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

alex99

redux wrote: »

?

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

Well I agree that you would not normally expect the PIN number to appear on the bill - for various reasons. But it is not necessarily the case that what appears on the bill is only the access number.

The one and only time in my life I ever "rang" a premium rate number (old fashioned unlockable phone in the bottom of my briefcase) I dialled "699###56" and this is exactly what appeared on my (Vodafone) bill. However, the only significant part of this number is the first five digits "699##" - the shortcode that connected to the "service".

I paid £1.50 for each minute that I was connected.

jdq2rp

I'm still waiting to hear back from Vodafone/Gemma.

I thought it might have been today but no joy.

I think the above posts all make for interesting reading, with some clearly being a bit of authority on the subject. Like you I'm waiting to find out exactly this number's secrets, as well as getting my money back.

You'll know as soon as I do.

Jer.

jdq2rp

Well folks. The results are in (kind of).

Gemma from Vodafone rang. They have been unable to explain the origins/relevance/significance/connectivity etc. of the number and are therefore refunding me every single penny (650+)! Thank you Gemma!

They will continue to investigate but feel it's unfair for them to charge me for something they cannot trace. However, she mentioned that if I ever rang that number again and was billed for it, that next time I would have to pay.

Obviously I'm !!!!-a-hoop! My opinion of Vodafone has naturally been redeemed and I shall continue to be a customer. To be fair (after a bit of persistence/ forum agitation etc) they investigated the claim fully and came to the right decision. Some might say that that is the least one could expect from any company, but we all know that it often doesn't happen.

I would like to thank all who have given me the benefit of their advice and support on this board. It's been an eye-opening experience in many ways, but what I'm especially struck by is the power and voice that forums such as these have now given to the ordinary consumer. It's truely remarkable.

Fond regards,

Jer.:rotfl:

wantmemoney

http://www.aimelink.org/newsdisplay.aspx?id=1602
BILLING Payforit replacing PSMS, more growth expected as Vodafone joins O2 and T-Mobile to mandate billing mechanic
28 May 2008

Premium SMS has been gradually replaced by a WAP billing experience for mobile content purchases, according to Bango, which processed its 3 millionth Payforit transaction this month. And this migration will be further accelerated on June 2 when Vodafone joins O2 and T-Mobile to mandate Payforit compliance for mobile web content sales.

“Most of the leading content providers have adopted Payforit to bring a more transparent payment experience to their customers,” says Anil Malhotra, SVP of Alliances at Bango. “We welcome Vodafone’s move that will also help to increase wider consumer awareness of Payforit. Despite the major increase in Payforit transactions, most mobile content buyers are unaware of the purpose of the Payforit brand.”

However, content provider branding will continue to be an important element of the WAP payment flow. “We encourage all moves to increase awareness of Payforit but the presence of The Sun brand is the most important factor when our customers buy from us,” says Andrew Bagguley, Head of Mobile Strategy at News International. “Providing continuity for our consumers at the point of purchase is critical for maintaining consumer confidence during a transaction.”

WAP billing has become popular among content providers because the improved consumer experience delivers significantly lower customer care costs. Bango has been processing Payforit transactions since 2007 and has achieved very high levels of billing success with refund levels of less than 0.1 per cent.

In addition, Bango has analysed variances in marketing opt-in levels through the Payforit process. On some networks, the option to receive marketing offers from the content provider is “pre-checked”. In these cases, Bango has found that a month later 50 per cent of consumers choose to remain opted-in. This contrasts sharply with networks where the default condition is for the user to be opted-out and where opt-in levels of just 10 per cent are achieved while the user is completing their purchase.

may be something to do with 'payforit'

alex99

This is obviously great news and I am very pleased that you got your money back.

On the other hand, your experience is extremely worrying - on a number of counts.

If Vodafone cannot trace the number, who on earth were they going to give the money to (after taking their cut of course)? And who did Gemma speak to the other day?

It is a rather odd threat to say "if I ever rang that number again and was billed for it, that next time I would have to pay" since the number you supposedly rang does not connect to anything, does not match the bill item listing, took place at the same time as you were also ringing the same number from the same phone, and you did not actually dial the number yourself. Again, who would you be paying and why? What service would you be paying for? How would Vodafone suffer in any way if you did not pay?

Neither your experience nor Vodafone's response makes any sense whatsoever. If this happened to you, the same thing could happen to others.

I certainly hope that we shall hear again from Gemma on this forum to offer some kind of credible explanation. I shall not be holding my breath however.

alex99

wantmemoney wrote: »

may be something to do with 'payforit'

I doubt it very much.

The good news about the new PayForIt service is that it turns your mobile phone into an electronic wallet and uses a "proper" transaction system with "proper" confirmations and safeguards - rather like buying things over the internet and quite unlike the rip-off reverse charge text "system" (aka "legalized theft") currently used.

The bad news about the new PayForIt service is that almost all the firms "accredited" to run this service by the networks have a long and consistent history of dishonesty. I would not trust any of them with my phone number and certainly not with any of my hard earned money!

To return to the point, however, I can't see any any similarities between Jer's experiences and the PayForIt mechanism.

jdq2rp

Alex,

I hear what you're saying. I was a bit confused by that myself.

However, Gemma has promised two things:

1) She will let me know the results of her investigation when she has the answers. When this happens I shall let you know.
2) Regarding this whole "if you ring it again, we're gonna charge you" issue she said that this is addressed in a letter that the company are sending to me. I was a bit puzzled by that myself. But again, when I get it I'll post it here.

I hope you'll excuse the fact that I omitted the above from my last entry. To be honest I was just so happy and relieved at getting my money back, I simply left out these details. It's been a trying week or so.

I'm aware of these loose ends, and will follow them up. I know that the forum (and anyone who finds themselves in my position in the future) is owed this at least.

Regards,

Jer.

alex99

jdq2rp wrote: »

Alex,

I hear what you're saying. I was a bit confused by that myself.

However, Gemma has promised two things:

1) She will let me know the results of her investigation when she has the answers. When this happens I shall let you know.
2) Regarding this whole "if you ring it again, we're gonna charge you" issue she said that this is addressed in a letter that the company are sending to me. I was a bit puzzled by that myself. But again, when I get it I'll post it here.

I hope you'll excuse the fact that I omitted the above from my last entry. To be honest I was just so happy and relieved at getting my money back, I simply left out these details. It's been a trying week or so.

I'm aware of these loose ends, and will follow them up. I know that the forum (and anyone who finds themselves in my position in the future) is owed this at least.

Regards,

Jer.

Jer

Thanks very much for this additional information.

Gemma (if you are reading this)

Regardless of what this number is or how Jer's phone rang it at several overlapping times (although I really hope that you will shed some light on this), Vodafone should be aware that it is a breach of Ofcom rules (and possibly the law) for bill entries not to identify the actual number dialled. In other words (to take this specific case) Vodafone should either not put "66" in front of the number "dialled", or should add a note to the bill explaining that whenever "66" appears at the start of a number longer than five digits, it should be ignored. If you wish, I can send you contact details for someone at Ofcom who can advise you on this question.

Regards

Alex

PS See also 88850100100008 - again no explanation from Vodafone!

digp

And??????????????????????????????????????????????????

diamonds

update OP ?