HELP! TEXT MESSAGE SCAM!

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Well I was never really certain on the use of 'sic', superz, but I think my current understanding is correct ... you can use it to acknowledge that you have noticed an incorrect spelling by someone else but are repeating the error, but a more subtle use (I think) is where the word itelf, whilst technically correct in common usage, appears to be a complete misnomer

Well in the usage you mean I have to completely agree. In fact it should be me using "(sic)" since I'm copying their misnomer. I guess I was kind of understating the "not always that helpful". At least they gave the most accurate info on who the text number was though which is useful at least for going towards proving you never signed up with them etc.

wantmemoney

Kane2 wrote:

I have so far traced these multimedia charges back 4 YEARS !!! in my bills, thats 4 years of charges at least - which i never even knew i was being charged approx £1.50 per text and sometimes receiving several per month.

is this the service you were being billed for?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=316463&in_page_id=2
5 September 2004

• STREAM, which provides ringtones and video clips to mobile phones, will make history on Thursday when it becomes the first British company to distribute its results by text message, writes Helen Dunne.
The company will offer the service to anyone who is interested and expects analysts and investors to sign up to hear the latest news on its interim results.
However, it will also inform the London Stock Exchange through the usual channels on Thursday morning.
Interested parties must text STREAM to 84252.
They will then receive a text message with a link to a Wap mobile internet page highlighting Stream's performance during the six months.

peterbaker

I discovered this weekend that Orange are up to no good again. The amounts are perhaps ten times smaller than those reported by the OP, and those which I myself have had cause to complain to Orange about previously, but nevertheless the network provider themselves are again taking liberties with texts mentioning lnks to orangeworld/sport. Basically if you sign up for goal alerts for your favorite team you are likely to get a heap of other chargeable texts of extremely tenuous relevance, and which were not requested.

I feel another loud call coming on to their customer services. My son has shown me the evidence and I conclude that Orange are stealing money from his pocket. If someone in a business suit in the street habitually did that to your kid each time they passed in the street, then the appropriate rectification might soon materialise as a short sharp smack in the mouth of the miscreant...

...the absolutely breathtaking gall of these large companies astounds me.

sohurt

peterbaker wrote: »

Forget the regulator (sic)

I warned about this some weeks ago.

The answer is to create merrie hell with your network provider. Tell them in no uncertain terms that you can reach no other sensible conclusion that unless they stop it immediately then they are allowing their accounts to be used to aid and abet FRAUD!

The first person you speak to is likely not to understand the gravitas of your accusation. Escalate your call as soon as possible during your complaint.

Your network provider is likely at first to deny knowledge of how the amounts have been charged by suggesting that it is a Third Party and they cannot intervene. Cut through that bullsh|t and tell them that if it appeared on your account with them then they had better have proper accounting records or they themselves are committing a corporate accounting offence to add to that of aiding and abetting a fraud. They will soon break off to access their systems and then tell you exactly how many £1.50 texts have been charged, and when, and to which premium "reverse charge" text numbers.

Then tell them to re-credit your account by the amount fraudulently taken. They may argue the toss about the manner of the recredit. They may call it a goodwill gesture. It is up to you to decide if that is acceptable.

You may need to assist them to prevent further debits to your account by sending "STOP" by SMS to any of the numbers you can identify, and they identify (from their 'non existent' records which miraculously appear when you turn up the heat ).

Good luck!

Sorry but that info is just likely to make other mobile call centre agents jobs that much harder to explain to other people like yourself.

The network themselves have no control over the third parties contacting you. At some point or another, your number has been given to one of these companies. The companies that run the short codes starting with 8 are interlinked so when soneone downloads a ringtone from a magazine, they are giving their number to a company who probably also owns an adult chat text service etc etc. It will be in their terms and conditions somewhere that you are willing to let your number be passed on. The only way to stop the texts is by sending STOP or STOP ALL to the short code. If they still don't stop, then you can contact ICSTIS (PhonePayPlus now). It's nothing to do with the network. Regarding the short code being on your mobile bill, that's irrelevant. All calls and texts are on your bill, but it doesnt mean that you could call up and give 'merry hell' if you called 118500 for example and they charged you too.

Tozer

peterbaker wrote: »

Sorry but you sound like a network call centre agent still wet behind the ears.

If that is so, then when I call, I identify you immediately and bypass you. If you refuse to escalate the complaint when I request you to, then be prepared for merrie hell yourself. You are spinning a line which is aiding and abetting fraud. I don't really care if you consider that makes your 'job' (sic) difficult. Your company is stealing money from my boy (for 'my boy', read ME until he is old enough to kick butt himself). YOU STOP IT !

Crikey! Calm down - it would be good if you could show a little more restraint in your responses.

Couple of points. It is not aiding and abeting fraud as there is no intent on the part of the network - actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - or there is no guilty act without a guilty mind. If I was the call centre operator, I would treat allegations of fraud with a degree of humour.

Secondly, there is no breach of corporate accounting laws just because they do not show you their (internal) records.

I would suggest proceeding on the basis of a rational, polite and sensible approach which, hopefully, will get a quick resolve. Screaming murder (or rather fraud) will only get you laughed at.

peterbaker

Only a month or two ago, after I warned them in no uncertain terms that they appeared to be aiding and abetting fraud, Orange already credited my account with more than I asked for as a refund for these reverse charge text scams.

Now possibly that overgenerous settlement could be the reason why they now think it's ok to tolerate a little further nibbling at my balance by sundry vermin inhabiting their network?


If Orange debited my account with them without my permission and without maintaining an auditable record of the transaction they would be in breach of corporate accounting law, would they not? Daft then that they should try telling me, their customer and account-holder, that it was purely a third party matter and that they didn't keep such records. Then when I pointed out how silly that would be, they miraculously started quoting from the records they didn't keep and in the one telephone call we soon scoped the problem :rolleyes: and solved it. How long would that have taken if all their Level 1 denials were fielded politely?

Who exactly is laughing, Mr Lawyerman? Do you for example think my approach is funny ha-ha, or do you perhaps think it is funny peculiar? .... or is it just funny how it worked?

sohurt

I'll just link this, no point arguing with someone who thinks they know better:

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/consumers/faqs/reverse_billed_SMS.asp

Butlers1982

suggest proceeding on the basis of a rational, polite and sensible approach

Youve obviously not seen PeterBakers other post on here have you!

peterbaker

sohurt, shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is one thing, but is your message something like:

"Try your luck. Take our sports alerts SMS service. Get the texts you want plus a heap of other texts that you never requested. Bank error not in your favour / not an error / Third Party scam. Live and learn. STOP ALL. Return to go?"

Tozer

peterbaker wrote: »

Only a month or two ago, after I warned them in no uncertain terms that they appeared to be aiding and abetting fraud, Orange already credited my account with more than I asked for as a refund for these reverse charge text scams.

Now possibly that overgenerous settlement could be the reason why they now think it's ok to tolerate a little further nibbling at my balance by sundry vermin inhabiting their network?


If Orange debited my account with them without my permission and without maintaining an auditable record of the transaction they would be in breach of corporate accounting law, would they not? Daft then that they should try telling me, their customer and account-holder, that it was purely a third party matter and that they didn't keep such records. Then when I pointed out how silly that would be, they miraculously started quoting from the records they didn't keep and in the one telephone call we soon scoped the problem :rolleyes: and solved it. How long would that have taken if all their Level 1 denials were fielded politely?

Who exactly is laughing, Mr Lawyerman? Do you for example think my approach is funny ha-ha, or do you perhaps think it is funny peculiar? .... or is it just funny how it worked?

OK, you asked the question. I think your approach is misguided (there is no fraud or breach of corporate taxation law and to say otherwise makes you look a bit daft), and both funny peculiar and funny ha ha because it is so over the top.

Bit of politeness and good grace gets you much further than shooting your mouth off about laws which on any analysis do not apply and criticising people personally who are just trying to earn their living working in a call centre.