Phonepayplus pocket 10% of 11.2 million pound missed call scam

[El Gringo]

2 April 2009
http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/consu...udications.asp

Service Provider.................Speedreview Limited

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £150,000.
.................................................. ..................

Service Provider......................Mr Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £110,000.
.................................................. ...................

Service Provider........................PCB Telecom Limited

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a total fine of £500,000 having exercised its discretion to apply a fine of up to £250,000 per breach.
.................................................. ............................

Service Provider..........................Enbel Limited

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £110,000.
.................................................. .........................

Service Provider..........................Symtek Communications Limited

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £250,000.
.................................................. ..............................

total fines = £1,120,000

these are regulatory fines and cannot exceed 10% of the revenue from the scam and are capped at £250,000.

that would mean these four scams alone may have netted at least £11,200,000

of course if Phonepayplus had referred these scams to the police for criminal investigation, Phonepayplus and the billing Networks would not have been able to take and keep a share of this revenue.

crime doesn't pay...............no the victims do

[El Gringo]

Service Provider..........................Enbel Limited

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call indicated that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone.

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £110,000.
............................................

When Phonepayplus received their first few complaints did it occur to one of them to call the number as part of their initial 'investigation'?

or were they just interested in ensuring the 'fine' would be paid

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/news/...r_20081219.asp
19 December 2008
NOTICE TO INDUSTRY: NETWORK DUE DILIGENCE

Complaints to PhonepayPlus indicate concern among consumers over the increased abuse of 070 prefixed numbers. These complaints, along with information provided by industry, have resulted in a number of punitive sanctions imposed by the PhonepayPlus Code Compliance Tribunal.
[................]
Sanctions

PhonepayPlus reminds the industry that it will vigorously pursue full recovery of all fines and administrative charges imposed by a Tribunal, including those imposed in relation to services operating on 070 prefixed numbers.

PhonepayPlus draws attention to the decision of the High Court in the case of ICSTIS v Liquidators of Allied Communications Limited [2007] EWHC 2307 (Admin), which clarified that ICSTIS (now PhonepayPlus) is able to sue service providers or network operators in respect of any unpaid fines and administrative charges which it had directed to be paid to it. The Judgement also reinforces PhonepayPlus' status as a legitimate creditor for insolvency purposes in respect of any unpaid fines and administrative charges.
.................................................. ..........

https://www.ukdata.com/creditreports...5&only-match=1

Company Details - ENBEL LIMITED
Registered No.05471845

Status: Company in liquidation
.................................................. ...............

'The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the service provider for the full amount spent by users, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.'

[silentgenius]

The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a total fine of £500,000 having exercised its discretion to apply a fine of up to £250,000 per breach.
.................................................. ............................

these are regulatory fines and cannot exceed 10% of the revenue from the scam and are capped at £250,000.

Once again I should point out that the PPP fines are not limited by the 10% of revenue amount. The fact that they have indicated that they can do £250k per breach, regardless of revenue, shows this to be the case.

If you want this clarified, I suggest you approach PPP direct - but I know that fines have been issued that equalled 100% or more of revenue in the past.

[El Gringo]

Once again I should point out that the PPP fines are not limited by the 10% of revenue amount.

Originally Posted by silentgenius

the point of the post is to say that ppp is pocketing a very large share of money that 'customers' are claiming had been stolen from their accounts.

if you are claiming they are pocketing more than 10% and sometimes 100% of the alleged theft that really does not alter the point.

The fact that they have indicated that they can do £250k per breach, regardless of revenue, shows this to be the case.

Originally Posted by silentgenius

these figures of 10% and £250,000 can be applied in different ways.
Which ever way they are applied they cannot exceed the amount that the Network Operator withheld to pay the fine.

Any way all this is a mute point considering the scammer who only appears to exist as a 'po box' is hardly likely to launch a legal challenge.

[El Gringo]

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/outpu...dications.aspx

and all the 070 numbers were supplied by Hotchilli Communications Limited
.................................................. ........

Service provider Speedreview Limited

There was material consumer harm; there were 13 consumer complaints and over 278,000 calls made from consumers to the 070 numbers;

.................................................. ................................

Service provider Mr Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions

There was material consumer harm; there were 14 consumer complaints, 11 of which related to the 070 prefixed number ranges considered by the Tribunal, and over 212,000 calls made from consumers to these 070 numbers;
.................................................. ....................

Service provider PCB Telecom Limited

There was material consumer harm; there were 17 consumer complaints and over 850,000 calls made from consumers to the 070 numbers;
.................................................. ............................

Service provider Enbel Limited

There was material consumer harm; there were 7 consumer complaints and almost 200,000 calls made from consumers to the range of 070 numbers under consideration;
.................................................. .............................

Service provider Symtek Communications

There was material consumer harm; there were 3 consumer complaints and over 474,000 calls made from consumers to the 070 numbers;
.................................................. ...........................

The vast majority of complainants who returned the call claimed that they were connected to a recording of a ringing tone
50p a pop + 3.95 pence per minute from a standard BT landline


and one more thing..............how the hell can you be a consumer of a recording of a ringing tone?

wouldn't it make more sense if they were regarded as victims of a fraud (deception)!

[Hamlet]

how the hell can you be a consumer of a recording of a ringing tone?

Originally Posted by El Gringo

There was a ping call scheme in Germany years ago - the victims also heard a ringing tone. The fraudsters have been sentenced on parole by the German court. There was an appeal in that case. The highest German court (BGH) said "on parole? That's not ok..." and the fraudsters have been sent to prison.

Die Durchführung eines Ping-Anrufes unter Übertragung einer Mehrwertdiensterufnummer, um
den Angerufenen zum Rückruf zu bewegen, ist strafbarer Betrug

(Executing ping-calls sending a premium rate number inducing the callee to call back is penal fraud )
It was a German court, bad luck for UK victims It feels good to see that the German law is better than UK law. Just kidding, you know... Stepping into dog pooh is better than stepping on a mine.

[El Gringo]

There was an appeal in that case. The highest German court (BGH) said "on parole? That's not ok..." and the fraudsters have been sent to prison.

Originally Posted by Hamlet

UK prison space is needed for single mothers who shoplift and old age pensioners who refuse to pay their council tax.

Our beloved leader Blair "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedreview Limited
no numbers given
...............................................
Mr Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions

The Executive considered that the service provider had entered into an arrangement with the network operator, Hotchilli Communications Limited, for the use of the prefixed number ranges 07042516000-07042516999, 07061750000-07061750999, and 070617590000-07061759999 for the provision of a premium rate service, despite the fact that no signed contract had been provided. The Executive submitted evidence in the form of email correspondence between the service provider and network operator showing that the service provider had accepted the terms of the service order forms relating to the numbers used to operate the service.

2. The service provider stated that the service order forms and email correspondence for these numbers showed that they were contracted to another service provider for which it acted as a consultant in order to procure the numbers. The service provider commented that it did not see anything in the email correspondence and service order forms which suggested that the numbers were contracted to it and emphasised that the information clearly showed that the network operator knew that the numbers were for the other service provider.

3. The Tribunal considered the evidence and determined that it was not sufficient with regards to the Executive’s submission that an arrangement existed in relation to the three number ranges. The Tribunal found that there was only evidence that the respondent was a service provider in respect of those number ranges for which a valid contract had been supplied. It could not therefore be considered a service provider in respect of number ranges 07042516000-07042516999, 07061750000-07061750999, and 070617590000-07061759999. The Tribunal also commented that it could not consider number ranges where no complaints had been received i.e. 07042510000-07042510999 and 07042511000-07042511999 as there was then was no evidence to show that these number ranges had been used for the provision of premium rate services.

Decision: The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was a service provider in respect of those 3,000 numbers, being 070 numbers, within the ranges 07061729000-07061729999 and 07061735000-07061736999.
.................................................. .................................................. ............
Service provider PCB Telecom Limited
no numbers given
.................................................. .................................................. .......
Service provider Enbel Limited

The Tribunal commented that it would not consider number ranges where no complaints had been received i.e. 07089632000-07089633999. The Tribunal therefore restricted its consideration to the 100,000 numbers, being 070 numbers, within the range 07042100000 to 07042199999.

There was material consumer harm; there were 7 consumer complaints and almost 200,000 calls made from consumers to the range of 070 numbers under consideration;
.................................................. .................................................. ........
Service provider Symtek Communications
no numbers given
.................................................. ..........................
wonder how long they allowed the scam (sorry.........commercial enterprise ) to continue?
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/070/m

Other Reported Calls
07033305401 07033321736 07006400155 07024078874 07013124531 07033327383 07034000681 07046370192 07035939980 07039810302 07033328322 07033327860 07031273240 07029876543 07053515013 07033319448 07008051535 07033352878 07045764729 07033302243 07024010938 07075998347 07031834820 07036599002 07024012996 07024053386 07024014924 07006400156 07031870175 07045734090 07099800884 07033317377 07085372186 07031972530 07006400153 07092253239 070250831128 07035935339 07024037689 07024025145 07099803309 07031829559 07024041175 07083520789 07033331315 07033359002 07033322067 07074078048 07024083241 07033379154 07055174198 07031854515 07055127994 07033307870 07024097532 070312631762 07052288478 07033346159 07033334458 07033314318 07031939849 0703120410 07033373973 07033349538 07024015372 07033356285 07033312698 07033355135 07024024573 07057952354 07033316189 07033348390 07041114796 07033353366 07033358203 0707267439 07033351143 07033322136 07031966575 07033371956 07019633102 07083592009 07081799069 07083592008 07041395625 07079888327 07079820808 07034310132 07079800902 07024067973 0708501291 07079822282 07083582007 07007992732 07022759049 07079820140 07008051530 0703356028 07079820826 07030399399 07079855656 07046470652 07079811945 07008026211 07033366810 07024065977 07079822037 07079830954 07022733839 07011137932 0700363627 07033361549 07031860666 0709020560 07083551515 07094606125 07079830609 07013109076 07079830306 07033368264 07079866897 07008024619 07036518118 07036524990 07031849955 07079820990 070333855582 07033323952 07079820179 07033364144 07079820873 07033364295 07033352566 07075024340 07006400151 07006400158 07040373574 07031838872 07023017520 07024073349 07045714185 07025430089 07079844269 07073056124 07053794061 07053798468 07083526145 07024016560 07079811790 070950842 07024031158 07099800149 07045501170 07033363046 07092897847 07012143900 07031840116 07033338283 07061719804 07008772458 07061706329 07061719387 07033337788 07033337370 0703333 07061719711 07033329945 07053568430 070535 07053518119 07053580865 07099820366 07011410231 07053516267 07042154027 07042157181 07033317992 07053506620 07033314667 07033314894 07033306308 07042152779 07042152494 07042152406 07042152140 07042152332 07042152060 07033312166 07024046731 07053517501 0703318479 07081700155 07081700160 07033363745 07024051231 07081700146 07061719140 07053574031 07061735880 07061706825 07053520974 07081700167 07079888626 07061719624 07033366929 07033351011 07081700111 07042517921 07061729162 07081700295 07061719130 07061719272 07042554055 0706171055 07081744055 07061737055 07053580035 0708170146 07033355735 07033354291 07061706589 07053593857 07033359644 07061706431 07033372785 07042523445 07061741681 07081700139 07079800827 07033365365 07061758810 07042517497 07061735608 07079899903 07045742407 07053599878 07061729440 07081714221 07061700686 07061700595 07042517704 07036524972 07061729050 07022246969 07061758375 07053524049 07081739138 07061704992 07061704525 07061703867 07053567340 07053 07053556202 07053529722 07061704721 07061703667 070351079 0700015 07024035309 07005800975 0702510949 07079888945 07061701775 07079855209 07033365101 07061701635 07053531139 07036515547 07089605052 07036 07036522621 07045716423 07061703053 07061738060 07061703014 07036522988 07061703737 07099883318 07061740034 07089604592 07079844887 07036563620 07081700271 07061786811 07061718470 07061700506 07053543464 07061704355 07079866498 07061736392 07081700100 07081700174 07061758578 07053571345 07053563202 07036547980 07061736531 07081739101 07053510215 07061736259 07081700105 07061794055 07036586177 07033357473 07033338969 07079822299 07022774291 07036522800 07081700102 07061735006 07006400159 07061729843 07036522705 07089604189 07081700144 07061786212 07036586892 07061703311 07079800967 07014228573 07061739522 07061790244 07036515983 07081700142 07038806100 07061703182 07036586991 07061700649 07053539238 07061741962 07061717552 07061717023 07061717016 07061741074 07061741061 07061700618 07081700184 07006400160 07061759930 07053574949 07061759671 07081700150 07081700170 07036515045 07081700164 07081700162 07042551617 07061717001 07081700141 07042523193 07061703926 07089612862 07061703165 07089604176 07056331001 07061717071 07081700165 07061740442 07061787277 07022200022 07061704652 07031819355 07044866775 07005995634 07042550246 07036515354 07081731311 07061786655 07061787358 07081700134 07036586654 07081703522 07081705928 07036522364 07036515783 07081704469 07081705366 07061703039 07042553972 07081747331 07081705444 07061703396 07061784000 07061741541 07061784273 07079877989 07089612017 07031847713 07017770000 07061784534 07061741684 07031918566 07079844869 07061791703 07061799610 07033328043 07061741222 07061741600 07033376934 07045735828 07045719547 07045271963 07040113014 07028759590 07061758454 07061797369 07036518162 07036515496 07081700343 07061703033 07012212212 070617 07061703723 07053552948 07053522600 07036447787 07061703488 07036586801 07053570906 07023660961 07061798842 07061703487 07061703219 07061740685 07053582580 07024122123 07049799835
.................................................. ..................
this is very odd.......so what does this say about the Cheers International 070333***** (i've run out of red pixels)

[El Gringo]

07033306685 07045796231 07033305401 07033321736 07006400155 07024078874 07013124531 07033327383 07034000681 07046370192 07035939980 07039810302 07033328322 07033327860 07031273240 07029876543 07053515013 07033319448 07008051535 07033352878 07045764729 07033302243 07024010938 07075998347 07031834820 07036599002 07024012996 07024053386 07024014924 07006400156 07031870175 07045734090 07099800884 07033317377 07085372186 07031972530 07006400153 07092253239 70250831128 07035935339 07024037689 07024025145 07099803309 07031829559 07024041175 07083520789 07033331315 07033359002 07033322067 07074078048 07033379154 07055174198 07031854515 07055127994 07033307870 07024097532 70312631762 07052288478 07033346159 07033334458 07033314318 07031939849 x0703120410 07033373973 07033349538 07024015372 07033356285 07033312698 07033355135 07024024573 07057952354 07033316189 07033348390 07041114796 07033353366 07033358203 x0707267439 07033351143 07033322136 07031966575 07033371956 07019633102 07083592009 07081799069 07083592008 07041395625 07079888327 07079820808 07034310132 07079800902 07024067973 x0708501291 07079822282 07083582007 07007992732 07022759049 07079820140 07008051530 x0703356028 07079820826 07030399399 07079855656 07046470652 07079811945 07008026211 07033366810 07024065977 07079822037 07079830954 07022733839 07011137932 x0700363627 07033361549 07031860666 x0709020560 07083551515 07094606125 07079830609 07013109076 07079830306 07033368264 07079866897 07008024619 07036518118 07036524990 07031849955 07079820990 70333855582 07033323952 07079820179 07033364144 07079820873 07033364295 07033352566 07075024340 07006400151 07006400158 07040373574 07031838872 07023017520 07024073349 07045714185 07025430089 07079844269 07073056124 07053794061 07053798468 07083526145 07024016560 07079811790 xx070950842 07024031158 07099800149 07045501170 07033363046 07092897847 07012143900 07031840116 07033338283 07061719804 07008772458 07061706329 07061719387 07033337788 07033337370 07061719711 07033329945 07053568430 07053518119 07053580865 07099820366 07011410231 07053516267 07042154027 07042157181 07033317992 07053506620 07033314667 07033314894 07033306308 07042152779 07042152494 07042152406 07042152140 07042152332 07042152060 07033312166 07024046731 07053517501 x0703318479 07081700155 07081700160 07033363745 07024051231 07081700146 07061719140 07053574031 07061735880 07061706825 07053520974 07081700167 07079888626 07061719624 07033366929 07033351011 07081700111 07042517921 07061729162 07081700295 07061719130 07061719272 07042554055 x0706171055 07081744055 07061737055 07053580035 x0708170146 07033355735 07033354291 07061706589 07053593857 07033359644 07061706431 07033372785 07042523445 07061741681 07081700139 07079800827 07033365365 07061758810 07042517497 07061735608 07079899903 07045742407 07053599878 07061729440 07081714221 07061700686 07061700595 07042517704 07036524972 07061729050 07022246969 07061758375 07053524049 07081739138 07061704992 07061704525 07061703867 07053567340 07053556202 07053529722 07061704721 07061703667 xx070351079 07024035309 07005800975 x0702510949 07079888945 07061701775 07079855209 07033365101 07061701635 07053531139 07036515547 07089605052 07036522621 07045716423 07061703053 07061738060 07061703014 07036522988 07061703737 07099883318 07061740034 07089604592 07079844887 07036563620 07081700271 07061786811 07061718470 07061700506 07053543464 07061704355 07079866498 07061736392 07081700100 07081700174 07061758578 07053571345 07053563202 07036547980 07061736531 07081739101 07053510215 07061736259 07081700105 07061794055 07036586177 07033357473 07033338969 07079822299 07022774291 07036522800 07081700102 07061735006 07006400159 07061729843 07036522705 07089604189 07081700144 07061786212 07036586892 07061703311 07079800967 07014228573 07061739522 07061790244 07036515983 07081700142 07038806100 07061703182 07036586991 07061700649 07053539238 07061741962 07061717552 07061717023 07061717016 07061741074 07061741061 07061700618 07081700184 07006400160 07061759930 07053574949 07061759671 07081700150 07081700170 07036515045 07081700164 07081700162 07042551617 07061717001 07081700141 07042523193 07061703926 07089612862 07061703165 07089604176 07056331001 07061717071 07081700165 07061740442 07061787277 07022200022 07061704652 07031819355 07044866775 07005995634 07042550246 07036515354 07081731311 07061786655 07061787358 07081700134 07036586654 07081703522 07081705928 07036522364 07036515783 07081704469 07081705366 07061703039 07042553972 07081747331 07081705444 07061703396 07061784000 07061741541 07061784273 07079877989 07089612017 07031847713 07017770000 07061784534 07061741684 07031918566 07079844869 07061791703 07061799610 07033328043 07061741222 07061741600 07033376934 07045735828 07045719547 07045271963 07040113014 07028759590 07061758454 07061797369 07036518162 07036515496 07081700343 07061703033 07012212212 07061703723 07053552948 07053522600 07036447787 07061703488 07036586801 07053570906 07023660961 07061798842 07061703487 07061703219 07061740685 07053582580 07024122123 07049799835

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

070 numbers were supplied by Hotchilli Communications Limited
Service provider Enbel Limited

The Tribunal therefore restricted its consideration to the 100,000 numbers, being 070 numbers, within the range 07042100000 to 07042199999.

There was material consumer harm; there were 7 consumer complaints and almost 200,000 calls made from consumers to the range of 070 numbers under consideration;

The 'whocallsme' site has received = 8 reports (phonepayplus received 7)

why hasn't ofcom/Phonepayplus acted to stop the missed call scam being operated on the Cheers International 070333***** numbers?

The 'whocallsme' site has received > 60 reports (how many has ofcom/phonepayplus received?)

how much is this scam raking in for the UK 'Resellers' and fixed line/mobile network operators?

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 in last month have had 12 calls WHO are they??????

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

07033310043 phone number comments:
Mouse - 18 Apr 2009

Had a missed call from 07033 310043. Rang it back as assumed was a mobile number. Instantly gave an engaged signal. Was on phone for maybe 3-4 seconds. £2.00 charge shows up on my itemised phone bill for this.

why aren't ofcom/phonepayplus acting to stop the other blocks of numbers that can be clearly seen and have been in operation for far longer?

the Cheers scam has been going on for far longer and is far larger. ofcom/phonepayplus did this in 2004 when they turned a blind eye to the 3,500 0909967**** Telecom One numbers that had been programmed into 'rogue diallers' by four 'companies' registered in Majorca. they were allowed to rip off the public from 01 Jan 2004 to Aug 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004...d.jobsandmoney
The numbers racket costing you a fortune
3 July 2004

I then went to Icstis. I gave them the two 09099 numbers on my bill and they revealed there had been 25 or more complaints about each since the end of May. They were able to disclose the name and address of the people behind one of the numbers - a company based in a European holiday hotspot.

Much as I would like to name and shame these scumbags, Icstis begged me to keep schtum because it is still investigating. Identifying the company could jeopardise the chances of nabbing them. I wasn't impressed to learn that my tormentors lease their line from a leading UK telecommunications firm.

[El Gringo]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...istered/s7.xls
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/070/m


http://ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/num...istered/s8.xls
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/087/m

[Memfis]

Just had this one myself.
07033310953 single ring missed call scam.
Reported to whocallsme under the 070333 search.

[El Gringo]

Phonepayplus regulate these now

you can enter the number in the 'number checker' and lodge a complaint

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/outpu...he-public.aspx

[Hamlet]

Reported to whocallsme under the 070333 search.

Originally Posted by Memfis

[offtopic]
what's a 070333 search?
and: Does anybody know who is running the whocallsme.com service?
They should include better search options. Their site is just fantastic, but it could be much more worthful with better search options (wildcard search and so on). A friend of mine was trying to built up a database based on whocallsme.com - but you get your IP blocked if you run a "complete scan"
(or if you try to get ALL reports about - for example - 0088213210001 to 0088213219999 using wget or DTA)


---

by the way:

0044-70-33310953
code 070
#-Block: 333
Provider: Cheers International Telecom Ltd
assigned: 08/2005

This information was provided by my personal fortune teller
(ok... it was included in this thread already)

@Memfis: could you please bring this to the attention of the police? It's fraud. That's not PPP's affair but a matter for a police investigation. I would love to hear what the UK police would tell you........

[Memfis]

what's a 070333 search?

Originally Posted by Hamlet

oops sorry. my bad explanation

My number didn't have any reports so I knocked a few digits off the search until lots of results came up. There seam to be a lot of reports under 070333.
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/070333

For the exact same reason I also found putting a * in to get a group of results didn't work etc

[El Gringo]

over a year later!

The following cases were heard at a meeting of the PhonepayPlus Tribunal on 1 October 2009 and published on this website on 7 October.

Network Operator Plaza Telecom Limited (formerly Hotchilli Communications Limited), London

Service Title and type n/a
Case type Network Operator

Breaches upheld against Plaza Telecom Limited (formerly Hotchilli Communications Limited), London

Procedure Standard

Summary

In July 2008, PhonepayPlus received complaints from members of the public regarding missed calls being made from 070 prefixed numbers which were operating on the Plaza Telecom Limited network (formerly Hotchilli Communications Limited).

The complaints were linked to six separate service providers and, as a result, six separate investigations were initiated by PhonepayPlus in relation to the following service providers: Starwire Limited (Case reference 748452); Speedreview Limited (Case reference 765871); Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case reference 774947); PCB Telecom Limited (Case reference 766056); Enbel Limited (Case reference 767427); and Symtek Communications Limited (Case reference 751193). All six service providers were found to be in breach of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

PhonepayPlus was concerned as to the apparent failure of the Network Operator to comply with its due diligence obligations under the Code and specific directions issued by PhonepayPlus which enabled the six service providers to operate in breach of the Code.

PhonepayPlus formed the view that the failures of the Network Operator contravened the Code, and raised the following potential breaches of the Code:

* Paragraph 2.1.1b – General responsibilities (Prevention of evasion of services)
* Paragraph 2.3.1a – Network operators’ due diligence requirements
* Paragraph 2.3.1b – Network operators’ due diligence requirements
* Paragraph 2.3.1c – Network operators’ due diligence requirements
* Paragraph 2.3.1d – Network operators’ due diligence requirements
* Paragraph 2.3.1f – Network operators’ due diligence requirements
* Paragraph 2.5.1a – Specific obligations
* Paragraph 2.5.1e – Specific obligations
* Paragraph 2.5.1f – Specific obligations
* Paragraph 2.5.2d – Withholding of revenue

The Tribunal upheld all breaches raised. The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £175,000. The Tribunal imposed a bar on the Network Operator providing its network and/or services for the carriage of any premium rate services for three months commencing, 21 October 2009 or until the following conditions have been satisfied, whichever is the earlier:

1. That the Network Operator commissions an audit from an independent third party into its due diligence processes and procedures.
2. That this third party be of high recognised standing and is pre-approved by the Executive.
3. That the third party be instructed to evaluate the compliance culture, policies and corporate governance of the Network Operator in relation to all present and proposed premium-rate activity and to report recommended changes.
4. That the Network Operator undertakes to provide a copy of the report to the Executive within two months and comply in full with the recommendations of the report, subject to any express exemptions or modifications agreed with the Executive.
5. That the Executive is satisfied that the third party’s recommendations have been implemented and is satisfied with the Network Operator’s due diligence processes.
------------------------------------------------------
ok so Hotchilli didn't give Phonepayplus the £1,120,000 withheld revenue the fraud generated. The fines were never paid. Six months later Phonepayplus decide to fine Hotchilli £175,000 for among other things not withholding the revenue that was to be paid to cover the 'fines'.

what a racket

[El Gringo]

Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions >>> JST Property/JST Properties
PCB Telecom Limited
Enbel Limited
Symtek Communications Limited

all west midlands
and
all shared the same directors and/or registered addresses.

https://secure.creditgate.com/

strange that Phonepayplus didn't mention that during their original 'investigation'

[El Mariachi]

Aren't there guidelines in place in practically every developed country inc. the UK where the cost of the phonecall/service must be stated at the beginning of every premium rate phonecall?

So how were these calls possible?

In Japan, the States and Australia, the missed call scammers had to originate thier calls from the Carribean where there are now laws in regards to advertisement of costs.

[El Gringo]

hi El Mariachi

Aren't there guidelines in place in practically every developed country inc. the UK where the cost of the phonecall/service must be stated at the beginning of every premium rate phonecall?

Originally Posted by El Mariachi

unfortunately Ofcom allowed themselves to be lobbied by the 'industry' into deciding it wasn't necessary.

Two of the reasons given for deciding this was:

1/ Safety. eg the delay because of having to listen to the price announcement.
2/ Complaints have decreased dramatically recently so it's not necessary.

So how were these calls possible?

In Japan, the States and Australia, the missed call scammers had to originate thier calls from the Carribean where there are now laws in regards to advertisement of costs.

Welcome to the British Virgin Islands
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/447

[El Mariachi]

Greeting El Gringo,

unfortunately Ofcom allowed themselves to be lobbied by the 'industry' into deciding it wasn't necessary.

Two of the reasons given for deciding this was:

1/ Safety. eg the delay because of having to listen to the price announcement.
2/ Complaints have decreased dramatically recently so it's not necessary.

Originally Posted by El Gringo

Am I correct in assuming this ruling applies to the 070 prefix?

Premium rate numbers start with the prefix 090 and 070 numbers are referred to as Personal numbers.
How are the scam originators benefiting from the scam?

Wasn't revenue sharing for the 070 prefix banned at some point?

What perplexes me is why revenue sharing was even allowed on the 070 prefix in the first place.

[El Gringo]

unfortunately Ofcom allowed themselves to be lobbied by the 'industry' into deciding it wasn't necessary.

Two of the reasons given for deciding this was:

1/ Safety. eg the delay because of having to listen to the price announcement.
2/ Complaints have decreased dramatically recently so it's not necessary.
Originally Posted by El Gringo

Am I correct in assuming this ruling applies to the 070 prefix?

Originally Posted by El Mariachi

yes you are correct.

it's my understanding that if 070 personal numbers are being used to to charge for an 'information service' then the cost of the call has to be advertised where the service is being promoted.

the latest 070 "missed call scam" is here:
http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/outpu...cations-1.aspx
Adjudication Date 29/10/2009
information provider Bay Telecom Limited
Service provider H&T Communications Limited

and yes there is clear 'revenue share' starting with the billing phone company.

phone companies >>TelXL Limited >> H&T Communications Limited >> Bay Telecom Limited >> Island Mobile Cover Limited (‘IMC’)

this is what i read from Phonepayplus' description of the case-

a criminal goes through the town in the small hours. they ring every door bell and run off.

[mana]

Hello to all,
What is wrong with the UK Telecoms industry? It seems that no one takes any responsibility for their customers... We changed our provider from BT to Business Watch, just over 2 years ago. We had 08000 freephone numbers, which they sourced from Hotchilli Comms. Business Watch were taken over by UK Telco, who after a few months, then started charging us rental for the 08000 numbers. This we could live with (even though they didn’t inform us they would start charging), but we had a lot of problems with the numbers not connecting, and messages appearing to say that the numbers were not in use and if you wanted to buy them to call 0844 etc. UK Telco informed me that Hotchilli had sold the 0800 part of their business to Plaza Telecoms. They tried to get service issues sorted through them, but they do not act on the requests. Now UK Telco has been taken over by V Networks (who seems to be professional, and get back with updates etc). V Networks have the same problem, and have a number of clients whose 0800 numbers are sourced through Plaza Telecom and are not working. This has happened to us on numerous occasions, and we are losing a lot of money with clients not being able to contact us etc. All our advertising has the 0800 numbers on, and it seems that there are no options for us. They do not allow portability and so this will cost us thousands of pounds in lost revenue. As you can imagine, this is so frustrating for us. Do you know anything that we can do to rectify this situation? We need to keep the numbers but want to have them ported. I am sure I can get other clients of V Networks with the same problem. I look forward to any help or advice you can offer.

[gem]

I've had three missed calls (which I did NOT return) and one call I took all from 07024 122123.
He said that he was from PC Support and that as my BB speed was slow (which it was not) I needed support. I replied that I did not and he then said that as I was using a BT line (correct) I must use BT Broadband (round things!). I said that was not true then he started to rant on about me being rude (what me!) and that he will cut me off and call the cops! At that point I asked for his Supervisor and he got even more annoyed and demanded that I say sorry for being rude. I then disconnected.

I telephoned my local Police and spoke to a women Constable who had received the same type of call some months back. She took all my details as a recorded incident but said that was as far as it would go but that I should advise my provider.

I then called Sky (my telephone provider) and eventually tracked down a 'human' in Technical Dept who was very helpful. He checked my a/c and could not see any charges other than legit ones (he went through two calls we had made only a short while earlier) and said that he would make a not on the a/c. He could NOT block the number.

I now realise that our Panasonic phones have the facility to block specific numbers, so I blocked it.
She what develops.

Oh, be warned - do NOT call the number back as it's a Premium rate call (as above), did not look it up tho'.