Premium rate texts 78123

flez1966

just had same trouble from this short text code, phoned Three, who said if they said i owed it, they have paid it, now i owe it them and would not budge.

even though i use the phone, but its the wife who got it / pays for it its just so she can contact me from work as a private number etc.

it seems to be sending me links to ''sites of ill repute'' even though that stuff is free everywhere on the net why would you sign up leaving a paper trail for it on a phone the wife pays for???

if i'm the only user of the phone, how i can i enter the wifes account into a contract??

to enter into a contract dont you need to be 18+, this phone account doesnt have 18+ services enabled so why do they allow a financial contract but not ''other things'' ?? duty of care?

anyhow when i was on phone to three they phoned the other company to speak to me in a 'conference call' type situation, nice to know three have a quick number to get a human at the other end in an instant, but they said they were in ireland, so this ''contract'' must be international as well, and we have international calls barred so you would expect that to include international services...

started a fb group to get people together to sign a petition to make these things ''opt-in'' if anyone is interested in joining us, i dont know how successful we can be, but there's strength in numbers

facebook.com/groups/540566606091464/

Ian011

These services are already 'opt in'.

Where you are signed up without your knowledge, they are breaking the existing rules.

grumbler

flez1966 wrote: »

... Three, who said ...they have paid it, now i owe it them and would not budge.

Ask them how much they pocketed for collecting.

zagfles

Ian011 wrote: »

These services are already 'opt in'.

Rubbish, they're not 'opt in' at all. If people want a facility where their mobile provider charges them for a third party service, then people should have to 'opt in', with their mobile provider, to get this. Or at least the mobile company should require proof from the third party that the customer authorised the charge before billing the customer.

Instead we have this ridiculous situation where people are charged by their mobile provider because a third party says they've agreed to receive a service from them, without any proof being required by the mobile provider that the customer authorised the charge.

Where you are signed up without your knowledge, they are breaking the existing rules.

And for how long have dodgy companies been breaking the rules? They get away with it because people keep telling victims to contact the dodgy third party for their money back, not take it up with the mobile company - who are the ones who billed them.

That's like asking a pickpocket for your money back. You might get it back, but nothing will be done to stop them picking other peoples' pockets.

Ian011

zagfles wrote: »

Rubbish, they're not 'opt in' at all.

They are supposedly opt-in with each individual service provider. Service providers should not be able to initiate sending you messages or making charges unless it was you that started the process in some way. That is what I was referring to.

There is, however, something to be said for there to be a further level of opt-in with your mobile provider.

The clarity given by Clear Call Rates for Everyone should allow mobile networks to build more intelligent premium rate barring systems where it is possible to set a bar for any and all numbers above a particular level of Service Charge for 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers, above a certain level of call price for calls to mobile shortcodes and above a certain level of premium charge for text messages to mobile shortcodes.

redux

zagfles wrote: »

And for how long have dodgy companies been breaking the rules? They get away with it because people keep telling victims to contact the dodgy third party for their money back, not take it up with the mobile company - who are the ones who billed them.

The way these schemes are is the way they are, and believe it or not some people do want to use some services on such numbers, so the mobile networks aren't going to block them all.

There are two possible approaches when someone has been charged who did not want to be

1. rant about it, saying things should not be this way

2. tell your friends how to get their money back

So, you write to your MP, and until that succeeds I'll carry on telling people here to get their money back from the provider, including find contact details on the Phonepayplus website, and if that refund request doesn't get a prompt response complain to Phonepayplus.

That works.

zagfles

redux wrote: »

The way these schemes are is the way they are, and believe it or not some people do want to use some services on such numbers, so the mobile networks aren't going to block them all.

There are two possible approaches when someone has been charged who did not want to be

1. rant about it, saying things should not be this way

2. tell your friends how to get their money back

So, you write to your MP, and until that succeeds I'll carry on telling people here to get their money back from the provider, including find contact details on the Phonepayplus website, and if that refund request doesn't get a prompt response complain to Phonepayplus.

That works.

When it happened to me, I complained to Vodafone and got my money back, and I got them to put a premium rate bar on my phone and all the family's phones. That worked. None of us have had a single premium rate text since, and that was about 4 years ago.

You keep telling people to complain to the dodgy company and the useless Phonepayplus. And then again when it happen again. And again.

I'll keep telling people to do what fixes the problem, permanently.

Ian011

PhonepayPlus have blocked many scams and issued penalties to a number of companies. They can't catch everything, just like the police can't catch every criminal.

grumbler

If they can't, i.e. fail to do their job, then they must ask for help and get this ridiculous situation changed.
Why is it that nobody can take money from our bank account without our authorisation and we have DD guarantee in place? At the same time any crooks can easily take money from our mobile accounts and share the loot with mobile companies that, understandably, simply wash their hands and remain happy? Why do we have to chase the crooks ourselves to recover our hard earned cash?

zagfles

grumbler wrote: »

If they can't, i.e. fail to do their job, then they must ask for help and get this ridiculous situation changed.
Why is it that nobody can take money from our bank account without our authorisation and we have DD guarantee in place? At the same time any crooks can easily take money from our mobile accounts and share the loot with mobile companies that, understandably, simply wash their hands and remain happy? Why do we have to chase the crooks ourselves to recover our hard earned cash?

Because banks are properly regulated. Compared to telecoms anyway!