Ofcom + Cheers International = ongoing 070 missed call scam

[El Gringo]

http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t28540.html
Cheers International behind 50% of 070 missed call scams

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/070/m

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033376934
07033376934 phone number comments:
Mike Slasor - 30 Dec 2007
This No calls at all time of day and night phone only rings for 1 ring then shows missed call on your phone

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033328043
07033328043 phone number comments:
N - 4 Jan 2008
Keeps calling every few days during the working day. I work therefore I don't pick up and they never leave a message.

[..............]

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/busin...p?cmd=3&id=760
22 May 2008
Content and/or promotion provided by.............Mr Arun Khanna t/a Khanna Enterprises
Service provider responsible for
compliance under the Code of Practice............Mr Tomasz Adamczyk

Telephone network(s)..................................Cheers International Telecom Limited

One complaint included a representative of the mobile operator 3G UK Ltd, who reported that approximately 2,000 missed calls per day were being made to 3G customers.

The Tribunal also commented adversely on the conduct of the network operator, Cheers International Telecom Limited. It considered that there was a strong case that it had failed in its due diligence requirements by taking on such a service and had performed unsatisfactorily in failing to disconnect the service.

Fine £25000

http://www.out-law.com/page-9510
Ofcom u-turn on scam number crackdown
15/10/2008

"Since our review of telephone numbering in 2006, the number of complaints has significantly reduced and we have found that the use of 070 appears to be declining," said Ofcom's report on the issue. "Closing the 070 number range as previously intended is not a proportionate response."

[......................]

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033317377
07033317377 phone number comments:
andy - 11 Feb 2009
I have received 3 calls. When I tried to call back I got the message from my op that I had no enough credit, whereas I had enough.

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033302243
07033302243 phone number comments:
ada - 27 Feb 2009
rings and hangs up

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033352878
07033352878 phone number comments:
Mark - 2 Mar 2009
1 ring and then rung off.

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033327860
07033327860 phone number comments:
angel - 11 Mar 2009
I have got few calls from this number.

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033328322
07033328322 phone number comments:
doreen jones - 11 Mar 2009
keep getting these calls just a couple of rings then it goes off rang the number back at a cost of about 3 pound

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033319448
07033319448 phone number comments:
Monika - 9 Mar 2009
Hi,
got a call from 07033319448, dont know from whom, tried to call back and it charged me £2 for 2 sec!

http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/s...5&postcount=14
30th January 2009
Jack Barnard, "The fact that six months after my case became public there were a further series of cases shows that PPP are not effective in stopping this activity".

[El Gringo]

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/pdfs1...09%20FINAL.pdf
6.1.3
Managing Regulatory Risk

The Executive updated the Board on the current situation in relation to the Market Risk Register, which had developed in to its current form about 15 months ago. It was noted that there are 40 entries on the register, the majority of which were marked as low risks, but actively monitored. Good management is in place to deal with the developing and auctioning controls for the risks, which are regularly monitored. So far the follow had been undertaken:-

*Ofcom has been notified of missed called from 0871 numbers

The Market Risk Register is to be circulated to the Board half yearly. (Action: D Oatway)

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/087

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/08716654242
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/08716654646
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/08716653838

qryExportToS7codeXLS
qryExportToS8codeXLS

0871665**** = Cheers International Sales Limited

'Managing' consumer harm to minimise 'Regulatory Risk'

is this the real roll Ofcom believes Phonepayplus plays? that really does explain a lot!

Ofcom + Cheers International = ongoing 070 missed call scam
and now
Ofcom + Cheers International = ongoing 0871 missed call scam

[El Gringo]

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/070/m

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033394449
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033356211
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033331735
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033333198
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033373127
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033314083
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033365411
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033351707
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033337437
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07033327555
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/070333/2

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issu.../9360/page.pdf

9360 THE LONDON GAZETTE TUESDAY 2 JUNE 2009

CHEERS INTERNATIONAL TELECOM LIMITED
Notice is hereby given that Meetings of the Members and Creditors of Cheers International Telecom Limited (in Liquidation) will be held at 10.00 am and 10.30 am respectively, on Thursday 2 July 2009 at the offices of SFP, 9 Ensign House, Admirals Way, Marsh Wall, London E14 9XQ.
The meetings are called pursuant to Rule 4.54 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 for the purpose of enabling the Joint Liquidator to pass certain resolutions to carry on the conduct of the Liquidation. A member or creditor entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy to attend and vote instead of him. A proxy need not be a member or creditor.
Proxies to be used at the meeting should be lodged at SFP, 9 Ensign House, Admirals Way, Marsh Wall, London E14 9XQ no later than 12.00 noon on the working day immediately before the meetings.
Simon Plant, Joint Liquidator
26 May 2009. (830805)

what's the point of even reporting them to Ofcom or Phonepayplus. this lot really are an expensive waste of time, space and money.

[El Gringo]

http://www.aimelink.org/newMembers/newMember.aspx
meet the new member
http://www.aimelink.org/newMembers/newMember.aspx
Company: Welburn & Co.

http://www.wtmag.co.uk/archive/legal/winter04_2.htm
Winter 2004: A level playing field?
Author: Peter Welburn

In the parliamentary debate of 29 June 2004 on the subject of rogue diallers, Sir George Young referred to “the growing problems of abuse” and to “the regulatory response” as being “wholly inadequate”. He complained of ICSTIS delay in responding to correspondence on behalf of a constituent where he had written to ICSTIS in October 2003 and despite two chasing letters, failed to get a response until March 2004. In emotive terms he referred to “the failure of the regulatory system” and the ICSTIS helpdesk as being “in meltdown because of a record volume of complaints”. He concluded that “what is needed is an effective, comprehensive and properly resourced regulatory regime with meaningful sanctions promptly enforced and an efficient compensation scheme for telephone subscribers who are ripped off by fraud”.

As we are all well aware, as I write this, Ofcom is undertaking a comprehensive review of the regulation of premium rate telephone services. It must be hoped that this review will give rise to practices and procedures that are transparent and fair to all concerned.

Crucially, there needs to be a clear demarcation of roles, a setting out of rights and responsibilities, susceptible of practical implementation and enforcement. Readers will welcome any steps designed to assist in improving the overall quality of the regulatory regime.

Ofcom is in a difficult position. It must respond to consumer concerns, but in doing so it is bound to have regard for the plethora of laws and regulations that now exist in this sector. There are limited resources available and it is important not only that there are not too many “feeding from the trough”, but also that those who do are not in effective conflict or competition with one another. Ofcom is clearly sensitive to this need as is well illustrated by their recent “Statement of policy on the persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service” (13 May 2004)(“the Statement”).

The Statement, required by the Communications Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), demonstrates the complexity that now exists both as to existing laws and regulations, and regarding who is responsible for doing what. The Statement is concerned with the persistent misuse by a person of a network or service. This happens if:

* The effect or likely effect of his use of the network or service is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety; or
* He uses the network or service to engage in conduct, the effect or likely effect of which is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.

Persistent misuse must either represent a pattern of behaviour or practice or recklessness as to whether persons suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. The Statement identifies six general areas constituting such behaviour:

* Misuse of automatic calling equipment;
* Misuse by making silent or short duration calls;
* Number-scanning;
* Misuse of a calling line identification facility;
* Misuse for dishonest gain; and
* Misuse of allocated telephone numbers.

Such activities are said to share common features, including being primarily aimed at defrauding end-users, rather than communications providers, and the exploitation of premium rate or revenue sharing services.
In passing, the Statement mentions that it is an offence under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to use automated calling systems to make unsolicited direct marketing calls that do not consist of live speech. In respect of direct marketing, reference is made to Regulation 8 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 whereby any unsolicited commercial communication sent by electronic mail must be clearly and unambiguously identifiable as such as soon as it is received.

The introductory notes to the Statement explain “persistent misuse is a category of behaviour intended to apply to activities that, although causing unnecessary annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another person, are not serious enough to be prosecuted as criminal offences”. There is a presumption in the 2003 Act that Ofcom’s powers to take action against persistent misuse will not generally be used where there is an alternative legal remedy, such as:

* Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail or spam (data protection legislation);
* Computer hacking or denial of service attacks (misuse of computers legislation); or
* Threatening or abusive communications (legislation on malicious communications).

[Peter missed one]
* The Great Phone Call Con (UK theft laws)

Ofcom acknowledges that the activities mentioned above are likely to be in breach of the ICSTIS Code of Practice and it is, by implication, clear that in terms of the ability to impose sanctions that “hurt” service providers, ICSTIS is not only better placed, but will be expected to use those sanctions in a purposeful manner, responsive to the concerns of the consumer.
Ofcom’s “armoury” in the case of persistent misuse by service providers comprises the issuing of a notification to the person concerned indicating that it has reasonable grounds for believing that they have engaged in persistent misuse of a network or service followed – depending on the response given by the person to the notice – by an enforcement notification and/or a financial penalty.

While the upper limit of the penalty (set by the 2003 Act at £5,000) may be varied by order of the Secretary of State, this figure is paltry when compared with the upper limit (again variable by order of the Secretary of State) of £100,000, which applies in the case of ICSTIS determinations.
The 2003 Act requires that Ofcom do not approve the ICSTIS Code of Practice unless they are satisfied that certain criteria are met, including being satisfied as to:

* The availability of adequate funding;
* The objective justification for the provisions in the code; and
* Provisions that do not unduly discriminate, and are proportionate and transparent.

The challenge is surely not only to ensure that the foregoing criteria is met, but that available resources are deployed in a manner that is most effective. Simply “throwing” more money at ICSTIS, for example, is no guarantee that the concerns that many in the industry have regarding ICSTIS, including their operating practices and procedures (both informal and as set down in the Code of Practice 10th Edition), will be resolved.

It is, therefore, to be welcomed that Ofcom is “taking a grip”, but it is important for all to appreciate that there will be no “overnight magic wand” with which all perceived woes will be addressed. While it is apparent that consumer concerns have stoked the political fires and that they in turn have raised temperatures within both Ofcom and ICSTIS, “the jury is out” as to whether, as is likely, a greater level of resource/power, allocated to ICSTIS, will prove effective. It will be crucially important that all interested parties, including Ofcom, ICSTIS, network operators and service providers, not only agree on the need for co-operation and allocate the resource, but also have confidence in the other to perform their respective roles in a manner that is consistently fair and to the highest standards.

Author: Peter Welburn is a solicitor and Telemedia Law specialist

considering Peter was such an authority on the UK Premium Rate Industry and rogue diallers in 2004, I wonder if he was aware that that 20% of 'persistent misuse' that BT was billing for was on 3,500 0909967xxxx Telecom One numbers that were 'persistently' appearing from on the 'end users' phone bills from Jan 2004 to Aug 2004.

[El Gringo]

Note for future ref:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...istered/s7.xls

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...istered/s8.xls

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...istered/s9.xls