Premium Messaging Service Received

On Wed, 10 May 2006 00:30:38 +0100, Neil <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>My April O2 bill also showed a £1.50 charge for interactive services
>received.
>
>See my previous post "84010 and O2 customer services - bouquet"
>
>I immediately got on to O2 customer service. They were really helpful
>AFTER I said that O2 were in fact fraudulently charging me for
>something I had neither received nor ordered by any means.
>
>It turns out the senders short code belongs to www.B4Utele.com
>
>My phone supports neither download ringtones nor games - it's an old
>Ericsson.
>
>I suggested they check back through my SMS record to confirm that I
>don't ever send texts from my O2 phone.
>
>I can now confirm that O2 have refunded the £1.50 charge and credited
>it to my next bill - great!
>
>Today however my phone gave the incoming SMS message tone, but there
>was no message, or any indication that anything had been received. So
>I got on to O2 again and asked if was possible that this was an
>indication that I was being sent a ringtone or something similar, and
>likely to be charged for it.
>
>The CS bod told me that this was not possible. I'm not convinced
>however, and told him that I would like confirmation of this.
>
>NOW HERE'S THE USEFUL BIT:-
>
>The guy told me that I could check back with customer service 48 hours
>after receiving anything I considered suspect and find out if it had
>incurred a charge.
>
>So, on Tuesday I'll do just that! Fortunately it's a free call from
>the mobile on 100.
>
>I don't know if the other networks can do likewise, but if we all keep
>pestering our network customer services perhaps they'll do something
>about it.
>
>I for one, refuse to spend 12p to stop something I did not start!
>
>Neil
>
>(Reply via NG please)

Follow up to the above:

After receiving this months bill, I notice O2 have indeed refunded the
fraudulent charge. But they forgot to refund the VAT they had charged
on it, so I called them again. I know it's nit-picking, but why not
get it right?

After a few moments the customer services bod confirmed the error and
said it would appear credited on the next bill.

I also asked about the strange SMS notification tone I had
received,but which had not been accompanied by any SMS message. C S
bod checked my billing record and confirmed that I had not received
any chargeable SMS, and was also able to tell me my complete phone
usage record since the previous bill.

Basically, I'm quite impressed with O2's customer services in this
instance, and calling via 100 from the mobile costs nothing either!

I shall be watching my O2 bills more carefully from now on and will
query any and every unfamiliar looking charge that appears.

Neil

(Reply via NG please)

---

› See More: Premium Messaging Service Received

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Pandy
<[email protected]> writes

>"The Drone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> AIUI, part of the problem is that someone can subscribe to these premium
>> services on a web site - about which the network knows nothing. To an
>> extent therefore, they are reliant on the provider of the service being
>> honest ...

>The solution is simple. Networks shouldn't be allowed to charge for
>incoming texts unless they have some sort of proof that the customer
>has signed up. Imagine if your bank account worked the same way - I
>can take a tenner out of your account just by telling your bank that
>you owe me it, without any proof. Then your bank tells you to chase me
>if you didn't really owe me it!

There's a balance to be struck between providing a service for those
that want these messages that is easy to use (including immediate if
required) against protecting those of us who don't want them from
mistakes - or scams. I don't know where the balance lies, making it more
robust against mistakes or scams would probably make it harder for
service providers and their customers.

Your analogy is not really fair either. The bank are guarding /your/
money; if you're billed for a dodgy text, you can refuse to hand over
your money so you still have it. Also, I doubt whether a network would
hand a tenner (or 1.50) to you any more than a bank would unless they
had some reasonable expectation that the request was kosher. Just like
banks who will accept direct debits against your account if they believe
the payee is kosher.

Perhaps your commercial relationship for these texts should be with the
service provider alone. They could bill you or debit your card direct
without involving the networks.

>--
>Andy

You should have a space after the two hyphens - then your sig wouldn't
have been quoted!
--
Peter

In article <[email protected]>, Alex
Flaherty <[email protected]> writes

>The Drone wrote:

>> I suspect that you might struggle to convince the police that this was a
>> criminal rather than a civil matter. There is an audit trail (of sorts),
>> you do know where the money has gone so it would be a civil matter to
>> recover it if it wasn't due. Even if it were clearly criminal, would
>> £1.50 get them going? I guess it would need evidence of serious,
>> widespread scamming before they took an interest.

>I think you need to look up the definition of theft.
I'm not a lawyer but I do know what constitutes theft. Do you? Are you a
lawyer? I said you /might/ struggle ... That implies you might not
struggle ...

>It's clearly a criminal and not a civil matter.
Oh, that's all right then. If they question it, I'll tell 'em Alex off
of the Internet says it's clearly theft - so they'd better look sharp.

>£1.50 may not get them going (£1,500 probably wouldn't either given
>the apathy of our police these days) but what it *does* do is get you a
>crime reference number.
OK, I'm curious about this. I've used a (French) CRN for an insurance
claim - but where does a CRN get you in these circumstances?

--
Peter

"The Drone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> AIUI, part of the problem is that someone can subscribe to these premium
> >> services on a web site - about which the network knows nothing. To an
> >> extent therefore, they are reliant on the provider of the service being
> >> honest ...
>
> >The solution is simple. Networks shouldn't be allowed to charge for
> >incoming texts unless they have some sort of proof that the customer
> >has signed up. Imagine if your bank account worked the same way - I
> >can take a tenner out of your account just by telling your bank that
> >you owe me it, without any proof. Then your bank tells you to chase me
> >if you didn't really owe me it!
>
> There's a balance to be struck between providing a service for those
> that want these messages that is easy to use (including immediate if
> required) against protecting those of us who don't want them from
> mistakes - or scams. I don't know where the balance lies, making it more
> robust against mistakes or scams would probably make it harder for
> service providers and their customers.

For a start, all networks should provide and publicise the option to bar chargeable
incoming texts.

Secondly, they should only be charged if a text has been sent *from* the phone in
question. If someone wants premium rate incoming texts, they should have to request
it via the phone they want the texts sent to, not via the web etc. This would at
least provide proof to the network that a text was sent from the phone to the
provider.

> Your analogy is not really fair either. The bank are guarding /your/
> money; if you're billed for a dodgy text, you can refuse to hand over
> your money so you still have it.

Not if you're on PAYG. There the network are guarding /your/ credit just like a
bank. A few such texts could eat up all your credit leaving you unable to make
calls.

> Also, I doubt whether a network would
> hand a tenner (or 1.50) to you any more than a bank would unless they
> had some reasonable expectation that the request was kosher. Just like
> banks who will accept direct debits against your account if they believe
> the payee is kosher.

It should work like DD. With DD you can request an immediate refund from the bank,
which they have to pay, they then have to chase to payee for either the money back,
or proof that the DD was legit and the rules were complied with.

> Perhaps your commercial relationship for these texts should be with the
> service provider alone. They could bill you or debit your card direct
> without involving the networks.

Yes - then if some company you've never heard of charges you, you simply phone the
bank and tell them. They put the amount "into dispute" while they ask the company for
proof you authorised the transaction. If they can't provide it, they refund you. If
this happens frequently with a particular company, their merchant card facility will
be terminated.

> You should have a space after the two hyphens - then your sig wouldn't
> have been quoted!

I think OE strips it out. How's this?

--
Andy

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Pandy
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"The Drone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> >> AIUI, part of the problem is that someone can subscribe to these premium
>> >> services on a web site - about which the network knows nothing. To an
>> >> extent therefore, they are reliant on the provider of the service being
>> >> honest ...

>> >The solution is simple. Networks shouldn't be allowed to charge for
>> >incoming texts unless they have some sort of proof that the customer
>> >has signed up. Imagine if your bank account worked the same way - I
>> >can take a tenner out of your account just by telling your bank that
>> >you owe me it, without any proof. Then your bank tells you to chase me
>> >if you didn't really owe me it!

>> There's a balance to be struck between providing a service for those
>> that want these messages that is easy to use (including immediate if
>> required) against protecting those of us who don't want them from
>> mistakes - or scams. I don't know where the balance lies, making it more
>> robust against mistakes or scams would probably make it harder for
>> service providers and their customers.

>For a start, all networks should provide and publicise the option to
>bar chargeable incoming texts.
I've no problem with that - except that (as others have said) I can't
opt in to or opt out from particular providers. I can only bar
everything or receive everything.

>Secondly, they should only be charged if a text has been sent *from*
>the phone in question. If someone wants premium rate incoming texts,
>they should have to request it via the phone they want the texts sent
>to, not via the web etc. This would at least provide proof to the
>network that a text was sent from the phone to the provider.
That might go some way - but there might still be a risk of some
acquaintance (not necessarily friend) sending the text from your phone?
Can CLI be spoofed?

>> Your analogy is not really fair either. The bank are guarding /your/
>> money; if you're billed for a dodgy text, you can refuse to hand over
>> your money so you still have it.

>Not if you're on PAYG. There the network are guarding /your/ credit
>just like a bank. A few such texts could eat up all your credit
>leaving you unable to make calls.
All very true. Sorry, I've always had a contract so I didn't think of
PAYG users. Yes, for a network to leave your phone with no credit to
make a call could be reckless.

>>Also, I doubt whether a network would hand a tenner (or 1.50) to you
>>any more than a bank would unless they had some reasonable
>>expectation that the request was kosher. Just like banks who will
>>accept direct debits against your account if they believe the payee
>>is kosher.

>It should work like DD.
That might help.

>With DD you can request an immediate refund from the bank, which they
>have to pay, they then have to chase to payee for either the money
>back, or proof that the DD was legit and the rules were complied with.

>> Perhaps your commercial relationship for these texts should be with the
>> service provider alone. They could bill you or debit your card direct
>> without involving the networks.

>Yes - then if some company you've never heard of charges you, you
>simply phone the bank and tell them. They put the amount "into dispute"
>while they ask the company for proof you authorised the transaction. If
>they can't provide it, they refund you. If this happens frequently
>with a particular company, their merchant card facility will be terminated.

We agree on that then!

>> You should have a space after the two hyphens - then your sig wouldn't
>> have been quoted!

>I think OE strips it out. How's this?

>--
>Andy

Oh well ... Isn't there an option buried somewhere to allow this? Thanks
for trying anyway!

--
Peter

"The Drone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >For a start, all networks should provide and publicise the option to
> >bar chargeable incoming texts.
> I've no problem with that - except that (as others have said) I can't
> opt in to or opt out from particular providers. I can only bar
> everything or receive everything.

Indeed - but at least an "all or nothing" option is betterthan no option.

> >Secondly, they should only be charged if a text has been sent *from*
> >the phone in question. If someone wants premium rate incoming texts,
> >they should have to request it via the phone they want the texts sent
> >to, not via the web etc. This would at least provide proof to the
> >network that a text was sent from the phone to the provider.
> That might go some way - but there might still be a risk of some
> acquaintance (not necessarily friend) sending the text from your phone?

If so they could also make outgoing premium rate calls. Users have to accept
responsibility for use of their phone. Use a PIN, phonecode etc.

> Can CLI be spoofed?

The network shouldn't allow the premium rate incoming text unless they have seen an
outgoing one from the user's number. If this can be spoofed such that the network
are fooled, then calls could be made on your number by the scammers! I've not heard
of this happening.

Nothing will provide a 100% solution, but the current state of affairs is just
crackers.

--
Andy

The Drone wrote:
>
> Your analogy is not really fair either. The bank are guarding /your/
> money; if you're billed for a dodgy text, you can refuse to hand over
> your money so you still have it.

No you can't. I specifically instructed Orange to deduct the disputed
charges from the amount they were going to take my dd from my account.
Their response was to deduct the full amount and (on further
questioning) to state that "it wasn't possible" to take anything other
than the invoiced amount.

And when I said that future bills would be settled by cheque, they
advised me that a "non direct debit administration charge" would be
applied.

Yes, applying erroneous charges to an invoice that you expect me to pay
constitutes theft when I say "no, only take a certain amount because
the rest is fraudulent" and you say to me "well I'm responsible for
invoicing you and so I'm taking the full amount from your bank account
anyway, I'm not really that bothered whether the other charges are
genuine, you need to take it up with the third party"

Hence a criminal not a civil matter. I'm surprised you have difficulty
with what seems to be a simple concept. You don't work for a mobile
phone company do you?

A CRN provides an audit trail that a crime has been reported and has
been deemed realistic enough to merit recording.

>From personal experience (and this worked for me) advising Orange's
Company Secretary personally by Recorded Delivery that I had a CRN in
relation to xyz and he personally had 7 days to sort the whole matter
out otherwise he'd find himself arrested worked a treat.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

And I'm the first to admit that my employment with a national newspaper
probably helped.