Micro Billing System scam

RisingDamp

PC Advisor thread do mention it - I know, because I've posted it there (and elsewhere) as it was the solution that worked for us. But not everyone can do a System Restore, for whatever reason, so it isn't the universal answer. And it has to be done v. carefully, with all other restore points removed after the 'restore', and then system restore switched back on afterwards.

But I think it's too glib to say that it's nothing to get worked up about, and I've certainly seen signs of some extremely stressed people who've been smitten with this. Moreover, MBS are currently operating as a legitimate company, and making a lot of money from these pop ups. Should we allow this to continue? I think not.

alanrp123

I think I have fixed this problem by doing a system restore to before the date shown on this spurious bill.
I have not had anything all day, since doing a restore this morning, so fingers crossed:T

marleyboy

Its fair enough doing a system restore to rid this off your system, but the fact is, you shouldnt have to, its not nessacerilly going to be a case of not reading the T&C or not ticking a box, theres numerous malware and virus's out there that can enable a computer to access the site without any knowlege by the user. And for a company to hold your pc as "hostage" until you pay them money is scandelous, this company must be coining it in, do you really think they care if the user knowingly or unknowingly accessed their site? So long as the user pays them for the privilage.

Imagine for a moment, MSE decided to include a fee for usage (I know they wouldnt), but in order to collect such a fee, all MSE has to do is block your microsoft product, preferable to simply blocking you access to the MSE site.

A little extreme for a scenario, but the principles are the same. I cant imagine how this can be even slightly legal, isnt infecting another persons computer with a virus, illegal? Or do you simply have to call yourself a business now to make it legal?

superscaper

marleyboy wrote: »

A little extreme for a scenario, but the principles are the same. I cant imagine how this can be even slightly legal, isnt infecting another persons computer with a virus, illegal? Or do you simply have to call yourself a business now to make it legal?

After reading the Computer Misuse Act today, any malware ir disruption of your computer is illegal if it is unauthorised. And that is the key thing here, MBS claim that this single click agreement means you are authorising them to do what they warn you in the contract and that makes it legal and unfortunately it seems Leeds Trading Standards (the ones covering MBS' area) actually agree that it's legal. I think it would be difficult for anyone to prove conclusively that they didn't agree to the click agreement if it caim to court. I think an interesting legal argument is MBS' threat that they will take legal action against those adding it to the removal list in antispyware programs and people who publish on the web methods of removing it. I think if anything related to this got to court would make for some interesting test cases.

Of course I'm speaking stricty about the legalities here, I don't think there's any question that what MBS are doing is immoral and underhanded. And the point made about spyware essentially signing you up is a very valid one and wouldn't even be an issue if MBS used a normal sane payment agreement/scheme.

superscaper

Just read someone's comment on it and I'd had the same thought (but forgot about it until now), MBS defence is entirely on that a contract has been established through an agreement. But is that contract legal if both parties don't know the identities of each other? How can MBS assert they have a unique identity from someone from just an IP address? I'm no expert but I wouldn't have thought a contract would be legally binding with only the IP address being used as an identity of one of the contract parties, it just isn't sufficient and really doesn't name an individual or describe exactly WHO has agreed to the contract.

chunter

Anybody got a website for MBS? Or an address?

A Fax line's good. Send them a 40 page fax asking them how to remove their software.

superscaper

http://www.microbillsys.com/

Only email addresses, if you'd read all the links you'd have seen that they no longer use the phone or give out their physical address for protection of their staff.

RisingDamp

This is their website: www.microbillsys.com
Their billing/information address is:
PO Box 185,Leeds,LS12 9AJ,
and the address registered with Companies House is:
MICRO BILL SYSTEMS LIMITED
SUITE 15
14 CLIFTON DOWN ROAD
BRISTOL
BS8 4BF
but I think this is only for registration purposes, so probably not worth pursuing.

They 'claim' to have offices in Leeds, Cambridge and London. However, no addresses are published for these so-called offices, which does raise a number of questions, doesn't it?

I've been working on this one for a while, including writing to my MP (who has written to the OFT and Secretary of State - though I've not heard the outcome yet), contacting by phone and email Trading Standards both here and in Leeds, raising the matter with You and Yours on Radio 4 (which has led to this being carried by them, and which they may well be still pursuing), writing to the 'scams' department of the OFT, contacting Which? (though nothing from them yet), contributing to items in magazines and newspapers, and taking part in the online forums.

I believe that it is only by banging at as many doors as loudly as possible that this will be taken seriously. If - and it is still not clear - what MBS are doing is legal, then the law must be changed. However, I agree that what they're doing is probably infringing current legislation anyway. It may take a test case to establish this, though.

Be assured, there are people trying to get to the root of this. We can help them by complaining, as I've suggested, and working as hard as possible to raise the profile of this.

RisingDamp

Chunter: Sending them a 40 page fax will be costing YOU money, not them.

A suggestion I've seen, which amused me, would be to send them loads of empty unstamped envelopes to the address they give for payments, using different writing/font, and marking each envelope "payment enclosed". I think the idea was that this would then cost them money and time to retrieve what would prove to be useless mail.

superscaper

As an interesting side (the last few posts have made me think of) note in brushing up on Computer Misuse Act I came across a case of a 16 year old sending an email bomb to his former employer (sending 1 million emails which crippled their system). The 16 year old's case was dismissed because his lawyers successfully argued that the there was nothing illegal done under the CMA (Act) because he hadn't actually altered their computers systems since their system was specifically set up for receiving email. It appears any kind of denial of service attack is technically legal under current legislation as far as anything I've come across goes.