstar Superstar and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? were involved.

She told how thousands of viewers’ votes are not all counted because computers regularly go down at peak times — but the callers are still charged.

The woman said: “The computers were often going down — you simply wouldn’t get through a day without a systems failure.

“Calls still come in thick and fast and viewers are charged at premium rates. But a lot of votes aren’t registered. All the big shows are regularly affected.”

Is it possible there is something else behind ITV pulling the plug on these programmes.
Is it possible Eckoh was billing for calls but not passing the ITV share on for the calls that were not "registered" ?

[Hamlet]

You are surprised? I thought "billing for nothing and the tricks for free" was always a good description for the Premium rates Industry

[El Gringo]

Mike and Hamlet do you recognise any old friends?
gdf will.

http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/32131/...stigation.html
ITV pulls interactive services in face of investigation
Published: 05.03.07
The broadcaster has appointed Deloitte to review the robustness of its services and to look back at the operation of relevant programmes over the last two years. It said it will make the results public.

http://www.ccslbvi.com/who.html
Ralph Nabarro, Managing Director, is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, a member of ITPA, STEP and The Offshore Institute, with over 30 years professional experience in major international accounting firms in the UK and Caribbean. He founded CCSL in 1978 and was the founding partner of Deloitte & Touche in the BVI.

http://www.ccslbvi.com/contact.html
Caribbean Corporate Services Limited
3rd Floor, Omar Hodge Building
Wickhams Cay I
Road Town
Tortola
British Virgin Islands

Mailing address:
P.O. Box 362
Road Town
Tortola
British Virgin Islands

txtcredit.com

Terms & Conditions
This Site is fully controlled and operated by Goldeford Investments Ltd "Mobile Fun Club",

General Information
Independent Customer care: Write to support@txtcredit.com
or call 08712316604 (Mon-Fri 10am-5pm. Sat/Sun automated service)
Contact Address:
Goldeford Investments Ltd Company No 655407

Reg Address
3rd Floor,
Omar Hodge Building,
Wickhams Cay I,
PO.BOX 362,
Road Town,
Tortola,
British Virgin Islands

[Hamlet]

Message: To Mr Marc Ch* or anyone else. Dear Mr Ch*, dear sir oder madam, today I am contacting you looking for information about a company Grovehurst Investments Ltd 3rd Floor, Omar Hodge Building Wickhams Cay I, PO Box 362 Road Town, Tortola, BVI ("Grovehurst") I am not absolutely sure about the correct spelling because I got the information from a hand written note from the UK company register. That address is also used by Mr Marc Chapman from Deloitte & Touche BVI. I have come to that company doing a lot of investigation in order to help people making claims against that company (respectively getting in touch with them). The aforementioned company is the owner of a UK company. One of the directors of that company is Newhaven Nominees Ltd, BVI PO Box 901 East Asia Chambers Road Town, Tortola, BVI ("Newhaven") Deloitte & Touche is a company with an outstanding reputation in the German press and among experts in the field of economics. All the people I have been talking to in the last weeks did encourage me to get in touch with you directly to get more information about the two companies. "Grovehurst" is using the same PO Box as does Deloitte & Touche. Therefore I think that D&T may be their "registered agent". If that is the case I want to ask you, if you can provide information about the managers and directors of "Grovehurst" so that further communication is possible. If you can not provide information for what reason ever could you please tell any contact details or any source where I can get the information wanted.
@"Newhaven":
The mentioned "East Asia Chambers" is leading to the "Bank of East Asia", which is - according to Mr Chapman - a client of Deloitte & Touche. So I want to ask you the same for "Newhaven": Are you the registered agent of "Newhaven"? Can you provide information about the managers, directors or any contact details? I hope that I didn't bother you too much and I am waiting to hear from you soon! Best wishes and kind regards ***

We can certainly obtain information about the company for you here in the BVI. A standard company search is $300, please let us know if you wish us to continue.
Kind regards
S*C*, ACA
Manager
Solutions Department
Deloitte & Touche
Direct: +1 (284) 494 28**

Originally Posted by The world famous Deloitte

The phone number is identical to the fax number of Mr N*'s "Caribbean Corporate Services Limited", using "P.O. Box 362" (Deloitte is using "3083")

Deloitte is giving two addresses:
Omar Hodge Building, Wickhams Cay 1
P O Box 3083, Road Town, Tortola, BVI
and
James Frett Building
same po box

Goldeford Investments Ltd Company No 655407 Reg Address 3rd Floor, Omar Hodge Building, Wickhams Cay I, PO.BOX 362, Road Town, Tortola,British Virgin Islands

maybe one may try to get more information here
http://www.bvi.org.uk/contact.asp

The UK police (UK courts) would have the power to ask questions.

Deloitte is ok, of course... They even offer a "Anti-Moneylaundering-Tool"
http://www.carreker.com/main/media/c...09-20-2005.htm

Developed in Australia, Deloitte AMLcheck™ is a secure, web-based ‘Know your customer’ tool that enables businesses to perform customer checks against national and international databases and sanctioned lists, to validate the identity of customers and determine whether they are a known money launderer or terrorist financer.

"Knowing your costumer", well, ... you know what I mean...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm

"I don't think it was known to my staff in dealing with these Spanish companies by their brand names, if you like, who was sitting behind them"

Originally Posted by George

never... But why did they notice the same address in 2001 but not in 2004? Did ICSTIS not even check their own database???

@BVI: I have written a very angry mail to the BVI authorities because of the missing cooperation of BVI companies in my fight against fraudsters. Maybe someone wants to do the same? Why could that not be a topic for the media?

[El Gringo]

31 March 2005
Provider(s) Ozeano International Inc
Location Tortola
Telephone network(s) Allied Telecommunications Ltd
Service type Prize claim line
Cost £1.50 per minute
Number of complaints 198
Source of complaint Public
Complaint from Nationwide
Fine £100,000
Sanction Twelve month bar on this service and any prize and award services

http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs/adj_ozeano228066.pdf
Our investigation into this prize claim line service has been completed.
The service, provided by Ozeano International Inc, was found to have been in breach of our Code of Practice.
As a result, we have fined Ozeano International Inc £100,000 and barred access to all prize and award services for 12 months.
The contact details for the service provider are shown below, should you wish to speak to them regarding this.
John Halling
Ozeano International Inc
East Asia Chambers
PO Box 901, Road Town
Tortola
British Virgin Islands
For specific details of the investigation, please click here.

.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Z...lnk&cd=1&gl=uk

[Hamlet]

barred service providers

DYSON BUSINESS INC (PO BOX 901, ROAD TOWN, TORTOLA,
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) 2004

EXREL INTERNATIONAL (EAST ASIA CHAMBERS, PO BOX 901, ROAD TOWN,
TORTOLA,BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) 2004

EAST ASIA CORPORATE SERVICES (BVI) LIMITED
Mr. Patrick N*
P. O. Box 901
Road Town, Tortola
British Virgin Islands
East Asia Corporate Services/ International Trustees Limited

Some of their clients are... not that... prestigious...

If you find the time, take a look at the following German posting which mainly was about "prize claim scam", but you may find more interesting stuff in it. Feel free to translate it into English...

In England wurden kurz vor Ostern 2005 mehrere Briefkasten-
Unternehmen wegen Gewinnzusagen-Anrufen von der
Mehrwertnummernbehörde OFCOM um Strafzahlungen in
einer Gesamthöhe von 1,3 Millionen Pfund ersucht (bezahlt
hat keine dieser Firmen) :

Heldo Proms, Telecom Branch SPA, Declaro Global Limited,
Iberian Holdings, Fosta Ltd, Ozeano International, Tower Cell LLC,
Nexus Ltd, Stamford Project Ltd, Sky Promotions, Voice Priority, Back to Back, Voice International, Voice Complete, Touch Tone, Belmont Haulage Services Ltd, Zanado, Simon Fletching, Perfect Telecom,
Interiors London, Ocean 3 Ltd and Telecom Promotion

Alle waren angebliche "Kunden" des fragwürdigen Netzwerk-
Betreibers

ALLIED TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

Martyn King ( = Director of Operations bei Band-X Ltd)
c/o Band-X Ltd,
6th Floor Crown House,
51 Aldwych London
WC2B 4AX
Phone: 020 7395 4672
Faksimile:020 7395 4501

Die Allied übermittelte der Mehrwertnummern-Behörde OFCOM
auf deren Anforderung hin keinerlei Nachweise für Zahlungen
an irgendeine dieser Firmen, keinerlei Nachweise für Vertragsver-
handlungen, für Zahlungsanweisungen durch diese Firmen, keinerlei
Namen, Anschriften, Telefon- oder Faxnummern oder eMail-Adressen
von Personen, die mit dem Aushandeln der Verträge befaßt gewesen
wären. Die vorgelegten Vertragsdokumente böten laut OFCOM nur
vague Hinweise darauf, wer sie unterzeichnet hätte, aber nicht auf
den für die Vertragsgestaltung Verantwortlichen. Außerdem sei in
vielen Fällen wegen Unleserlichkeit der Unterschrift der Name des
Unterzeichners nicht zu identifizieren. Allied behauptete, es hätte keinerlei
Treffen mit den "Kunden" gegeben, alle Verträge seien telefonisch und
per Post ausgehandelt worden. Außerdem würden keine Auf-
zeichnungen der Telefongespräche mit den "Service Provider-Kunden"
geführt und könnten deshalb der Behörde nicht vorgelegt werden.

Bemerkenswert sind die "Service-Provider-Kunden" der Allied, die
auf eine Anschrift einer New Yorker "Arrow Beep" verweisen:

FOSTA LTD
2ND FLOOR,BARKLEY WHARF,
LE CAUDAN WATERFRONT,
PORT LOUISE.
MAURITIUS

MR SIMON FLETCHING
C/O ARROW BEEP,
244 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2093,
NEW YORK. USA

IBERIAN HOLDINGS (NEW YORK)
SIM STAR INTENSIVE MARKETING,
C/O ARROW BEEP,
244 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2093,
NEW YORK. USA

http://www.rtf.sphosting.com/
WIN TICKETS TO THE UEFA CUP FINAL IN PORTUGAL!
This is an independent promotion operated by
Fosta Limited care of
Arrow Beep
244, 5th Avenue,
Suite 2093
New York,
NY 10001,
United States of America.
Alternatively, you can contact customer service by email: FL@ibh-help.com


Interessant ist nun folgende Verbindung zwischen der
Iberian Holdings, (angeblichem) Kunden der Allied c/o Band-X,
und dem Geschäftsführer John Seddon bei Teleport Networks Ltd c/o Band-X.
Die Teleport ist nämlich unter derselben Adresse
2 Crow Wood, Brigsteer, Kendal Cumbria registriert, unter auch
eine andere Firmen von John Seddon kontaktierbar waren, nämlich die
SMILE Telecom Ltd (sowie die inzwischen liquidierte Fusion
Telecommunications Ltd).

Im Jahr 2004 waren 6 in den hintersten Winkeln der Welt
angesiedelte dubiose "Kunden" der SMILE Telecom Ltd
wegen Gewinnzusagen mit einer Gesamt-Buße von 450.000
Pfund belegt worden, alle mit identischer Kontakt-eMail und
demselben Repräsentaten SMILE Telecom. Unter den von
SMILE benannten Firmen befanden sich eine Quartel Ltd, Tortola,
British Virgin Islands (BVI); sowie eine Greenbay Ltd, ebenfalls
Tortola, BVI.

Von dieser Greenbay Ltd wollten zwei englische Firmen
telefonisch beauftragt worden sein, die ihrerseits in
deutsche Gewinnzusagen-Automaten-Telefonanrufe
verwickelt waren. Die Abbey Marketing, Great Dunmow, wollte
lediglich ihr Postfach für Gewinnanforderungspost zur Verfügung ge-
stellt und die Sendungen nach Düsseldorf weitergeleitet haben;
die Firma

Buzzmesolutions.co.uk Ltd
40 Gerrard Street,
London

gab vor, die hunderte von 0190-Nummern sowie die
Ansagedienste darunter lediglich "im Auftrag" ange-
mietet und betrieben zu haben. Abbey und BuzzMe verwiesen
beide leutseelig auf eine

Greenbay Limited
The Green Place [ korrekt wohl: The Geneva Place ]
3rd Floor
Waterfront Drive
Road Town
British Virgin Islands
Contact; Peter Jones
email : greenbaysupport@hotmail.com

Nun verwendet der Allied-"Service-Provider-Kunde" Fosta Ltd
bei seinem UEFA-CUP-Gewinnspiel die auf "Iberian Holdings"
hinweisende Domain ibh-help.com. Außerdem hält Iberian
Holdings ein spanisches (Weiterleitungs-) Postfach Nr. 72
bei FedEx/Citibox in Marbella:

CITIBOX Puerto Banús.
Local 11, Centro Comercial Cristamar.
P.O.Box nº72
29660 Marbella, Spain

Dieses Postfach wird auch als Kontaktadresse von
Firmen wie Imoh Ltd "F1 Service" oder
Redisham Ltd "F1 Service" genannt, die SMS über
die angebliche Teilnahme an einer Verlosung von "F1
Fisichella-Helmen" verschickten, und dabei Domains wie
z.B. ef1.biz, 80488.biz benutzten.

Sowohl die Domain ibh-help.com, ef1.biz, als auch 80488.biz
sind registriert auf eine Quartel Ltd, BVI:

Domain Name.......... ibh-help.com
Creation Date........ 2004-03-04
Organisation Name.... Quartel Limited
Organisation Address. The Geneva Place, Third Floor, Waterfront Drive
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Road Town, Tortola
Organisation Address. 66tyt
Organisation Address. Tortola
Organisation Address. VIRGIN ISLANDS (BRITISH)

Es besteht noch eine weitere Verbindung zu den "deutschen"
Gewinnzusagen-Anrufen: der Allied-"Kunde" Fosta Limited
aus dem Dunstkreis von Iberian Holdings c/o Arrow Beep, New York
ist "eigentlich" eine auf Mauritius eingetragene Firma:

FOSTA LTD
2ND FLOOR,BARKLEY WHARF,
LE CAUDAN WATERFRONT,
PORT LOUISE.
MAURITIUS

Die Anschrift deutet jedoch darauf hin, daß diese Firma ver-
mutlich wohl über das Firmengründungsunternehmen

Chancery Group
Head Office - Mauritius
Corporate & Chancery Chambers
2nd Floor, Barkly Wharf,
Le Caudan Waterfront,
Port Louis, Mauritius

gegründet worden sein dürfte. Und überraschenderweise hat Chancery
auch ein Londoner Büro:

London Office
40 Gerrard Street,
London W1V 7LP

zur Erinnerung:

BUZZMESOLUTIONS.CO.UK LIMITED
40 GERRARD STREET
LONDON
W1D 5QE
Company No. 04961784

[buzzme played an important role in a HUGE german case which is not yet brought to court - but I guess it will and I hope that the judge understands the international scope of the problem... then it might be a case worth watching for UK people as well...]

[Smiff77]

On 17.3.07 I was hit with 3 x unsolicited reverse bill texts. I had never come across such things, I did not know this scam exsisted. Vodafone said that there is no such thing as an unsolicited reverse bill SMS and put the blame on me accusing me of subscribing to the service run by Dialogue Communications Ltd for Bergholt Investments Ltd on 84010. I think you know the names and number!!! Vodafone did not want to know, so I contacted Ofcom who put me on to Icstis. They put the blame on me also, telling me the same story as Vodafone and did not want to Know. I ran a search on msn and found this web site with all your contributions. Thanks lads & lasses, I was begining to believe that it had been my fault that somehow, somewhere I had subscribed. Even though I knew I did not. Thanks to the information and leads I have picked up from all you out there, I have had my number changed at no charge (at great inconvenience), credited the £4.50 for the texts and received £25 credit for the inconvenience.
I would not beleive that we were being 'legged over', legally.

[El Gringo]

I have had my number changed at no charge (at great inconvenience), credited the £4.50 for the texts and received £25 credit for the inconvenience.

Originally Posted by Smiff77

good to hear.

On 17.3.07 I was hit with 3 x unsolicited reverse bill texts
service run by Dialogue Communications Ltd for Bergholt Investments Ltd on 84010.

if they carry on like this they will face a new crackdown


don't know if anybody noticed this

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/investi...name_page.html
TEXT PESTS FACE NEW CRACKDOWN
Penman & Sommerlad 01/03/2007

Some are fly-by-night operations run by crooks, but they require help from legitimate service providers.

they also need help from government who setup a marketplace devoid of effective consumer protection.

[mike99]

On 17.3.07 I was hit with 3 x unsolicited reverse bill texts. I had never come across such things, I did not know this scam exsisted. Vodafone said that there is no such thing as an unsolicited reverse bill SMS and put the blame on me accusing me of subscribing to the service run by Dialogue Communications Ltd for Bergholt Investments Ltd on 84010. I think you know the names and number!!!

Originally Posted by Smiff77

@Smiff77

Welcome to the wacky world of premium rate!

Interesting that you were hit by Bergholt. This suggest that Dialogue have continued their reverse charge SMS scam with yet another "content provider": B4U -> "Gabriel Investments" -> Bergholt. All on 84010!

You really should put in a complaint to ICSTIS using the online form - it is no use ringing them, they just refuse to accepts complaints that way. If they then write back to you refusing to take you complaint, complain again by email (if you can't find an address on the site, contact me!).

While you are at it, you could also

email your mp.

Strangely, when I first inquired about the reverse charge SMS I recieved from Dialogue in 2006, I was told that "Liquid Capital" were responsible. Also, the single (faked) "sign up" for the SMS from Goldeford Investments and from Gabriel Investments, and the fact that one series of SMS followed on after the other suggests that all these "firms" are in league with each other - or perhaps the same people. On the other hand, B4U is a UK (Birmingham) firm whereas Goldeford are BVI and Gabriel may be Canadian. Having said that, locations are rather notional in this business and the "~ investments" / "~ capital" names that many of these firms use suggests the "BVI".