O2 bill for B4U 84010 text scam despite police warning

[Hamlet]

Latest news from ICSTIS
http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...ult.asp?mode=3

Zamano Ltd
http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...p?node=&id=631

The Panel decided to impose the following sanctions:
· A formal reprimand;
· A £45,000 fine; and
· A bar on the service provider running any reverse-billed SMS joke service with the information provider involved in this case for one year.

What a desaster

[El Gringo]

did you notice the "information provider"

Atlas Interactive Group Ltd

“Get The Latest Wallpaper 2 YOUR mobile weekly! Call 0871xxxxxxx To sign up Now! Abinger Ltd. Subscription Service £1.50/week 18+ to stop text STOP 08712316594”.
It explained that consumers would have then opted-in to the wallpaper subscription service by dialling the 0871 number. Call logs were sent to the Executive which appeared to demonstrate an opt-in request having been received substantially earlier than the date on which the first chargeable SMS were received by complainants. Furthermore the information provider did not maintain records of the Call Line Identifications that were used to call the 0871, so there was no evidence that consumers who received the service had requested it.

Zamano Ltd

“Get The Latest Wallpaper 2 YOUR mobile weekly! Call 0871xxxxxxx To sign up Now! Abinger Ltd. Subscription Service £1.50/week 18+ to stop text STOP 08712316594”.

Call logs were sent to the Executive which appeared to demonstrate an opt-in request having been received substantially earlier than the date on which the first chargeable SMS were received by complainants. Furthermore the information provider did not maintain records of the Call Line Identifications that were used to call the 0871, so there was no evidence that consumers who received the service had requested it.

and icstis were fobbed off with the same excuses

[mike99]

Yep! I suppose poor old Zamano will just have to find a different information provider for their unsolicited reverse charge SMS or switch to another sort of scam. Never mind, it's only for a year, and then they can team up with Abinger Ltd (i.e. the BVI/Marbella gang) again.

[Hamlet]

and what is the difference?
http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...p?node=&id=625

(same Abinger Ltd mentioned?)
ah, Abinger = txtcredit.com
http://www.txtcredit.com/ire/terms.php
I'm so confused by all those different names

whois
IONA HOLDINGS LIMITED, Port Louis, Mauriotius - Sonny Holmq*, Marbella

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE Abinger Overseas Ltd. WEBSITE (the "Site"). This Site is fully controlled and operated by Abinger Overseas Ltd.

archived (5/06)

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE Goldeford Investments Ltd WEBSITE (the "Site"). This Site is fully controlled and operated by Goldeford Investments Ltd "Mobile Fun Club", "Goldeford Investments Ltd", "us" or "we").

, identical whois. Eddie's friends...??? we know, they don't know. they don't care.

[mike99]

Note that, in both cases, even though ICSTIS makes it quite clear that the SMS was unsolicited, the breach of Paragraph 4.9 is not upheld because these were not "promotional" texts.

In fact, although there are countless cases where ICSTIS have adjudicated against firms sending unsolicited reverse charge texts, I am not sure that there is a single case where ICSTIS have actually found the firms in breach of one of their clauses for doing so. The firms have always (I think) been found in breach of other clauses.

In other words, if you read the small print in a certain way, ICSTIS could (sort of) claim that no firms have actually been found guilty of illegal behaviour (or even a breach of ICSTIS codes) with respect to the sending of unsolicited reverse charge texts.

Taken together with Margaret Hodge's misleading statements in parliament, the current reluctance of ICSTIS to act against Dialogue, and the carefully worded letters form ICSTIS in support of this relutance, this is all very intriguing.

[mike99]

More thoughts on this ...............

If you look at the Zamano judgement closely, you will see that Zamano have been caught under clauses 4.3.1a "MISLEADING", and 4.3.1b "UNFAIR ADVANTAGE". Now if you read these clauses in context (or the equivalent clauses in the latest CoP: 5.4.1a and 5.4.1b) I think it is pretty clear that these clauses were not designed to trap the senders of unsolicited reverse charge SMS (I hope I'm not helping Zamano to appeal here ). In fact there are (as far as I can see) no clauses specifically addressed to the requirement for service providers to obtain a request from a "subscriber" before beginning a "subscription".

I think we simply have to be grateful that the investigator here was someone with principles who has used the rules in an imaginative way to punish Zamano for its crimes.

Of course the relevant clause is 5.2 (formerly 4.1) "Legality", but the only time ICSTIS seem to bring that up is when they point out that the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 does not forbid unsolicited reverse charge SMS (only free promotional unsolicited SMS).

In short, the current regulatory regime does not appear to explicitly outlaw unsolicited reverse charge SMS ........ which, I suppose, begins to explain why the regulators are all over the place when you raise this issue.

So, given that this is the one area of premium rate fraud where the consumer can do absolutely nothing to protect him/herself, is this honest oversight or deliberate omission?

[mike99]

On 20 April 2007 ICSTIS imposed a "bar on the service provider [Zamano Ltd] running any reverse-billed SMS joke service with the information provider involved in this case for one year." http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...p?node=&id=631

The "information provider involved in this case" is known variously as: "Watermead Investments Holdings Limited", "Abinger Overseas Ltd", "Grovehurst Investments Ltd", "Alderson Worldwide Ltd", "Goldeford Investments", "Bergholt Investments", "Gabriel Investments", and "Liquid Capital" but all these "limited companies" have the same address and the same company number and the same owner. I think that even ICSTIS would have to conclude that all these names belong to the same information provider. In any case, the "company" is currently using the "Abinger" name (which appears in the adjudication) on its website.

So let's take a look at the website: www.txtcredit.com

"Register Now! It's very simple, just text the word: START from your mobile phone and send it to No: 80122"

(As we know, you don't even need to do that, but let's put that to one side.)

Now go to the ICSTIS number finder http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/ncd/default.asp

Type in "80122", and what do we find?

This is what we know about the number you entered (80122).

We have the following information about this number.
This is a text message service charged at premium rate. Content ranges from ringtones, jokes, games, tarot, chat and more. Call the content provider shown below for more details. This service costs will vary depending on the service that you subscribed to.
To unsubscribe from any reverse-billed service you simply need to send the word STOP to the short code number or STOP ALL if you are using two or more services from the same short code. Click the following link for further information about premium rate text messages. More...
We also have contact details for the company that provides this service. If you have any queries about it, please get in touch with them to find out more.

Zamano Ltd
0871 277 9988
cs@zamano.com
The Bridge
12-16 Clerkenwell Road
London
EC1M 5PQ

In short, it does not look to me as though ICSTIS's "bar on the service provider running any reverse-billed SMS joke service with the information provider involved in this case for one year" has been a big success so far - not that I've actually tried to sign up to see if I get any "jokes"

[Smiff77]

@mike99

Is this not the same scenario as Dialogue Comms Ltd, suspended for 12 months in Aug 2006 and still scamming?

[mike99]

@mike99

Is this not the same scenario as Dialogue Comms Ltd, suspended for 12 months in Aug 2006 and still scamming?

Originally Posted by Smiff77

I'm going to have to give the vicky pollard / tim suter answer here .......

Dialogue Comms Ltd, were suspended for 12 months in Aug 2006 for scamming with b4u. They are now scamming with Abinger Overseas Ltd (as they currently call themselves). So same service provider same scam but different content provider. ICSTIS therefore lets them off.

Zamano, on the other hand are (if the evidence on the ICSTIS website is anything to go by) still scamming with the same scam and the same content provider (which is, funnily enough, the same content provider that Dialogue are currently using for their scam: Abinger).

So what are ICSTIS going to do about it?

In the style of premium rate TV "quiz"

A) Nothing
B) Boost our confidence in the premium rate industry
C) Conduct a review of the division of responsibilities between ICSTIS and OFCOM
D) Conduct ongoing proactive dialogues around the issues raised by the need to ensure best practice in the fulfilment arrangements for paying competition prizes and restoring consumer confidence in this dynamic and and growing area of participation
E) A badger

Please be aware that if you enter this competition by ringing our 09 number from your mobile, it will cost you lots of money and you will not stand any chance of winning. Your money will go to line the pockets of a criminal gang in Marbella who will use the phone number on which you called to continue stealing from you for the rest of your life. ICSTIS, OFCOM and the DTI are fully aware of this but are not going to do anything to stop it.

[mike99]

@Smiff77

Sorry, I may have mislead you slightly in my previous post .....

When I said that Dialogue Comms Ltd are currently scamming with Abinger Overseas Ltd, this may not be true. They were scamming with Abinger Overseas Ltd in late 2006 and ICSTIS have told them that they can continue scamming with Abinger Overseas Ltd - providing they "sign up" their subscribers on 087 lines for which they immediately destroy the records. But I do not know for certain whether Dialogue Comms Ltd are currently following ICSTIS's advice.

We do know that Dialogue Comms Ltd are currently scamming with PNC - who (under a different name) have previously been punished by ICSTIS for a scam involving Abinger Overseas Ltd (also under a different name at that time); but PNC have cited mobymagic as their partners in the current scam, although mobymagic deny this.

Confused?

I think you're meant to be!

[Smiff77]

@mike99

From my own misfortune I found that Dialogue are in bed with PNC & Moby Magic, and on the subject of MM. The are not based in Wolverhampton any more. As per their latest 'Whois' entry they have had a makeover, 'Music2Mobile' in Knutsford, Cheshire;

Registrant:
Music 2 Mobile
2 Swinton Square
off King Street
Knutsford, Cheshire wa16 6hh
UK

Domain Name: MOBYMAGIC.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: help@mobymagic.com
Music 2 Mobile
2 Swinton Square
off King Street
Knutsford, Cheshire wa16 6hh
UK
+448451740074


Record expires on 03-Mar-2008.
Record created on 03-Mar-2007.

Domain servers in listed order:

NSP.MOBYMAGIC.COM 89.107.20.130
NSS.MOBYMAGIC.COM 89.107.20.130

[Hamlet]

Funny, I didn't notice that

1000 Mobile Text Messages at NO COST!

Originally Posted by txtcredit.com

(Irish version)

Join the content club for £1.50 per week and get 1000 txts for free!

A piece of content will be sent to subscribers every 7 days. Each piece of content will be charged at £1.50.

(UK version)
The UK version says ALBINGER OVERSEAS and the russian version says GOLDEFORD
The australian version says

Welcome! You can now send 1000 text messages at ZERO COST to anyone, from anywhere in the world. Customize your account with own address book, tailor message templates and much more.

----

vipclub4you/ef1

is this kind of a "edited offer"?
http://www.vipclub4u.com

"The winner's details will also be available for a period of 28 days after the closing date of each promotional month. Write enclosing an SAE to Blah Blah PR Services, Track Marque Ltd, 10 Tennyson Avenue, Cliffe Woods, Kent ME3 8JF"

Blahblah-Promotions?
http://whois.webhosting.info/203.194.168.10

1 ABCMOB.COM.
2 BLAHBLAH-PROMOTIONS.COM.
3 TXTCREDIT.COM.
4 TXTFLIRT.BIZ.

But Who is TRACK MARQUE LTD, 10 Tennyson Avenue, Cliffe Woods, Kent ME3 8JF?

Jessica?

ENTERTAINMENT MARQUE GLOBAL LIMITED
LINCOLN HOUSE
347 CHERRY HINTON ROAD
CAMBRIDGE
CB1 8DH
Registered Company No.: 04812512
Date of Incorporation: 26-06-2003
Status: Dissolved company

Director
JESSICA VAUGHAN (*06.05.1970)
CLIFFE WOODS
ME3 8JF

Domain Name: VIP4U.BIZ
Domain ID: D11841501-BIZ
Sponsoring Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 69
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant ID: TUM3TL9EPHUJISGW
Registrant Name: Jessica Vaughan-Feast
Registrant Organization: EI PR
Registrant Address1: Valhalla House
Registrant Address2: Tennyson Avenue
Registrant City: Rochester
Registrant State/Province: Kent
Registrant Postal Code: ME38JF
Registrant Country: Great Britain (UK)
Registrant Country Code: GB

(domain dropped 9/03/07)

[Hamlet]

Dialogue Communications Ltd / Moby Magic / Mobymagic

http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...p?node=&id=633

The Executive (formerly known as the Secretariat) received numerous complaints from consumers who stated that they had received and been charged for unsolicited reverse billed text messages. Complainants reported receiving reverse billed SMS for a service called Moby Magic, a mobile content subscription service which provided ringtones, graphics and games. Complainants consistently stated that they had never subscribed to any mobile content service.

Sanction
In determining the sanctions appropriate for the case the Panel took into account the following mitigating factors:
· The service and information providers were cooperative.
· The service provider took pre-emptive action (before being contacted by ICSTIS) to suspend the service.
· The service and/or information provider have been refunding consumers.
· There appeared to be no wilful intent to harm consumers.

There were no aggravating factors for the Panel to consider.
The Panel therefore decided to impose the following sanctions:
- A formal reprimand;
- A £10,000 fine; and
- Affected consumers to be refunded.

No they never had any wilful intent to harm consumers, they just wanted to do something to entertain them...

Sometimes I am really glad that the German regulators are not allowed to publish their adjudications. It would make me mad...

[Smiff77]

@ Hamlet.

Thanks mate, you have made my day!!!!
So Icstis finally did something. Big deal, the scammers will all be back to work today.
I have not received a reply from Icstis regarding my complaint about this scam, come to that I never received my cheque from Moby Magic. Not that I expected to.
I can't believe the parts that said;

1) 'There appeared to be no wilful intent to harm consumers.'

2) 'There were no aggravating factors for the Panel to consider.'

If the bugger knew the agro they have caused me for a measley £4.50!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having read the adjudication, I don't understand why there is no mention of 'PNC Telecoms', the third company involved in this scam.

We win a battle but the war goes on.

[El Gringo]

@Smiff77 did you email Icstis and tell them you didn't get a refund?

[Smiff77]

@ El Gringo,

Only found out about the adjudication yesterday, first thing I did was to e-mail Moby Magic to ask for a refund. Will contact Icstis 2day. Cheers.

[Smiff77]

Just got a reply from Icstis to my query, I had asked why there was no mention of PNC Telecoms in the adjudication, even though on their own admission they were acting on behalf of Moby Magic.

Does this make sense?

'It appears in this particular case where Dialogue Communications were the service provider and provide the aggregation service; the aggregation service was resold onto PNC Telecom Services Ltd and its client the content/information provider who provided the service Moby Magic.'

'Normally, you would just have a service provider i.e. Dialogue Communications providing the service directly or there is a 3rd party directly underneath the service provider called a content/information provider who provide the service. In this particular instance there appears to be a chain between the service provider and content/information provider.'

'Under the ICSTIS Code of Practice the parties held liable are the Service Provider and content/information provider. As I have previously mentioned it is ultimately the Service Provider who is held liable under the Code, so even if PNC Telecom Services Ltd have resold on Dialogue Communication services we hold Dialogue Communications liable as the service provider and they are the one who is named and held accountable.'

'I hope this clarifies the matter.'

[mike99]

It depends what you mean by "make sense".

This passage is certainly very badly written. I think that ICSTIS are trying to say (something like): Dialogue were the original service provider with Moby providing the content. At some stage Dialogue decided to sell this "service" (i.e. the list of "customers") to PNC - a different "service provider". PNC carried on supplying Moby's content where Dialogue had left off.

Whereas the victim is left to navigate this web of deceit on his or her own, ICSTIS have the power to insist that the buck stops with the original "service" provider - thereby saving ICSTIS a great deal of money in 087 calls.

But if by "does this make sense?" you mean "is this the kind of thing one might expect from a legitimate and regulated business?", the answer must be a resounding "NO!"

[mike99]

.... but does this make sense?

Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement: A Message from Sir Alistair Graham

ICSTIS is going through a programme of change. In the consultation document for the ICSTIS budget for 2007/8 we outlined a strategic approach for an agenda for consumer protection based on three core themes. These are:

• a more proactive approach to industry engagement so ensuring that ICSTIS is better placed to respond to market developments in products, platforms and payment mechanisms thus minimising public harm and ‘designing in compliance’. Strengthening the industry support and advice we provide is integral to this, as is making a closer link of the development of policy and standards to industry engagement in a variety of forms.
  
• a more proactive approach to using communication and education to empower consumers to protect themselves before problems occur, thus reducing a need for regulatory intervention.
  
• an enforcement agenda which, as well as reacting to issues, is also proactively driven and targeted on known areas of potential risk in the PRS market and uses effective monitoring tools to identify issues earlier in the product life-cycle, again minimising the potential for consumer harm and the consequential loss of trust in PRS.
  

Achieving this agenda, like any change programme, has its challenges and takes time. Action is in hand. The Executive has now been re-structured with this strategic agenda in mind. The governance of the Board, with a particular emphasis on how we can further professionalise the adjudication processes, is the subject of an ICSTIS consultation issued on 2 March 2007.

This consultation paper is a further step in the change programme. For the first time, we articulate [rather badly it has to be said - mike99] our views about how and why we engage with a variety of stakeholders and why this is absolutely vital to delivering this agenda and our remit. This paper makes clear that engagement can take a variety of forms. It might be a chance meeting with an industry provider who shares information about forthcoming technological developments. Equally, it could be a full consultation on which wide stakeholder views are being sought. All forms of engagement matter.

As a public body in law we have particular responsibilities to ensure that legally we consult in a formal way to the standards expected. We believe we do that now and have set out (in Annex One) our principles which will guide us as we move forward. As part of this, we commit to undertaking impact assessments designed to assist us in making the best policy decisions having regard to the likely cost and benefits to different affected parties. This is something we have recently started and we expect to develop the process further.

It will be seen that, as part of our commitment to good regulatory practice, we have adopted the Better Regulation Criteria on formal consultation. In Section 4 of this paper, we also set out some indicative measures for identifying how we expect to progress in achieving success in delivering the objectives we set out in this paper.

The Board and I will be taking a personal interest in the outcome of this consultation and I very much look forward to reading your submissions in due course.

Sir Alistair Graham
ICSTIS CHAIRMAN

Quite!

Well I think I got a full house in buzz-word bingo there, but I don't have a clue about what he is trying to say. Perhaps they forgot to give him his medication that day.

[Smiff77]

I had my meeting with Lee Scott MP on Saturday, he informed me that there are plans to bring in new laws which would make the sending of unsolicited reverse bill texts illegal. (the practice is legal!!!!!!!) It all depends on whether there is Parliamentary time to put it through, so it doesn't look too good. I wasn't very happy at the way the meeting went as I was not given the chance to inform him of the problems that I had experienced from all parties involved. He seemed to have a limited grasp of the scam, obviously from his researcher. I don't understand why he arranged this meeting as a letter would have been a lot easier.

[mike99]

@Smiff77

I had my meeting with Lee Scott MP on Saturday, he informed me that there are plans to bring in new laws which would make the sending of unsolicited reverse bill texts illegal. (the practice is legal!!!!!!!) It all depends on whether there is Parliamentary time to put it through, so it doesn't look too good. I wasn't very happy at the way the meeting went as I was not given the chance to inform him of the problems that I had experienced from all parties involved. He seemed to have a limited grasp of the scam, obviously from his researcher. I don't understand why he arranged this meeting as a letter would have been a lot easier.

Originally Posted by Smiff77

Interesting. This would seem to confirm my recently voiced suspicions that only promotional unsolicited SMS is explicitly illegal. Nevertheless, unsolicited reverse billed SMS is illegal under other laws, it's just that nobody is prepared to enforce those laws against the premium rate industry.

I suppose an analogy might be fly-posting. There are explicit laws against this type of advertising. This does not make it legal for me to come round to you house and glue a blank sheet of paper to your window.

[Smiff77]

Find below a reply from the DTI in response to my e-mail. You will note that they have agreed that the sending of unsolicited reverse bill texts is illegal. The boss on the other hand, Margaret Hodge MP, seems to have other ideas;




' Business Relations, Information Hub
Thank you for your email message of 4 April to the DTI Enquiry Unit about unsolicited text messages to your mobile phone.

The Government takes the matter of unsolicited text messages very seriously and this has been of concern to the five UK Mobile Network Operators. It considers that the safeguards in place and current policy go some way to protect the consumer, providing that, in turn, they take appropriate action to curtail junk or unsolicited text messages.

Industry has taken action to provide extra safeguards for consumers. These safeguards should clearly inform consumers by text about what they have subscribed to, the cost, and how to stop the service using the prefix short-code number given. However, some customers inadvertently agree to receive a service by deleting the text messages and treating them as spam, as a result this acts as consent to a subscription service. If correct procedures are used, then the messages cease and no further costs of reverse charges are incurred. An industry code of practice lists more details about the safeguards and is available from:

http://www.m-e-f.org/news032005.html

Unsolicited text messages (SMS) are actually illegal under current statutory controls, which were introduced as part of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. These came into force on 11 December 2003 and expressly cover unsolicited marketing emails and SMS messages. These Regulations have provided an effective control specifically for unsolicited phone calls, faxes and text messages. SMS messages should only be sent prior to the consent of the individual subscriber, but there is an exemption where the subscriber has given his or her mobile telephone number direct to a company in the context of the purchase of content through a service. Further information is available on the HMSO website: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm.

Mobile Network Operators have a direct contractual relationship with third party Communication Providers that allow the supply of a variety of services to satisfy customer demand. The establishment of reverse charge SMS, in most cases the network operator is only the carrier for a service, which is set up and provided by a third party service provider.

Typically the subscriber responds to an advert and agrees to the establishment of a reverse SMS service by means of a text message. These services range from TV voting (such as Big Brother), radio interaction services, mobile information services, games, pictures, videos, ringtones, logos and chat room services. It is important that the consumer always reads the small print on printed material or on text messages before deciding to sign up or ignoring it. Mobile Network Operators require third party information providers to keep an audit trail of this type of text. Where there is a dispute, if the service provider is not able to confirm the subscriber’s agreement to a reverse SMS service, the operator can take action against the service provider.

The body that governs premium rate services of this type is the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS). They responsible for administering Premium Rate Services (PRS) and can fine companies and bar access to services.

ICSTIS has recently clarified the situation in which, as part of an adjudication decision, it will consider awarding a refund to be paid to all complainants who have been subject to an offending service. This should ensure that consumers have a better chance of getting their money back if they are subject to a scam. This in effect, is a refund statement that includes premium rate services over all mobile networks. The full text of the statement can be found at: www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/ Statement_Refunds.pdf.

Redress may also be sought from the alternative dispute resolution services of The Telecommunications Ombudsman (Otelo) and CISAS for possible intervention of the services charged between Mobile Network Operators and their third party information providers. They provide a free and independent service that has been approved by the communications regulator Ofcom to help settle disagreements between mobile operators and their customers. Otelo can be contacted as follows: Otelo, PO Box 730, Warrington WA4 6WU, Tel: 0845 050 1614, Fax: 0845 050 1615. Website: and CISAS at The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2LP Tel: 020 7421 7444, Fax: 020 7404 4023, E-mail: cisas@arbitrators.org '


The DTI have failed to mention that the referal to CISAS depends on the party you are in dispute being a member of their organisation. The membership list is limited.
As we all know Icstis do not the power to force companies to refund those of us who have been scammed / victim of fraud.

[mike99]

@Smiff77

The DTI are talking complete twaddle here.

The only action that that phone users can take to protect themselves from unsolicited SMS is to register with the TPS. This only stops unsolicited free promotional SMS from honest UK firms. It does not stop overseas unsolicited free promotional SMS, or unsolicited reverse charge SMS, or unsolicited free promotional SMS from dishonest UK companies - of whom there is no shortage.

You cannot protect yourself from unsolicited reverse charge SMS by watching out for it and sending a "STOP" message because by then it is too late. You have already been charged. You can stop further SMS by sending "STOP", but only if the company takes notice of the "STOP" message. Many of them do not.

Unsolicited text messages (SMS) are NOT illegal under current statutory controls, which were introduced as part of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This act only prohibits free promotional SMS. ICSTIS have specifically found that unsolicited reverse charge SMS that is not promotional in nature is not illegal.

ICSTIS do NOT necessarily require the service provider to confirm the subscriber’s agreement to a reverse SMS service. In the recent Dialogue/Abinger case they required the victim to prove that he/she did not subscribe - even though ICSTIS conceded that this is impossible.

Otelo refuses to take any interest whatsoever in premium rate fraud.

ICSTIS does have the power to force service providers to refund the victims of fraud (according to their code of practice).

ICSTIS does not have the power to force service providers to refund the victims of fraud (according to the standard letters they send out to complainants).

In summary, the DTI either do not have a clue as to what is really going on in premium rate; or they know exactly what is going on and are happy to lie to the public in order to preserve the status quo.

You should write straight back to the DTI and point all this out to them. I have already pointed all this out to them but clearly to no avail.

Mike

[tam2142]

Hi

I had the same thing happen to me on the 17th March 2007 with money being taken from my ohone with some text message. I have left loads of messages on the number I got on the message but have had no luck at all. This is theft and soimthing shoudl be able to be done if anyone can give me any advice as where to go next with this scam.

Tamara

[mike99]

@tam2142

Yes, this is theft; but it is a form of theft which the Government has decided to decriminalize.

To stop the "service" and to try and get your money back, and discover the alleged "opt-in" details you will have to ring the service provider.

Start with the short code (such as 84010) or premium rate number (such as 09##########) or 087 number from which you are receiving these texts.

Go to the ICSTIS site and look up the number and post it here.

Once you get the details of the "service provider" (eg "Dialogue") from the ICSTIS site, you will almost certainly then have to ring a series of 087 numbers (at 10p per minute each) to get to the firm which signed you up - the "information provider" (eg "Abinger"). You can ask them for you money back - though there is no guarantee that you will get it.

To submit a complaint, go the ICSTIS website and submit an online compliant - you will be fobbed off if you try to complain over the phone.

Keep complaining to your network provider (eg "O2") - they may give you some money as a "gesture of goodwill" especially if you make noises about changing your number or supplier (don't actually do this without further advice / reading the small print carefully - the networks have all sorts of ways of making life difficult for you when you do try to leave them).

Finally, write to your MP.

Whatever you do, do not just ignore this - the texts and the bills will keep on coming. You can try texting "STOP" or "STOP ALL" to the number on which you are receiving these texts, but this does not always work and will cost you (the cost of a normal text message).

Good luck

Mike

[mike99]

@Smiff77

I also note that the DTI wrote:

ICSTIS has recently clarified the situation in which, as part of an adjudication decision, it will consider awarding a refund to be paid to all complainants who have been subject to an offending service. This should ensure that consumers have a better chance of getting their money back if they are subject to a scam. This in effect, is a refund statement that includes premium rate services over all mobile networks. The full text of the statement can be found at: www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/Statement_Refunds.pdf .

Again, complete twaddle! The grounds for awarding a refund provided by this document are as follows:

• there was an identifiable (and possibly excessive) financial detriment to individual consumers arising directly from a Code breach or breaches, and a consequential gain to the service provider;
• there was a wilful intent by the service provider to deceive the consumer or engage in other forms of unconscionable conduct;
• the product or service was not being supplied or was of a manifestly unsatisfactory quality;
• the marketing or promotional material was in some way fundamentally misleading and, as consequence, misled consumers into purchasing a service that they would not otherwise have wanted;
• the product was inappropriately priced to disguise the true cost to consumers so as to impact significantly on their decision to purchase. One example here is to describe the PRS as “free” when it clearly is not.

No mention of unsolicited "services". These are not "a breach of the code", because (remember) there is no such thing as unsolicited reverse charge SMS and thus no need to mention such things in the code. There was no "wilful intent by the service provider" - read the ICSTIS adjudication of your complaint. The service was supplied. The service was not promoted and so the stuff about disguising the price is irrelevant.

In short, this is NOT "a refund statement that includes premium rate services over all mobile networks" - although ICSTIS do (in spite of this document and in spite of the fact that they say they can't order refunds) sometime order refunds from companies who send unsolicited reverse charge SMS.

[tam2142]

@tam2142

Yes, this is theft; but it is a form of theft which the Government has decided to decriminalize.

To stop the "service" and to try and get your money back, and discover the alleged "opt-in" details you will have to ring the service provider.

Start with the short code (such as 84010) or premium rate number (such as 09##########) or 087 number from which you are receiving these texts.

Go to the ICSTIS site and look up the number and post it here.

Once you get the details of the "service provider" (eg "Dialogue") from the ICSTIS site, you will almost certainly then have to ring a series of 087 numbers (at 10p per minute each) to get to the firm which signed you up - the "information provider" (eg "Abinger"). You can ask them for you money back - though there is no guarantee that you will get it.

To submit a complaint, go the ICSTIS website and submit an online compliant - you will be fobbed off if you try to complain over the phone.

Keep complaining to your network provider (eg "O2") - they may give you some money as a "gesture of goodwill" especially if you make noises about changing your number or supplier (don't actually do this without further advice / reading the small print carefully - the networks have all sorts of ways of making life difficult for you when you do try to leave them).

Finally, write to your MP.

Whatever you do, do not just ignore this - the texts and the bills will keep on coming. You can try texting "STOP" or "STOP ALL" to the number on which you are receiving these texts, but this does not always work and will cost you (the cost of a normal text message).

Good luck

Mike

Originally Posted by mike99

Hi Mike

Thanks for that you have been the most helpful person yet and I will do all of the above and I will not let this go as I am totally disgusted how I have had no support from anywhere. These people seem to be a law unto themselves.

Tamara

[mike99]

Hi Tamara

Don't forget to post the number from which you are receiving the texts (NB not the number you are receiving them on) as this may help posters to give you more specific advice and may help others who become victims of the same scam.

Regards

Mike

[tam2142]

Hi Mike

Ok am new to all this but the number is 84010 and i sent an email to the eamil address vodaphone gave me today and got a rude letter back saying it was not Dialogue responsible for taking the money as Dialogue was an old company and no longer existed and that the had informed vodapohone. I have now filed a complaint and will contact my local MP.

Tamara

[El Gringo]

Hi Mike

Ok am new to all this but the number is 84010 and i sent an email to the eamil address vodaphone gave me today and got a rude letter back saying it was not Dialogue responsible for taking the money as Dialogue was an old company and no longer existed and that the had informed vodapohone. I have now filed a complaint and will contact my local MP.

Tamara

Originally Posted by tam2142

hi tamara
welcome to the scream
excuse me for butting in for a moment
did you say who your mobile network operator is?
what email adress?

@mike, smiff and hamlet.
this is just a thought concerning refunds.

http://www.icstis.org.uk/consumers/a...p?node=&id=633

The Panel therefore decided to impose the following sanctions:
· A formal reprimand;
· A £10,000 fine; and
· Affected consumers to be refunded.

did Icstis instruct the "mobile network operator" to withhold monies from Abinger/aka???? Were those monies taken by Icstis to cover Dialogue's fine or is it still there to be used for refunds?