£130.50 stolen in premium text charges since October

oatastemur

My mother recently checked her bank balance to find that Three had charged her over £30 instead of her usual £8. She'd seen unusually high bills for several months and had twice before called Three but they had put it down to her international calls and calling 0800 numbers. Perhaps the text messages were mentioned but English isn't her first language so she missed this.

Since October she has been receiving text messages from different numbers (recently 88222), at a rate of three a week and at a charge of £1.50 per text. She's simply ignored and deleted them, not suspecting that she was being charged effectively £4.50 a week for being sent spam.

I found out today after I called Three on her behalf that she'd been receiving these messages, so I obtained the phone number of the company responsible and gave them a call. They told me that the 'service' (ringtones or something of the sort) had been signed up for, and said that this was a result of entering the number on some sort of IQ test site. A pin number confirmation was then entered from the phone to the website from the same IP address, which they were more than happy to provide me with.

I understand that they seem to have all bases covered legally, but is there anything that can be done about this? £130.50 has effectively been stolen from somebody who really can't afford it. Can I make the case that these 'services' were never explicitly requested or made use of at any point in time? I really am quite angry about it but I don't want to waste my time complaining if it's not going to get me anywhere.

Thanks for any help in advance.

DUTR

Pay the monies for your Mum and ensure subscription to these waste of space services are no longer subscribed to.

grumbler

oatastemur wrote: »

My mother recently checked her bank balance to find that Three had charged her over £30 instead of her usual £8. She'd seen unusually high bills for several months and had twice before called Three but they had put it down to her international calls and calling 0800 numbers. Perhaps the text messages were mentioned but English isn't her first language so she missed this.

That's what itemised bills are for. Paper or online.

Since October she has been receiving text messages from different numbers (recently 88222), at a rate of three a week and at a charge of £1.50 per text. She's simply ignored and deleted them, not suspecting that she was being charged effectively £4.50 a week for being sent spam.

I found out today after I called Three on her behalf that she'd been receiving these messages, so I obtained the phone number of the company responsible and gave them a call. They told me that the 'service' (ringtones or something of the sort) had been signed up for, and said that this was a result of entering the number on some sort of IQ test site. A pin number confirmation was then entered from the phone to the website from the same IP address, which they were more than happy to provide me with.

I understand that they seem to have all bases covered legally, but is there anything that can be done about this? £130.50 has effectively been stolen from somebody who really can't afford it. Can I make the case that these 'services' were never explicitly requested or made use of at any point in time? I really am quite angry about it but I don't want to waste my time complaining if it's not going to get me anywhere.

Impossible to say, but if you want to complain, payphoneplus is the way to go:
http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-the-Public/Make-a-complaint.aspx

oatastemur

grumbler wrote: »

That's what itemised bills are for. Paper or online.

Impossible to say, but if you want to complain, payphoneplus is the way to go:
http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/For-the-Public/Make-a-complaint.aspx

Three don't send her any paper bills and the last time she tried to check it online it kept telling her that the code she entered was incorrect, and because she's not particularly tech savvy she just gave up.

Phoning ppp was the first thing I did but they just referred me to the company that sent the messages. Is there any point in formally complaining to them?

SaLoGo

You can appeal to their better nature but as they have the proof that your mother signed up to the service I'm not sure how far you would get. I would try asking them to refund as a gesture of goodwill considering the circumstances. I wouldn't say directly to them that they have "stolen" the money because they haven't stolen anything, effectively or otherwise.

wantmemoney

oatastemur wrote:

They told me that the 'service' (ringtones or something of the sort) had been signed up for, and said that this was a result of entering the number on some sort of IQ test site. A pin number confirmation was then entered from the phone to the website from the same IP address, which they were more than happy to provide me with.

I understand that they seem to have all bases covered legally, but is there anything that can be done about this? £130.50 has effectively been stolen from somebody who really can't afford it.

did your mother do the IQ test (or any online competition)

also

did your mother enter her phone number on any web site.....

oatastemur

wantmemoney wrote: »

did your mother do the IQ test (or any online competition)

also

did your mother enter her phone number on any web site.....

She can't remember because it was so long ago, but the company gave me an IP address that they said the test was done from, and I was told that a code that had been sent to her number was entered onto the website from the same IP address.

grumbler

Does the website make it clear that by entering the code you subscribe to some service and says what it will cost you?

wantmemoney

oatastemur wrote:

She can't remember because it was so long ago, but the company gave me an IP address that they said the test was done from, and I was told that a code that had been sent to her number was entered onto the website from the same IP address.

grumbler wrote:

Does the website make it clear that by entering the code you subscribe to some service and says what it will cost you?

Service/Content Providers do misrepresent call logs

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/~/media/Files/PhonepayPlus/AdjudicationRelated/2ergo_Statement_of_Case_for_the_Executive_December_2011_1.pdf

IN THE PHONEPAYPLUS ORAL HEARING TRIBUNAL
PHONEPAYPLUS LIMITED (“PPP”)
v.
2ERGO LIMITED (“2Ergo”)


7.1.1 2Ergo failed to provide full and accurate information. Various message logs were
provided by 2Ergo as shown in the Annexes above. Those which related to complaints on the Vodafone network were independently verified and there are numerous discrepancies between those logs provided by 2Ergo on the one hand and by the independent verifier on the other. Taking MSISDN 07500660918 (321 Quiz) as an example, specific differences are as follows:
 The first MO message on 21/01/2010 at 09.55 was to 84228, not 80333. Only a single free to receive message being sent on 21/01/2010, the independent verifier‟s log shows six £1.50 messages were sent from 84228 within a few seconds of each other at 9.55.
 On 15/05/2010 2Ergo show one premium rate message from 80333. The
independent verifier‟s log shows two premium rate messages at £1.50 each,
one at 20.01 and a second one at 20.30.
 On 23/06/2010 a charged premium rate message is shown in the independent
verifier‟s log sent from 80333 which does not appear on the 2Ergo log.
 On 23/07/2010 a premium rate message is shown on the independent verifier‟s log sent from 80333 but does not appear on the 2Ergo log.
 On 14/08/2010 a premium rate message is shown on the independent verifier‟s log as sent from 80333 but does not appear on the 2Ergo log.
It is apparent that full and accurate information was not supplied by 2Ergo pursuant to PPPs requests.
Accordingly a breach of paragraph 3.2.2 has occurred.

this is from a different case:
the site you see is not always the site you are entering your number into.

this is where a 'free' to enter competition was promoted.


This is site that is presented to PhonepayPlus


but this is the site that the Service Providers Content Providers are directing potential 'customers' to.


It's called I-Framing. The i-Frame will not mention the cost. The i-Frame 'lays' on top of the legitimate web site, obscuring the cost T & C etc.
The window to enter your number is in fact 'hole' showing the window of the legitimate web contest site. You believe you have entered a 'free to enter' iphone competition when in fact you have unknowingly entered into a subscription.

Sharon_Ingles

It is mission impossible getting your money back using the conventional means. The networks are completely inundated with these requests and as for phonepayplus their powers are limited too. On both cases they will put a stop to your services but to get your money back needs a different approach. Give this service a go its relatively new service but one that you cannot lose on try smsrefunds.com

grumbler

Sharon_Ingles wrote: »

On both cases they will put a stop to your services but to get your money back needs a different approach.

Is it some secret 'approach'? I think one just contacts the company sending texts and demands the money back. Usually this works, although not always.

... Give this service a go its relatively new service but one that you cannot lose on try ***.com

Why is it "30% (plus VAT) success fee"? I think only business customers care about VAT. Do you have many of them? Or is it just a dirty trick aimed at private customers?

I can be wrong, but I clicked 'Spam' button.