Being SCREWED by Vodafone!!!!!!!!

jdq2rp

Hi folks,

Here's the latest.

I was contacted twice by phone today by Gemma from Vodafone. She informed me that they were looking into this whole issue "at a very high level within the company".

During the first call she intimated that there was some confusion within the company about the nature of the number itself. From what I could understand she was stating that the number on the itemised bill was different to the one actually dialled. She said that the number dialled, according to them, was 6333322225555, missing the first two "6"s of the number of the number stated on the bill (666333322225555). This first number was connected to a telecommunications company that she had yet to contact (she needed by consent to quote my telephone number to them).

The second call a few hours later was again from Gemma. She had spoken to this other company, who had no record of me (or my mobile) ever contacting them. At the close of Friday, she said that things would have to be continued after the long weekend. She conceded that if Vodafone were unable to satisfactorily explain the number/billing etc. that they will be giving me a full refund.

She asked me specifically to report these efforts by Vodafone to resolve things on this thread, which I appreciate and now have done.

This whole situation, as it unfolds, raises some interesting considerations, I think. For instance, the fact that a company can ever have doubts about what number is dialled, or say that it's actually different to, the number that appears on the itemised bill is frankly worrying. Initially, after the first call, I thought that they were unilaterally "editing" the number on the bill to make a connection to this other company and therefore make the charges stick. But now I think, perhaps, that simply there is some "in-system" glitch which has allowed this to happen. Who knows. I did not discuss the broader ramifications of this with Gemma. She assures me that that they will continue to investigate/ rectify etc.

One way or the other, whatever the outcome of the investigation I think it is now impossible for Vodafone not to reimburse me in total. There is so much ambiguity in one sense (in-house billing systems) and absolute fact in another (the number connects to NOTHING), all of which point to full repayment.

Have a great weekend, folks, and I look forward to giving you the good news next week. Thanks once again for your good sense, support, solidarity and collective agency of agitation. The big boys do feel that they have to look over their shoulders at these forums and listen. I saw that today.

Fond regards,

Jer.

Fond regards,

redux

jdq2rp wrote: »

During the first call she intimated that there was some confusion within the company about the nature of the number itself. From what I could understand she was stating that the number on the itemised bill was different to the one actually dialled. She said that the number dialled, according to them, was 6333322225555, missing the first two "6"s of the number of the number stated on the bill (666333322225555). This first number was connected to a telecommunications company that she had yet to contact (she needed by consent to quote my telephone number to them).

The second call a few hours later was again from Gemma. She had spoken to this other company, who had no record of me (or my mobile) ever contacting them. At the close of Friday, she said that things would have to be continued after the long weekend. She conceded that if Vodafone were unable to satisfactorily explain the number/billing etc. that they will be giving me a full refund.

Well, it's interesting that she has a helpful attitude, but I don't believe the whole story as that number simply doesn't exist either, so I wonder who Vodafone are trying or pretending to contact

Presumably these entries are on the ordinary calls part of your bill, not international?

And as I hinted before, you might point out they don't appear to have any £1.50 a minute tariffs on their website

jdq2rp

I shall be sure to do that the next time.

Thanks redux.

Jer.

jdq2rp

And the entries are domestic, not international.

alex99

I must admit to being rather baffled by your experience - and I know a great deal more about premium rate than most Vodafone customer service personnel do.

First of all, it should be said that Vodafone's initial statement - you made the calls therefore you must pay the bill - as a general principle is manifestly false. Take "missed call marketing" or "premium rate parcel delivery" scams, the victim does make the premium rate calls but is a victim of fraud. Whatever Vodafone might initially say in such a case, the victim is NOT legally responsible for the charges incurred and Vodafone would never take such a case before a court.

But you do not seem to have been the victim of this kind of fraud.

All premium rate numbers either begin with "09" or are "short codes". (Although there are also the 08 numbers which incur various rates but which are almost always much lower than the premium rates you have been paying.)

One possibility (though this does not fit with much of the information you have provided) is that you inadvertently rang 66633 (see also below) plus lots of other random numbers (which would have been ignored) by leaving you keypad unlocked and putting the phone in your pocket. This is surprisingly easy to do and is (I have long suspected) why nearly all shortcodes have strings of repeat digits. One the number was in your phone, it could then be repeatedly accessed with a single button press if you phone was in a certain mode.

But, as I say, this does not fit. 66633 invites reverse charge text messages from one of the many unscrupulous premium rate service providers called "MXTelecom". There are no charges for calling this short code, in fact you are supposed to text it.

Also this does not fit with the bill entry which misses off the first 2 digits. (sorry I got this the wrong way around, but my general comments still apply)

Bill entries are, however, another can of worms. Under Ofcom rules, the number in a bill entry should be exactly the same as the number you rang - for obvious reasons. Some of the networks are currently ignoring this requirement and substituting (in the bill) completely different codes with various prefixes (typically "7000") and (sometimes) suffixes which uniquely identify the underlying shortcode and identify the type of service - but only to a computer. These substitute numbers are meaningless to customers and (it has to be said) most customer service personnel. Ofcom are currently investigating this problem. PhonePayPlus are (as usual) ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

But his does not seen to fit your case either.

Another possibility - where numbers do not begin with "0" - is a prefix (such as 18185) which you can (if you have signed up with the company concerned - although in other countries you can just use these codes and the charges appear on your normal bill) use to get cheaper calling rates on mobile and long distance and international calls. But this 5 digit prefix has to be followed by the complete number with at least on leading "0". So this does not fit either.

Interestingly, if you put 6333322225555 into the PP+ number checker, it thinks this is an "03" number. Make of that what you will.

The bottom line is: Vodafone have to be able to tell you whom this number belongs to and what kind of "service" it is.

Although there is a great deal that Vodafone can be criticized for in the premium rate domain (Vodafone both knowingly benefit from and suffer from premium rate crime - big time on both counts), they are more responsive to complains than most networks (at least they engaged with the forum). Persistence will pay off. Even if it turns out that the calls were somehow "your fault" (e.g. one of your kids rang these numbers without your consent or knowledge) providing you can provide evidence that you acted in good faith, you may still have a case and Vodafone may exercise "goodwill".

But your case does not seem to quite fit any of the suggestions I consider above. Please post on this forum when you get to the bottom of this.

Alex

deano27_2

I thought it would be some wap type dial up. It will be interesting to see if it is the below company...

---

PhonepayPlus has the following information about the number 63333.


This is a shortcode number. This is a text message service charged at premium rate. The types of services operating on this number can be ring tones, jokes, games tarot, chat, mobile internet services (WAP) and more.

• This service costs 50p per text.

To stop the service you simply need to open a text with the words STOP ALL (in capitals) to the shortcode number.If you would like to find out more about this service or have a question about it you should contact the company that provides this service which is listed below.

Opera Interactive Technology Group
3 Brindley Place
Birmingham
West Midlands
B1 2JB
Tel: 08081 313 131

alex99

I tried that too - when I tried 66633 - but again, it does not quite seem to fit. jdq2rp seems to have been charged premium rates for a series of calls to a number rather than for receiving a series of texts - unless he and/or Vodafone have misunderstood his billing record.

(In at least one case, jdq2rp seems to have been charged for an hour long call initiated at 03:07 even though his bill shows that he was initiating a new call at 03:08)

On the other hand, Opera are even further ahead in the PP+ adjudication stakes than MX and it would not surprise me if either of these companies were involved in some kind of scam.

All very puzzling. I hope we learn the outcome.

alex99

BTW, just to consider all possibilities, calling cards (mentioned in VFs initial response) do not fit either.

If you have a calling card, you dial a real number, then you enter a PIN, then you enter another real number.

Even if the "real" numbers were shortcodes (which I don't think is possible in any case) this would make for a destination of [FONT=&quot]25555 or 225555 - neither of which are valid shortcodes - and a rather poor PIN number "222" or "22".

Neither 66633 nor 63333 are use by calling card companies and I think Jd62rp would remember buying a calling card.
[/FONT]

redux

alex99 wrote: »

If you have a calling card, you dial a real number, then you enter a PIN, then you enter another real number.

Even if the "real" numbers were shortcodes (which I don't think is possible in any case) this would make for a destination of [FONT=&quot]25555 or 225555 - neither of which are valid shortcodes - and a rather poor PIN number "222" or "22".[/FONT]

?

There really isn't any point in trying to guess that this is linked with other services such as texts, or dialling schemes that don't work. Only the access number would appear on the bill when using such methods, any PIN and the destination number are dialled separately

As I already said, the numbers are simply invalid as phone numbers, and don't appear anywhere else on the internet

Cavey

alex99 wrote: »

(In at least one case, jdq2rp seems to have been charged for an hour long call initiated at 03:07 even though his bill shows that he was initiating a new call at 03:08)

The only thing I can think of is that his phone can support two lines (mine can, but I know peoples' who can't).

However, even if this is the case, it doesn't explain how you called a fictional number, or why they last for exactly one hour (which I just find odd).