Royal Mail Hoax Scam (involving PDS)

teffers

ANY email that encourages you to pass it on to others is a hoax designed to increase email server loads.

custardy

before people flip out.
RM have slightly changed the design of the RM charge cards.
they are a lighter colour and about 50% bigger than before

wantmemoney

• We subsequently fined the company that was operating the service, Studio Telecom (based in Belize), £10,000.

• The service is NO LONGER running and has NOT been running since December 2005.

Belize my !!!!! Wrexham
yes that particular scam was shut down
but
Why does Icstis and the OFT allow these "scammers" to continue to stay in business?

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/143-07
OFT obtains injunction against prize draw promotors
143/07 15 October 2007

Following action by the OFT, the High Court has granted an injunction against a prize draw promoter, Heaven Communications Limited, and its two officers John Kitching and Alixandra Thornton. The injunction stops them from publishing misleading prize draw promotions in the UK or within the European Economic Area.

The defendants sent a mailing in the name of 'URA Winner' to at least 350,000 consumers. The OFT considered that the mailing misled recipients into believing they had won a major prize when in fact nearly everyone received a low value 'giveaway' item of either a holiday voucher for one person with onerous terms and conditions attached to its use, or a cheap watch.

More than 8,300 consumers called a premium rate number to claim their award at a cost of up to £9 per call. A further charge of £12.50 was payable as a 'secure postage fee' for claiming the watch.

The defendants were also involved in running, on behalf of a Belize based company called Studio Telecom, a misleading prize promotion sent via automated telephone messages to 100,000 Dutch consumers. Mr Kitching was involved in a further misleading mailing sent out by Studio Telecom under the name 'Signature Holdings'.

The defendants had previously given the OFT undertakings in February 2005 in respect of misleading prize draw promotions. The OFT believed that the defendants had breached those undertakings and misled consumers in further ways. If any of the defendants breach the injunction they may be held in contempt of court, which can carry a penalty of imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Mike Haley, OFT Head of Consumer Protection at the OFT, said:

'The defendants have a track record of misleading consumers with their prize draw promotions. Where businesses fail to abide by undertakings the OFT will not hesitate to take court action to protect consumers both in the UK and across Europe.'

NOTES 1. The High Court granted the injunction by default on 11 October 2007. The injunction covers both the UK and the rest of the European Economic Area. The injunction was granted under the Enterprise Act 2002 and prevents Heaven Communications Ltd, John Kitching or Alixandra Thornton from continuing to disseminate advertisements which contravene the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988.
2. See press release 55/05 for details of the undertakings previously provided to the OFT by the defendants.
3. Consumers who are unsure about claims being made in prize draw mailings should contact Consumer Direct for clear, practical advice on 08454 04 05 06 or visit the Consumer Direct website before they part with any money. Consumer Direct is a telephone and online consumer advice service funded by government and managed by the Office of Fair Trading. It offers clear, practical and impartial advice and information about consumer rights. The cost of calling depends on the tariff you have with your telephone provider.
4. The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations (CMARs) 1988 largely implement EU Directives on misleading and comparative advertising. They aim to protect the interests of consumers and businesses from misleading advertisements and advertisements that make misleading comparisons. An advertisement is misleading under CMARs if in any way, including its presentation, it deceives or is likely to deceive the person to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and if by reason of its deceptive nature, it is likely to affect their economic behaviour, or for those reasons injures or is likely to injure a competitor of the person whose interests the advertisement seeks to promote. 'Advertisement' for the purposes of CMARs means any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession, in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods or services, immovable property, rights or obligations.
5. The OFT can take action against anyone appearing to be concerned or likely to be concerned with the publication of a misleading advertisement. It can apply to the courts for an injunction ordering such persons to comply with the law in future. It may also accept undertakings from those involved in lieu of action.

trisontana

I see that this stupid story is still being given legitimacy by some newspapers. For instance this one from yesterday's Bedfordshire On Sunday which has the headline Warning of parcel scam rife in county.

Of course what is rife is not the scam, but this stupid email which will not go away.

This gem of journalism can be seen here :-
http://www.bedsonsunday.com/bedsonsunday-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=219446

Searcher

trisontana wrote: »

I see that this stupid story is still being given legitimacy by some newspapers. For instance this one from yesterday's Bedfordshire On Sunday which has the headline Warning of parcel scam rife in county.

Of course what is rife is not the scam, but this stupid email which will not go away.

This gem of journalism can be seen here :-
http://www.bedsonsunday.com/bedsonsunday-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=219446

Since when has the truth got in the way of good journalism? :rotfl:

Rex_Mundi

If this thread seems a bit out of continuity, it is because I have merged five different threads on the same subject.

This is an old hoax that keeps appearing from time to time. Any new threads on this subject on this board will be merged into this thread. If anyone wants to add any thoughts on this subject, please do it here and not start a new thread

Thanks

Rex

trisontana

I have just been speaking to the reporter from Beds On Sunday (see post number #70) about her "Warning of parcel scam rife in county" story and asked her where she had got her information from. She said that both herself and her editor had spoken to three people who had said they had received these cards from PDS. I asked her if these people had actually received these cards, or just the emails about them. This she could not answer, and I could hear doubt creep into her voice with the realisation she may have been duped by this false "warning".

She did go on to say that they will be printing another story saying the operation has been closed down, but did add that if one of these fabled cards from PDS does actually come into her possession, then she will be getting back to me. She also asked me if the whole scam could have started up again. I replied that I very much doubted it. I hope I am right !

Poppy_P

I've just had my first 'This is real' warning of the festive season!

Watch out guys, the idiots are on the loose again

Out of interest, what do you do when you get these? Do you just sigh and let them carry on, or do you tell them it's a load of tosh?

trisontana

Poppy_P wrote: »

I've just had my first 'This is real' warning of the festive season!

Watch out guys, the idiots are on the loose again

Out of interest, what do you do when you get these? Do you just sigh and let them carry on, or do you tell them it's a load of tosh?

You refer them to the statement put out last year by PhonePayPlus:-

A STATEMENT FROM PHONEPAYPLUS ABOUT THE CURRENT 'POSTAL SCAM' CHAIN EMAIL

PhonepayPlus, the phone-paid services regulator, is aware that a chain e-mail about an alleged postal scam is being circulated on the internet. The email refers to the Royal Mail, Trading Standards and ICSTIS (PhonepayPlus' former name).

PhonepayPlus appreciates that recipients of the email may want to find out more information about the alleged scam and has therefore issued the following statement:

• The chain email refers to a service that was shut down by us in December 2005.

• We subsequently fined the company that was operating the service, Studio Telecom (based in Belize), £10,000.

• The service is NO LONGER running and has NOT been running since December 2005.

• The email refers to a £15 charge for simply being connected to a recorded message.

This is NOT TRUE – a £15 connection charge does NOT exist. The service in question actually cost £1.50 per minute and lasted six minutes, making a total cost of £9 if callers stayed on the line for the full six minutes.

• You do NOT need to contact us, or the Royal Mail, about this service as it was stopped almost two years ago.

• If you receive a copy of the email warning you about the alleged scam, please do NOT forward it to others. Instead, please forward this statement from PhonepayPlus.

• Please go to https://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/pdfs_news/ConsumerGuide.pdf for useful information about how to recognise phone-paid services and understand what they cost and some simple tips to help you enjoy using services with confidence.

• For more detailed information about our work, please visit https://www.phonepayplus.org.uk.

19 October 2007

Poppy_P

Thanks I have passed that on to the person that sent to me. It's difficult though as no-one likes to feel a fool, especially when they've innocently sent to everyone in their address book and no-one likes a smart-!!!!!