0871 scam

The_Deep

... it is a PUBLIC telephone service. Anyone can phone your number, and how do they 'make money' - certainly not from the act of calling that number, but I would expect any adult to treat it with the contempt it deserves, for those that cannot, buy a Truecall.

But Busby, the world is full of gullible people, watch Watchdog and see how many people are ripped off by tree surgeons, plumbers, double glazing salesmen, how many pay up whem private car park pirates screw them for a fortune for a five minute overstay, how many head teachers paid £4000 for a single laptop. I get 15-20 calls a week from people trying to sell me solar panels. burglar alarms, claim back PPI for me, get me compensation for whiplash.

Do you never get 419 emails, phone calls from Bangalore about a "wirus" on your computer, do you not get landbankers and boiler room tricksters offering to double you money in 18 months? It seems that the whole world is out to scam you.

This scam, although very small beer in monetary terms, is neverless the less fraud, and fraud is a criminal offence, (unless you are an M.P. that is).

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/protect-your-business-from-scams/types/fax

Yes, I have pulled your tail a bit, but you have made rather a cake of yourself. You may have had 40 years experience in the telcoms industry, but I slaved over legal documents in the Foreign Office for 5 years, and was a founder member of CA in the sixties.

Anyway, well done you for fighting your corner. I look forward to locking horns with you again.

Paul_Varjak

Buzby wrote: »

Of course:
(1) the code may cost a premium over standard call charges, but Premium rated calls all commence 09xx and use revenue share as the business model. By all means misrepresent what is actually meant, but following your reasoning, 09 numbers don't differentiate anything.

PhonePayPlus (http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/About-PhonepayPlus.aspx) says...

Premium rate numbers generally begin with 09, 118, 0871, 0872 and 0873. Mobile text shortcode numbers - the five- and six-digit numbers that you can use to enter text competitions, give to charity via your mobile, download mobile games, etc. - are also considered premium rate.

Buzby wrote: »

(2) it is a PUBLIC telephone service. Anyone can phone your number, and how do they 'make money' - certainly not from the act of calling that number, but I would expect any adult to treat it with the contempt it deserves, for those that cannot, buy a Truecall.

PhonePayPlus has fined companies as much as £250,000 for operating missed calls scams...

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2008/12/four-bans-and-a-fine-for-070-p.html

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2009/04/max-fine-for-symtek-over-misse.html

Buzby wrote: »

As for there being 'legislation' existing reading this, a reference would be useful, as so far there has been nothing other than conjecture. Kindly explain who believes it to be a crime to call someone and not complete a call?

You can read about missed call scams and how they are a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 (sec 2) here...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-fraudforgery?view=Binary

The_Deep

If you google the number you will see how many people have fallen for the scam. I do not see why Busby thinks that this is not criminality. Does the vatman get a cut I wonder.

I think I shall make a complaint to the police tomorrow.

Paul_Varjak

PhonePayPlus gets their cut too (in the form of paid fines). But I don't think PhonePayPlus can actually enforce those those fines in a court of law. They can prevent payout of any monies still pending and close down phone lines and bar companies and individuals from operating in the premium rate industry again.

I am not sure how often (if ever) PhonePayPlus have actually reported any of these scams as a crime to the Police.

I think these missed call scams are actually more insidious than 419 frauds as the called party may be totally unaware of the cost of calling the number back. When the scam operated on 070 numbers many people assumed it was a mobile number they could could call using their free minutes. With the scam moving to other number ranges (eg 076) people do really need to be aware of their call costs.

But trying to determine the costs of calls can be an absolute nightmare and some companies simply do not publish their full range of call charges. One way around this is is to use one of the offerings from Finarea (DialNow is currently the cheapest) as you get a message telling you the cost of the call before it is connected! Even better, calls to any numbers that are likely to be used in these scams are just totally barred.

I think line providers also have to provide a service to prevent calls to premium rate numbers; TalkTalk certainly do, but I had to cease the premium number rate block with TalkTalk as it interfered with third party access to mobile numbers as well!

Buzby

The_Deep wrote: »

If you google the number you will see how many people have fallen for the scam. I do not see why Busby thinks that this is not criminality. Does the vatman get a cut I wonder.

I think I shall make a complaint to the police tomorrow.

So because people 'fall for' something - that means something is wrong? It is not an issue of gullability - I spoke to someone yesterday who automatically called back comeone who rang their mobile (and rung off) because they wanted to know why they were called.

They didn't care about the number, but ended up dialling a central switchboard who had no idea who originated the call so could not help the caller, who was no doubt incurring additional cost.

So where does the fault lie? Clearly, it is with the recipient as they are either too nosey, or cannot believe any of their calls are less than urgent. So, since the ultimate person who has the phone bears the ultimate responsibility to pay for calsl that they make, the fact it may be a wrong number, scam artiste, or sales call doesn;t appear to cross their minds. Whose fault is that? The number's owner? I think not. No criminality - just stupidity. So are you going to legislate against that?

We've already reached the situation whereby reverse billed calls can impact on a phone users account, whether they have authorised it or not AND they have no mechanism to prevent these calls and/or texts arriving.

I'm also aware of your negative comments to other posts which do not appear to match your expectatins, which apart from the discourtesy (which I can take) shows what a petty stance you are taking. Shame you can't get my name right either - but please cll the poilice as you suggest. It'll be a long time since they had a such a good laugh.

The_Deep

So because people 'fall for' something - that means something is wrong?

Often that is the case, yes

It is not an issue of gullability -

Gullible people especially need protection from the con artists.

So where does the fault lie? Clearly, it is with the recipient as they are either too nosey, or cannot believe any of their calls are less than urgent. Whose fault is that? ... The number's owner? I think not.

You are so wrong here. If someone returns from an outing and dials 1472 and hears gets this number many many will press 3 and get charged 50p or more to hear a recording of a ring tone.

No criminality - just stupidity. So are you going to legislate against that?

Do you nor click the links. The call back scam is a criminal offence , and companies have been fined for it. Are you so stubborn that you will not listen to any other voice but your own. Of course it is a scam, the OFT says it is a scam, the courts say it is a scam, Trading Standards say it is a scam, are they all wrong and only you are right?

We've already reached the situation whereby reverse billed calls can impact on a phone users account, whether they have authorised it or not AND they have no mechanism to prevent these calls and/or texts arriving.

I will take your word for that

I'm also aware of your negative comments ... which ... shows what a petty stance you are taking.

Now you are being petulant, you have been caught out and do not like it. Be a man and admit that you were wrong. People will think better of you for it.

but please cll the poilice as you suggest. It'll be a long time since they had a such a good laugh.

I can assure you that the Thames Valley Police have always taken my complaints very seriously.

Shame you can't get my name right either -

I apologise most sincerely for that Mr. Busboy.

wantmemoney

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=56181349&postcount=14

Buzby wrote:

Premium Rate numbers are defined in the regulations as 'having a cost exceeding 50p/min. Anything under this is not

Buzby could you give a link to 'regulations' that state this and show where it is stated.

you do realise that continually posting mis-information that could deter people from reporting possible premium rate scams to PhonepayPlus helps nobody but the scammers and the companies they are generating revenue for/with.

System

It's actually 5p/min

Controlled premium rate service’ has the meaning set out in the
Condition issued by Ofcom under Section 120 of the Act effective from
time to time. At the date of publication of this Code the meaning is:
“a premium rate service (other than a service which is only accessed
via an International Call) in respect of which:-
(i) the service is obtained through a Special Services
Number (except on an 0870 number) and the charge
for the call by means of which the service is obtained
or the rate according to which such call is charged
is a charge or rate which exceeds 5 pence per minute
for BT customers inclusive of value added tax; or
(ii) the service is obtained other than through a Special
Services Number and the charge for the call by
means of which the service is obtained or the rate
according to which such call is charged is a charge
or rate which exceeds 10 pence per minute inclusive
of value added tax; or
(iii) the service is a Chatline Service; or
(iv) is Internet Dialler Software operated; or
(v) the service is a Sexual Entertainment Service.”

Ypaymore

wantmemoney wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=56181349&postcount=14

Buzby could you give a link to 'regulations' that state this and show where it is stated.

you do realise that continually posting mis-information that could deter people from reporting possible premium rate scams to PhonepayPlus helps nobody but the scammers and the companies they are generating revenue for/with.

He will have a hard job.

"5/2/2009

Ofcom has today announced that PhonepayPlus will take over day-to-day regulation of 0871 numbers on 1 August 2009, when numbers beginning 087 - with the exception of 0870 - will formally be recognised as Premium Rate Services (PRS), putting them under the remit of PhonepayPlus' Code of Practice "

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2009/2/Phonepayplus-outlines-transition-to-premium-rate-regulation-of-0871.aspx

System

Buzby wrote: »

... PRS's being an unmitigated and largely unforced enterprise.

Er, when you typed PRS [= Performing Rights Society?] did you mean PhonepayPlus? And when you typed unmitigated, did you mean unmitigated disaster, or unregulated? And when you typed largely unforced, did you mean that PhonepayPlus's rulings are in practice unenforced?
If so, what do you think of PhonepayPlus's mandatory registration scheme, and its framework agreement with Ofcom?
http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/About-PhonepayPlus.aspx