As having first hand knowledge of the scam known as Unsolicited Reverse Bill Texts it's hard to accept that only one network, T-Mobile, will allow its account hoders to secure their accounts by blocking both incoming and outgoing short codes. The means by which these unwanted premium rate sms are sent to our accounts.

After six weeks of awkward question and weak answers on its in-house eforum, Vodafone have 'promised' to allow customers the option to 'opt-in' to a short code bar in summer 2008. It's no wonder that the thread has now been removed from the forum after 3,300 views and 60+ posts.

It was believed that 3 Mobile had now allowed its customers to block incoming short codes after thousands of its account were hit with a premium rate scam over Easter, this has been found to be incorrect. 3 were very slow in giving information as to the villain involved and only made it public after Phonepayplus placed the information on its web site.

This still leaves o2 & Orange both of whom have had its accounts hit by the unsolicited reverse bill texts scam over the past few years. I can understand how a cowboy PRS company will buy a customer list or generate random numbers (which the networks always tell us cannot happen, but does) but when a scam hit one certain network something is very wrong.

Are our details sold on by the networks? (something again denied) Yet like me only last week, how many others have received cold calls from companies after giving notice of termination of contract?

Our mobiles give these thieves access to out bank accounts, via the networks who pass the cash on despite the transaction being in dispute, or they steal the credit from our PAYG account yet only one network acts to protect us. WHY? Could it be that the networks can take up to 50%, yes up to FIFTY percent of the cost of the scam text, oh yes don't forget the Government also takes 17.5% VAT. You can make your own minds up as to 'WHY'?

We need the option to protect our accounts by blocking short codes, and we need it now.

What are the 'Experts' opinion?

Here here!

All the networks should allow all of us to opt out of premium rate scams if we wish to. When will O2, Virgin, and Orange follow T-Mobile, Three, and Vodafone-by-summer? When will all the networks sign-post this facility prominently on their websites so that we can all begin to protect ourselves againt the menace of unsolicited reverse charge texts?

No one can help themsleves to the contents of our bank accounts simply because they know our addresses. Why are people allowed to help themselves to our phone credit simply because they know (or randomly generate) our phone numbers?

I too was targeted in the '3'-mobile scam over Easter and when I read this thread I thought it was good that customers could opt out of the service (service??).

I have just spent 10-minutes talking to '3' and Matilda there told me that '3' offered no such bar and the only way to stop such messages was to reply quoting STOP in the message. Matilda was adamant that '3' could not stop the messages themselves being sent. Matilda was aware of the scam over Easter and assured me that it could not happen again. So that's alright then!!!!

This is a shame. Roll on July when the contract with '3' comes to an end.

@Tiggybear

Matilda is mistaken.

I have in my hand a letter from someone at the Three "Executive Office" which says: " I have been able to stop *incoming* and outgoing premium rate numbers being used on your handset"

So they can do it!

You just have to be persistent and get through to the right person. I realize that this is a pain, but you will be striking a blow for all mobile phone users if you manage to get Three to do this. If enough people pester them, they will be forced to make the procedure for doing this more explicit.

Gino 77 "Our mobiles give these thieves access to out bank accounts, via the networks who pass the cash on despite the transaction being in dispute, or they steal the credit from our PAYG account yet only one network acts to protect us. WHY? Could it be that the networks can take up to 50%, yes up to FIFTY percent of the cost of the scam text, oh yes don't forget the Government also takes 17.5% VAT. You can make your own minds up as to 'WHY'?"

Good point.

Banks and credit card companies are subject to FSA regulation to ensure the accounts of their customers are protected from fraudulent debits and transactions. Why aren't the customers of mobile operators protected in the same way?

Thanks Mike

A pain? You are not joking - but then as a '3' customer you'll know all about that with their call centre. Nightmare! I gave them another go and after 15-minutes the best I could do was have a bar put on my account to prevent me making 090 prefixed calls. They still insist that they cannot bar the messages and I have to reply 'STOP'. I'm glad you've managed to do it but I give up.

I'm all for consumer action but '3' just exasperate me. - Though that said when I have sued them (successfully) before it's interesting that the case is dealt with in the UK and the language barrier disappears.

@Tiggybear

Well done for trying!

All the networks have to let you put a block on outgoing premium rate calls - handy if you have kids or you can't lock your keypad and you keep your phone in your back pocket - but what we really need is the blockk on incoming calls.

Telling us we can send "STOP" is like telling us we can prevent burglary by boarding up the smashed window with plywood afterwards.

I got through to the right person in the end by emailing regulatory AT three.co.uk which I found on their site (I was emailing about the more general issue of 3 and the other networks doing business with PRS crooks, but when I detailed my concerns, they agreed to let me block *incoming" PRS).

As for Customer Service, apart from the PRS issue, I have not found Three to be too bad - which is not to say I have found them to be especially good. Just listing the four firms I have dealt with enough to gain an impression, I should rate them from worst to best as: O2, [a big big gap], Vodafone, Three, and Virgin, but they can all be hopeless and you can have bad experiences with any of them.

Gino77:

.

What are the 'Experts' opinion?

Even though I never posted this thread in the 'Ask An Expert' section I am very surprised that no 'Moneysupermarket Expert' has added a view or opinion, as requested, they do monitor all sections of the forum.

I have read the article and responses with interest, it's good to know people are on the case.

My son has a contract with Vodaphone and his last two bills have been £371 amd £475 respectively most of which comes from Premium rate unsolicited text messages.

Vodaphone dont want to know and insist he must have requested them and won't help, OFCOM dont wat to know and pass you on to ICSTHIS who are not much help either. He took out his sim card and bought a pay as you go, but Vodaphone said he would still be charged as the texts go to the line and not the sim.His bills give no details of the sender they just group them under " Text Into Service". Where are our rights !! - apparently we dont have any.

It is extreemly worrying and nothing is going to change until short code barring is brought in, otherwise these companies can steal your money at will and you cannot do anything to stop them.

Any comments appreciated

2nd.May.08 UPDATE

Despite what Gino77 said about Vodafone giving the option to opt-in to short code barring having spoken to two people at Vodafone they denied any knowledge about it, and stated that to do it would be against the law.

We have got absolutlely no where with them, won't give details of companies sending the Reverse Bill Texts. Insisted that my son sent texts at 2.35a.m in the morning on rhe 28th of April, when he was in bed asleep !, despite having already cut up the sim card.

Now that the elections are over I will be writing to our MP, and taking legal advice.

The problem with Vodafone is that they are all singing from the same hymn sheet, and there is no one that I have come across so far that has any integrity, they just want huge profits regardless of the ethics involved.

I think maybe it's time to create a site to start highlighting these continuing scams, collate as many responses as possible, and send the results to someone who may do something about it even the European Parliament.

@walton

You are right that OFCOM do not want to know, but they should have passed you on to PhonePayPlus (formerly "ICSTIS") who will at least take you complaint.

If your son is on a monthly contract, removing his SIM card will not help. He will sitll be charged for the reverse charge messages even if he does not actually get them.

To stop the messages, you can try texting "STOP" to the numbers from which you receive the texts. This will cost you your normal texting rate. You should also insist that Vodafone stop these messages. They can do this and will do this if you insist.

Next stop any DDs to Vodafone and refuse to pay anything more to them apart from what you actually owe them for rental and calls you have actually made. Demand the money you have paid back Ask Vodafone to provide evidence of when and how your son opted into these "subscriptions". Refuse to be passed down the "value chain" to the crooks who are sending these messages. If you are persistant and refuse to back down, Vodafone will capitulate and refund your money. Remember, Vodafone collect the money from you and hand it to the crooks after taking their cut. If Vodafone choose to do business with crooks, that's their problem not yours.

Finally, email your MP at http://www.writetothem.com/ and demand that he/she forces PhonePayPlus to force the networks to allow consumers to opt out of all premium rate - including reverse charge text messages.

Best of luck

Mike

Hi Walton,

Follow the good advice given by Mike99, as he has said the first and most important thing is to get these sms stopped then the fight starts.

Vodafone will have on record full details of all the unsolicited reverse bill sms that your son has received. DEMAND this information, they will give you many excuses, like they don't keep such info, this is rubbish. I have had the same problem with VF.

A complaint to Phonepayplus on their web site will also make you feel as if you are doing something to fight back. Sadly this is an industry funded Regulator so don't expect too much help but still do it.

Make all your complaints to VF in writing, recorded delivery. Keep a record of all the VF advisors names with whom you talk. Dates, time and content/outcome /promises of the conversation. Get all replies in writing don't take anything said on the phone as gospel, as they say 'a verbal promise it's not worth the paper it's written on' !!!!!! Try to keep everything on paper.

If after 12 weeks since your first contact regarding the complaint, you have not received a satisfactory outcome refer your complaint to Otelo, the telecoms watchdog. (See their web site for info and advice)

As Mike99 has said a letter to your MP at the HoC is high on your list.

Previously I wrote:

mike99:

@Tiggybear

Matilda is mistaken.

I have in my hand a letter from someone at the Three "Executive Office" which says: " I have been able to stop *incoming* and outgoing premium rate numbers being used on your handset"

So they can do it!

You just have to be persistent and get through to the right person. I realize that this is a pain, but you will be striking a blow for all mobile phone users if you manage to get Three to do this. If enough people pester them, they will be forced to make the procedure for doing this more explicit.

It now seems that Three lied to me about this. In spite of their letter and their phone call, it now appears that they have not blocked and will not block reverse charge text messages coming to my phone or anyone else's phone.

So the only networks that will do this are T-mobile and Vodafone-by-summer.

Sorry about this. Unlike the networks, I don't like misleading people.

walton:

2nd.May.08 UPDATE

Despite what Gino77 said about Vodafone giving the option to opt-in to short code barring having spoken to two people at Vodafone they denied any knowledge about it, and stated that to do it would be against the law.

We have got absolutlely no where with them, won't give details of companies sending the Reverse Bill Texts. Insisted that my son sent texts at 2.35a.m in the morning on rhe 28th of April, when he was in bed asleep !, despite having already cut up the sim card.

Now that the elections are over I will be writing to our MP, and taking legal advice.

The problem with Vodafone is that they are all singing from the same hymn sheet, and there is no one that I have come across so far that has any integrity, they just want huge profits regardless of the ethics involved.

I think maybe it's time to create a site to start highlighting these continuing scams, collate as many responses as possible, and send the results to someone who may do something about it even the European Parliament.

Vodafone do not currently allow customers to opt out of all reverse charge text messages but they have promised to do this by summer. See XXXXX

As this promise and the fact that T-mobile will block this stuff show, it is not illegal do this.

I can't offer legal advice, but I very strongly suspect that if you take vodafone to the small claims court they will capitulate - I have certainly never heard of a case where a network has risked having its position tested in a court of law.

There are thriving sites at Moderator - Links to user forums removed in line with MS terms of service. and (unfortunately The Scream forum is closed to public view at the moment - a threat of legal action from one of the crooked firms that was named on this forum - but it should reopen soon). And certainly email your MP and get in touch with the "regulator" www.phonepayplus.org.uk . They are about a much use as a chocolate fire-guard - hence your current predicament - but they are supposedly there to help people in your predicament. They will at least be able to force vodafone to reveal who is scammming you (something they are legally obliged to do) though you will have to be persistent and insistent with them.

Sorry, I had not realized that direct links to other forums were forbidden.

You can find the site that is closed to public view at the moment if you google "phonepayplus cop"

You can find the other site if you google "grumbletext"

And you can find the vodafone statement if you google "Vodafone are currently working on making a bar available" - using the quotes!

Mike

walton:

2nd.May.08 UPDATE

Despite what Gino77 said about Vodafone giving the option to opt-in to short code barring having spoken to two people at Vodafone they denied any knowledge about it, and stated that to do it would be against the law.

As Mike99 will confirm Vodafone have stated on their eforum that they will offer the option to 'opt in' to a block on short codes in the summer of 2008. Having dealt with VF with such scams, from experience I have found found that they are prone to giving their customers lies and describing it as 'incorrect information', I will wait to see what happens in summer 2008.

I started a thread on the VF eforum which has attracted over 4,500 hits to date and had over 70 post in a few weeks but became too hot for VF and it was closed. This is a section from the eforum with the said quote:

'Vodafone are currently working on making a bar available that will block incoming or outgoing premium rate SMS messages. Currently the charge for these types of messages is added as soon as they are sent. Having a bar on such services would stop the charges as the message wouldn’t be able to get through to the intended recipient, in the same way that international, roamed and premium rate calls are restricted at the moment.
We are working towards implementing this premium rate SMS restriction by summer 2008. Having spoken to our Mobile Internet and Content Services team we can give this explanation for this timescale:'

The fact they have informed you that it is against the law to block short codes shows how their customer service lies to its account holders / fraud victims treating them as morons. I too was treated in this manner.