Warning! BT increase charges for non direct debit payers

littleboo

wantmemoney wrote: »

littleboo you remind me of a number of BT staff I tried to dispute a bill with several years ago.

And you remind me of someone who is desperately trying to scare monger people away from using direct debit with completely irrelevant information.

wantmemoney

gt94sss2 wrote:

Erm.. you do realise that BT are legally obliged to put these calls through, if a customer calls them?

Erm.. no I didn't actually because it's not strictly true.

BT are legally obliged to bill for services they and Ofcom believe to be legal.
But BT and Ofcom suspected "these calls" as you call them were not legal and considering the high level and serious nature of complaint Ofcom had a duty under the Communications Act 2003 to pull the numbers from the offending company and withdraw their licence to use the network.

so what did Ofcom do according to Icstis

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/25/icstis_ofcom/
Ofcom accused of helping premium-rate
scammers

Ofcom has been accused of issuing telephone numbers to rogue operators that rip off punters with premium-rate phone scams. The damaging accusation was made by George Kidd, the head of premium-rate telephone regulator ICSTIS, who claims that Ofcom is undermining its work to protect consumers from fraudsters.

In a letter seen by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Kidd accuses Ofcom of failing to work with ICSTIS on cracking down on scammers. The bureaucratic !!!!-up is so bad Mr Kidd warns Ofcom boss Stephen Carter that it is turning the organisations into a laughing stock.

"The risk of consumer harm and ridicule over our lack of co-ordination has grown in recent weeks as Ofcom has issued numbers to a stream of businesses that we are currently prosecuting as service providers," says Carter. "This is not a situation I relish explaining or defending in the media or with politicians who reasonably expect ICSTIS and Ofcom to be working together."
No one from ICSTIS was available for comment at the time of writing.
A spokesman for Ofcom said that the giant communications regulator was holding "active discussions on all these points" and that Ofcom was working on a review of the premium-rate sector for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) which is due to be published later this autumn.
Last week ICSTIS announced it had barred 11 companies from running premium rate internet dialler services as part of a crackdown on scammers ripping off UK punters. Another 33 companies also face the chop after the watchdog used emergency powers to tackle the growing problem of rogue diallers, which hijack people's computers and run up huge phone bills. ®

gt94sss2 wrote:

If someone (a customer) didn't want to dial 09 numbers at all, they are always free to choose to have these numbers barred on their own individual line (its a free option from BT and some other providers)

yes and they did and what did BT do.
They decided they were legally obliged to bill for 0871 numbers that crooks had programmed into illegal dialler software.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/rogue_dialler_scam/
New 0871 rogue dialler scam spotted

Operators of rogue dialler services that rack up large bills for unwary net users are changing the way they rip off consumers.

If you enter into a direct debit agreement with a company you have to be able to trust them.
If they claim they are legally obliged to bill on behalf of third party crooks and they are not responsible for disputing those bills I would suggest you do not allow that company any where near your bank account.

and littleboo if you find my views scarey I suggest you don't read them.

Heinz

Yawn. :lipsrseal

OK, I've formed my opinion (as, I suspect, anyone else who's read any of this will also have done) so is there any chance that you two could just agree to disagree?

littleboo

Heinz, I think you are right.

I'm just off to cancel all my DD's, burn my cheque book, cut up the plastic and put my money under the mattress.:D

bristolleedsfan

best answer imho is to keep the direct debits and cheque book, install mcaffee 2007 total protection, ensure product is updated and pc scanned once a week ( will inform u if u are visiting any "dodgy websites" and will ensure no rogue diallers are installed on pc)

BritBrat

Best way is to cut plug off the PC, works every time and it's free.

Seriously some people are not to savvy with computers and those that are think things that are easy for them and everyone should know how to do it.

But that's not the case, I have played with computers for over 10 years and I am still learning new things.

wantmemoney

I think I found the "dodgy website" that cooned these people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm

bristolleedsfan

wantmemoney wrote: »

I think I found the "dodgy website" that cooned these people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm

"Rogue dialling occurs when criminal telecom companies hi-jack people's computers, switching their internet connections from cheap local lines to expensive premium rate service or PRS numbers, usually linked to !!!!!! sites."

u still missing the point its not BTS fault that the computer owners have not protected themselves enough to prevent the rogue dialler being installed on their pc, bit like if someone responds to a fake email and gives out their security code and password and their say bank account gets emptied with mega sum overdrawn is that the banks fault ?????????????????

this is my last post on the subject if u want the last word im gonna let u have it :rolleyes:

TheWaltons_3

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

this is my last post on the subject if u want the last word im gonna let u have it :rolleyes:

You tell us that now... 7 pages later?

:rotfl: :rotfl:

wantmemoney

bristolleedsfan wrote:

u still missing the point its not BTS fault that the computer owners have not protected themselves enough to prevent the rogue dialler being installed on their pc, bit like if someone responds to a fake email and gives out their security code and password and their say bank account gets emptied with mega sum overdrawn is that the banks fault ?????????????????

never said it was
but
if the bank knows their customer as been the victim of a fake email and is knowingly accepting payment to empty their customers account into a suspected crooks account then it is the banks criminal fault.

bristolleedsfan wrote:

u still missing the point

No. The point is BT are not legally entitled to bill for services they know or even suspect are fraudulent.

But then again when you get Ian Brown at Redstone, and Ben Verwaayen, BT's chief executive doing just that.

http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2005/02/investigation-this-man-wants-to-hit-bt.html
Leasing a premium-rate number to someone who becomes the subject of a complaint is not a crime, but Ian Brown at Redstone, and Ben Verwaayen, BT's chief executive, don't always seem to know to whom they've leased premium-rate numbers. And that becomes important, as "know your customer" is one of the statutes in the European money-laundering regulations.

If you don't mind I'd feel more protected if Ben was well away from my bank account.