Call Charges

doctypedeclaration · July 5th, 2008, 06:22 PM

Did you know that companies in the uk are aloud to run premium rate phone services on non premium rate numbers irrespective of the law which states otherwise? And did you know that if you are a victim of such a scam your ip address is banned from visiting the regulators organisation website? Um, so you canot complain. Also, my phone company said they cannot reimburse me, irrespective of the FACT that someone else is breaking the law.

The most interesting part is the fact that you are told to complain to a company that is breaking the law!

And no, it wasn't a premium service I wanted.

doctypedeclaration · July 6th, 2008, 10:19 AM

So basically I rang the British Police today to explain this blatent breach in the law, but they merely told me its a case for trade standards.

Its interesting though, 'cos I explained to the officer that a few years ago, BT announced to the nation that all codes will change to become:

02 for London
05 local rate
08 local rate and/or freephone
07 mobile
09 premium

BT did this so people would no longer get confused as to the charge of ringing any number.

It is thus a criminal offense to run a premium rate service on a non premium rate number. If you view This page you will see confirmation that premium rate numbers should only be advertised with the code 09.

In my case, I rang a mobile to talk to someone, we had a conversation which cost me £65 instead of £5, and I was not reimbursed.

So basically, the way I see it, you cannot be sure what any number is going to cost you, because there seems to be a sub-organisation of Ofcom which are aloud to operate illegally, under the permission of the law itself.

I explained to the police officer that not even a hard boiled egg would allow someone to do such a thing, but it didn't seem to click in her mind that mental harrassment is wrong.

The sub-oragnisation of Ofcom that had banned my ip address is a company called PhonePayPlus.

In light of the facts being:

1. It is illegal to run a premium rate service on non premium rate numbers
2. I am not entitled to a refund
3. My ip address was known and banned before I could complain
4. To complain to an illegal organisation
5. The police don't see blatent breaches in the law

... in light of these facts one can only feel targeted.

Bocaj · July 6th, 2008, 01:18 PM

Isn't this civil law? i thought the police only dealt in criminal law?

The police are utterly useless, believe me...the only thing they're good for imho is incident numbers, if it wasn't for that i wouldn't bother.

doctypedeclaration · July 6th, 2008, 01:30 PM

Basically, and particularly for singles, people don't have the money to pay premium charges to access full functionality of an introductions agency, even if they are working. Nor do they want to risk putting credit card details online.

Therefore many people retire to a Chat Line at say, 9p a minute. This then means that couples would want to exchange phone numbers.

Therefore, if you find it hard to find people in your area who share the same interests, then even this final option is ruled out.

If it is happening with mobile numbers, then it could well be happening with any number.

Premium rate numbers are meant to be run entirely separately and within their own tariff. There is a BIG difference between a £65 call and £5 call.

Indeed, it is civil law, but hey, no one seems to be doing anything about it.

The very fact that this 'loop-hole' in telecommunication exists is suspicious, because you shouldn't let anyone get the opportunity to commit such an offense. How is the law supposed to fight crime if the law is only encouraging it?

D3niss3 · July 7th, 2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bocaj

Isn't this civil law? i thought the police only dealt in criminal law?

Though they basically respond to crime, they also have the power to protect citizens from any civilian harm, thus, has the capacity to act on civil issues but to merely transport it to the body who will handle the civil concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctypedeclaration

...
If it is happening with mobile numbers, then it could well be happening with any number.

Premium rate numbers are meant to be run entirely separately and within their own tariff. There is a BIG difference between a £65 call and £5 call.

Indeed, it is civil law, but hey, no one seems to be doing anything about it.

The very fact that this 'loop-hole' in telecommunication exists is suspicious, because you shouldn't let anyone get the opportunity to commit such an offense. How is the law supposed to fight crime if the law is only encouraging it?

In our law system, it might fall on our transportation law/codes. It's pretty amazing how the agency responsible on investigating this issue isn't working on it!

My only advise is go to the right agency that has the power over such companies (the company/ies that scammed you). I may not know that certain agency on your government but that's the best thing you could probably do. *i know you have that skeptic looks on your eyes* since you already mentioned that the supposed to be body that fighting it is the one that encouraging it...

But think of it this way, of you can call at least ones attention on this matter, from the right agency, you have at least the probability of getting even to this scammers. Might not be big as you wanted but giving them the knowledge that somehow these companies are operating illegally, they'll have the record and the reason to investigate!

that's just my 2 cents!

doctypedeclaration · July 8th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Well Virgin Media (my phone provider) contacted me today after I had got Ofcom to ring them about this charge.

However, the "supposed" investigation that Ofcom said they would carry out merely resulted in Virgin advising me the same thing again, to contact PhonePayPlus and complain.

So I explained to her that my ip address had been banned from the PhonePayPlus website and she said sorry but she doesn't know why.

I then tried to explain to her that the two numbers '7' and '9' are completely different but she disagreed and in fact supported the discrepency on my bill by merely advising me that the scam service is not in breach of any law.

After she said that she had "spoken" to PhonePayPlus I asked her for the telephone number. She gave it to me as 0800 500 212 . However, I merely get "number not recognised".

This is not only suspicious in itself, but if she had spoken to them earlier, why didn't she forward the complaint on my behalf?

doctypedeclaration · July 8th, 2008, 02:35 PM

I had previously found a way around their index page by searching for "contact PhonePayPlus", but after submitting a number enquiry they still failed to respond.

D3niss3 · July 8th, 2008, 04:16 PM

hmm...

Based on what you've just said, they obviously avoiding you and hiding something from you. That is no good! On the first place, companies like them should entertaining their customers, be it complained or whatever.

Their customer support seemed to be lame. They're not even addressing the problem knowing the fact that a complaint has been filed and had been done.

I feel for you mate. Keep searching the right agency who could help you.

doctypedeclaration · July 8th, 2008, 04:49 PM

One therefore has to be aware that there are women who chat men up 'over the wires' and give out their "mobile" numbers... which are actually registered "Personal Number Services" supported by the government. Because it runs on a mobile phone code you don't realise what you're actually calling.

It is thus illegal to run a premium service on a non premium code. Premium numbers should start ' 09' so no one gets confused and so that NO ONE can run an illegal scam/business.

In light of all the information provided in this thread it is thus an illegal business supported by the law itself. And thus the British Government is hereby under arrest.

Please help create public awareness of this matter by distributing this thread and also the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2kCLbZlM-0

The case dictated to me by Ofcom (the governing body of British telecommunications) is that the ' 07 ' Personal Number Services ' are not premium because those running them can charge whatever rate they want.

This is a blatent dictatorship.

What they have said is 100% contradictory. Premium rate services themselves can also charge whatever rate they want, from 10 pence a minute up to £1.50 a minute. These Personal Number Services have exactly the same range of charges and are thus no different at all.

It appears to me that many people could be targeted by this scam, thus making the 'supporting authority' a lot of money.

I have still not been awarded a refund and I am merely being pushed down the gutter irrespective of being a victim of a serious offense.

frinkky · July 8th, 2008, 05:40 PM

Hmm, the number quoted by Virgin is correct for PhonepayPlus. Here's an excerpt taken from PhonepayPlus's website regarding what they deal with:

Quote:

PhonepayPlus regulates any service/promotion that is operating on one of the following number ranges:

numbers beginning with 090/ 091 and 098

mobile SMS short codes that are usually four or five digits long and begin with 5, 6 or 8.

Directory enquiry services (118)

070 numbers that offer premium rate style services

All internet dialler services

All premium rate sexual entertainment services

International numbers that provide a product or service (00)

In 2008, PhonepayPlus will also commence regulating all services operating on 0871 number ranges.

I'm guessing that you dialled an 070 number? A personal phone number?

Ofcom states:

Quote:

Part B3.2 states that the numbers from the 070 range must not be used for Premium Rate Services (defined in the ‘Definitions and Interpretation’ Section of the Plan);

taken from: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi.../num_070_guide, which clearly indicates that Ofcom does regulate these numbers.

So if it was an 070 number and you get no joy getting back in contact with PhonepayPlus, get back on to Ofcom and don't take no for an answer.

doctypedeclaration · July 9th, 2008, 11:43 AM

I have spoken to Ofcom again and I merely got the same defensive response that these companies are not commiting any offense at all.

They insist its not a premium rate service even though they can charge exactly the same rates.

I was merely dictated to again and again over the phone, there is nothing I can do individually, I am merely being mentally assaulted.

frinkky · July 9th, 2008, 12:39 PM

Write to them in a calm, clear and concise manner. Think about everything you want to say and list it, using the list as a 'bare-bones' for your letter. Address a copy to PhonepayPlus for their official response. You may wish to write to your phone service provider. Once you've got their responses in writing you can decide how to proceed - write to your MP and/or the press.

Another excerpt from Ofcmom's website:

Quote:

1.2 One example of such protection is the regulation of Premium Rate Services (‘PRS’). PRS are defined in section 120 of the Communications Act 2003 (‘the Act’). In broad terms, PRS offer consumers some form of content, product or service accessed via fixed or mobile telephones and charged to the user’s telephone bill. While the majority of PRS providers promote and provide PRS responsibly, a minority do not. The activities of that minority can harm consumers; for example, by causing them to unknowingly incur charges or run up high phone bills,

From what you've said it is unwittingly running up a huge bill that is your main concern, something that is specifically mentioned in Ofcom's own words.

Now, where does one go to complain about the regulator???

doctypedeclaration · July 9th, 2008, 12:49 PM

You don't seem to understand. I have spoken to various people in various different departments of these government bodies, and they are all aware of the legislation laid out in their documentation.

In regards to what you have quoted in your last post, you will find they will merely state that the statement quoted does not apply because the 070 number I called is not considered a premium rate service.

Quote:

Acceptable use of 070 numbers

6. The 070 range shall only be used for Personal Numbering Services, which are defined as services “based on number translation that enables End-Users to be called or otherwise contacted, using a single Personal Telephone Number, and to receive those calls or other communications at almost any Telephone Number, including Mobile Numbers”. A Personal Number is also defined in the Plan as a Telephone Number “assigned by a Personal Numbering Service Provider, which allows a Subscriber to receive calls or other communications at almost any Telephone Number, including a Mobile Number”.
7. Previously the Numbering Conventions had stated that 070 numbers were "suitable for users who habitually move location", but as this was not a requirement or prohibition, it does not appear in the Plan. Additionally, the length of time for which an 070 number is active is not a relevant consideration in deciding whether or not it is a legitimate Personal Numbering Service.
8. Recent examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of Personal Numbering, but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate Personal Numbering Services include:

070 numbers allocated to users of Internet chat rooms who want to talk to new acquaintances without divulging their real phone numbers;
070 numbers allocated solely for the purpose of selling, eg, a car through a magazine; and
070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs – see para 14 below).

The standard call charge for an 070 number being used as a mere 'call divert' for privacy or location purposes is 50 pence a minute.

Thus anyone can get one of these, give it out over a chatline and not mention the charge.

I think you will find that considering the response I have already been given from the official representatives, that I needn't be prepared to subject myself to any further assault of this kind.