SMS premium rate spam from 78181 (Orange UK)

In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes
>On Jul 14, 4:19 pm, Paul Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Totally agree. l have always felt that the ones that take the money
>> from me are the ones with whom I should be dealing. If there is a
>> dispute then I speak to them about the problem. I don't see why I
>> should be expected to deal with a third party with whom I have no
>> contract or relationship, that should be their problem not mine. If a
>> third party wants to bill me they should prove that they are entitled to
>> do so I should not have to try to prove that they are not nor should I
>> have to try to reclaim my money from them if there was no agreement to
>> pay them in the first place.
>
>All you have to do is write to the network operator's executive office
>and request that they provide you with an audit trail proving that you
>subscribed to the service for which they have charged you.
>
I don't actually have a problem but one should not have to do write to
anyone. If they want to bill you it should up the third party to prove
that you subscribed and the refund should be automatic if the bill is
queried until such as they have done so.

>Make sure you tell them that if they are unable to do so, they will
>have admitted being complicit in fraud which is a breach of the 1968
>Theft Act and that you WILL involve the Police. At the same time, ask
>for the name and office location of their Company Secretary as he/she
>will be the one who has to front up to Plod.
>
It seems ridiculous that the customer should have to jump through hoops
to get their money back for something that they were not a party to the
networks should insist on the third party proving that they are entitled
to the money rather than the customer having to try to get it back.

>If you genuinely are the victim of a scam (and I have been three
>times, all with Orange), it works every time.
>
Glad to hear it but perhaps things would be better if Orange changed
their system to so that they were not collecting money for these con
men.

>They back down immediately and will almost certainly blame it on the
>previous owner of your number having subscribed to such services.
>
Which sounds as if it could be plausible but is I bet is unlikely in
most cases.

>But you'll get a few quid in compensation out of them...........
>
I doubt it would make up for the time wasted, there must be a better
way.
--
Paul Harris

---

› See More: SMS premium rate spam from 78181 (Orange UK)

On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, Paul Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes
>
>
>
> >On Jul 14, 4:19 pm, Paul Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Totally agree. l have always felt that the ones that take the money
> >> from me are the ones with whom I should be dealing. If there is a
> >> dispute then I speak to them about the problem. I don't see why I
> >> should be expected to deal with a third party with whom I have no
> >> contract or relationship, that should be their problem not mine. If a
> >> third party wants to bill me they should prove that they are entitled to
> >> do so I should not have to try to prove that they are not nor should I
> >> have to try to reclaim my money from them if there was no agreement to
> >> pay them in the first place.
>
> >All you have to do is write to the network operator's executive office
> >and request that they provide you with an audit trail proving that you
> >subscribed to the service for which they have charged you.
>
> I don't actually have a problem but one should not have to do write to
> anyone. If they want to bill you it should up the third party to prove
> that you subscribed and the refund should be automatic if the bill is
> queried until such as they have done so.
>
> >Make sure you tell them that if they are unable to do so, they will
> >have admitted being complicit in fraud which is a breach of the 1968
> >Theft Act and that you WILL involve the Police. At the same time, ask
> >for the name and office location of their Company Secretary as he/she
> >will be the one who has to front up to Plod.
>
> It seems ridiculous that the customer should have to jump through hoops
> to get their money back for something that they were not a party to the
> networks should insist on the third party proving that they are entitled
> to the money rather than the customer having to try to get it back.
>
> >If you genuinely are the victim of a scam (and I have been three
> >times, all with Orange), it works every time.
>
> Glad to hear it but perhaps things would be better if Orange changed
> their system to so that they were not collecting money for these con
> men.
>
> >They back down immediately and will almost certainly blame it on the
> >previous owner of your number having subscribed to such services.
>
> Which sounds as if it could be plausible but is I bet is unlikely in
> most cases.
>
> >But you'll get a few quid in compensation out of them...........
>
> I doubt it would make up for the time wasted, there must be a better
> way.
> --
> Paul Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course there's a better way; assume that all mobile numbers have
opted out of these "services" unless an audit trail proves otherwise.

Alas, as you know, the network operators take a tidy percentage of the
revenue and so aren't overly worried about things. Orange are
undoubtedly the worst culprits.

I pity the poor idiots on PAYG who won't have an invoice to support
their case if it ever got as far as Court. In fact, reverse-charged
SMS scams are the one reason I'll never switch to PAYG even though it
would benefit me financially.

On 14 Jul, 17:34, Paul Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes
>
>
>
> >On Jul 14, 4:19 pm, Paul Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >Make sure you tell them that if they are unable to do so, they will
> >have admitted being complicit in fraud which is a breach of the 1968
> >Theft Act and that you WILL involve the Police. At the same time, ask
> >for the name and office location of their Company Secretary as he/she
> >will be the one who has to front up to Plod.

Good one. May I also point out that the Privacy and Electronics
Communications Directive has addressed SMS and email specifically and
makes this type of spamming illegal. A nice jargon free explanation
of the law is published here

http://www.twobirds.com/english/publ...nderForPrint=1

As regards the organisations mentioned by Martin that started this
thread, I am getting only vauge responses from them. There attitude
has angered me enough to take a different approach. The prize for
playing their game and collecting enough points is a £10 gift voucher
from one of the 35 reputatable retailers listed on the site. I am
contacting all the retailers advertised on the sites to see if they
are happy to be associated with this type of marketing or if they
share the views of the folks on this list.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I pity the poor idiots on PAYG who won't have an invoice to support
> their case if it ever got as far as Court. In fact, reverse-charged
> SMS scams are the one reason I'll never switch to PAYG even though
it
> would benefit me financially.

My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse billed
SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be better
off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been on
a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.

--
Andy

[email protected]lid declared for all the world to hear...
> My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse billed
> SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be better
> off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been on
> a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.

Just because contract doesn't suit your wife's usage pattern does not
mean they are a rip off.
--
Regards
Jon

"Andy Pandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I pity the poor idiots on PAYG who won't have an invoice to support
>> their case if it ever got as far as Court. In fact, reverse-charged
>> SMS scams are the one reason I'll never switch to PAYG even though
> it
>> would benefit me financially.
>
> My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse billed
> SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be better
> off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been on
> a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.

Indeed. I've had one reverse-charge SMS in the last 10 years and it was
refunded by the company who sent the message. Although I did have to write
to them. But I got 3 quid for my 1 quid message plus another 2 quid back
from Orange, so I did quite well in the end..!

Ivor

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected]lid declared for all the world to hear...
>> My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse billed
>> SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be better
>> off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been on
>> a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.
>
> Just because contract doesn't suit your wife's usage pattern does not
> mean they are a rip off.

Not for everybody, but he didn't say that. It *would* be a ripoff for his
wife though.


Ivor

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected]lid declared for all the world to
hear...
> > My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse
billed
> > SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be
better
> > off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been
on
> > a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.
>
> Just because contract doesn't suit your wife's usage pattern does
not
> mean they are a rip off.

The base price of most are a rip-off, although if you CBA to deal with
complicated cashbacks, and negotiate a new deal or switch contract
every time the minimum contract period expires, then you can get good
value for a lot of hassle. A bit like borrowing on credit cards -
constantly shifting 0% deals around...

Personally I CBA.

--
Andy

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > My wife has been on PAYG since 2000 and has never had a reverse
billed
> > SMS. It's hardly an issue in deciding whether or not you'd be
better
> > off on PAYG, she'd be several hundred pounds worse off if she been
on
> > a typical rip-off "xx minutes for xx pounds a month" contract.
> >
>
> I've never received a reverse-charged SMS - but the charges have
> appeared on my invoice!
>
> On each of the three different contracts I had with Orange (three
> different numbers at three different times) the first I knew of a
scam
> in place was when I received my invoice.
>
> So when you say your wife "has never had a reverse billed SMS" do
you
> mean to her phone or debited from her PAYG balance?

Both. She would have noticed if her balance went down by £1.50 (it
usually goes down by that much *per month*!)

> Because the two can be mutually exclusive..............hence my
> original point. I wonder how many people check their PAYG balance
and
> think "that's lower than it should be" and never give it a second
> thought?

Possibly - if you spend £20 or so a month. But even so, the
occasional one of these isn't going to make any significant difference
to the overall cost when comparing PAYG with contract.

--
Andy

On 23 Jun, 15:32, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The handset is unlocked, so I will seriously consider moving to
> T-Mobile.

I wouldn't do that, if these things worry you. I got one of these
spam text messages and T-Mobile were totally uninterested. All they
would do is tell me the name of the company responsibile for the
message and telling me to report to ICSTIS if I don't get any joy. I
questioned why I paid a monthly fee if the one time I really need
Customer Service, they fail me, and they had no response to that.

At least Orange gave you your money back. T-Mobile were adamant that
they wouldn't refund the charge, using the words, and I quote, "It's
not our fault."

In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes
>On 23 Jun, 15:32, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The handset is unlocked, so I will seriously consider moving to
>> T-Mobile.
>
>I wouldn't do that, if these things worry you. I got one of these
>spam text messages and T-Mobile were totally uninterested. All they
>would do is tell me the name of the company responsibile for the
>message and telling me to report to ICSTIS if I don't get any joy. I
>questioned why I paid a monthly fee if the one time I really need
>Customer Service, they fail me, and they had no response to that.
>
>At least Orange gave you your money back. T-Mobile were adamant that
>they wouldn't refund the charge, using the words, and I quote, "It's
>not our fault."

I think an earlier poster said (or maybe I read it on a web forum) that
T-mobile would block premium rate texts for you, have you tried this?
I'll probably move to T-mobile if they do, as the hassle involved in
getting your money back from the scammer is just too great for the dosh
invovled, which, I guess, is what the scammers count on.

>

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

[email protected] wrote:

> Also if you need to speak to O2, don't do it on their 0870 number
> (also costly), go to http://www.saynoto0870.com/ and find either an
> 0800 freephone or national/local rate number.

Why not call them from your O2 mobile? Isn't it free?
--
Michael Hoffman

I am new to this newsgroup but not to this scam, Unsolicited Reverse
Bill Texts / SMS. Like you all I have been a victim and have been
treated by all and sundry as if I was an idiot.
Check out my full horror story on;

www.cattolica.blog.co.uk

I hope it will help and advise you.

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm about to complain about a premium rate SMS spam from 78181. So it
> would be useful to know how many other people have received this.
>
> My Orange bill has this entry dated 21/05/07 :-
>
> Number: 78181
> Place called: Multimedia Service Recd
> Call class: text
> Duration: 0:0:00
> Cost: £1.280 (ex VAT, = £1.50 inc VAT)
>
> 78181 isn't listed on Grumbletext, but ICSTIS shows 78181 as:
>
> Tanla Mobile Ltd
> 0871 240 3500

For your information...

ICSTIS have just ruled that these people have been sending
unsolicited texts, omitting pricing information from the texts,
and failing to disclose Tanla Mobile's identity to recipients.
ICSTIS have imposed a £50,000 fine, and a bar on the service.
ICSTIS have also ordered Tanla Mobile to refund those affected.
If you were affected, you can contact Tanla Mobile for a refund
at:
Tanla Mobile Ltd
39 Charing Cross Road
London
WC2H 0AR
0871 240 3500

In my case, Vodafone already refunded me (although they said
they wouldn't).

The adjudication will appear on http://www.icstis.org.uk/ in
due course (but isn't there yet).

--
Andrew

In message <[email protected]>,
andrew@a20.?.invalid writes
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Martin <[email protected]> writes:
>> I'm about to complain about a premium rate SMS spam from 78181. So it
>> would be useful to know how many other people have received this.
>>
>> My Orange bill has this entry dated 21/05/07 :-
>>
>> Number: 78181
>> Place called: Multimedia Service Recd
>> Call class: text
>> Duration: 0:0:00
>> Cost: £1.280 (ex VAT, = £1.50 inc VAT)
>>
>> 78181 isn't listed on Grumbletext, but ICSTIS shows 78181 as:
>>
>> Tanla Mobile Ltd
>> 0871 240 3500
>
>For your information...
>
>ICSTIS have just ruled that these people have been sending
>unsolicited texts, omitting pricing information from the texts,
>and failing to disclose Tanla Mobile's identity to recipients.
>ICSTIS have imposed a £50,000 fine, and a bar on the service.
>ICSTIS have also ordered Tanla Mobile to refund those affected.
>If you were affected, you can contact Tanla Mobile for a refund
>at:
> Tanla Mobile Ltd
> 39 Charing Cross Road
> London
> WC2H 0AR
> 0871 240 3500
>
>In my case, Vodafone already refunded me (although they said
>they wouldn't).
>
>The adjudication will appear on http://www.icstis.org.uk/ in
>due course (but isn't there yet).

FYI I've just received a refund from Tanla after phoning 08000 821 040
and leaving details on an answer machine.

There's more here too: <http://www.giagia.co.uk/?p=118>

also complain about the ineffectiveness of ICSTIS, and ask for some
effective regulation to be put in place to:

John Hutton, Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise &
Regulatory Reform
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

It's currently my intention to move from Vodaphone to T-mobile when my
contract is up for renewal, and most certainly let them know the reason.
The only way to persuade the network operators to provide a barring
facility is to make it cost them more than they make from not providing
such a service.

Also I think "scam" is the wrong phrase here, it implies the victims are
cheated or tricked in some way which is not the case. Unsolicited
reverse charge SMS is just plain theft, and should be called such.



--
bof at bof dot me dot uk