>[kcr], on Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:10:45 +0100, said :-
>
>>
>>"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com. ..
>>> These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
>>>
>>
>>They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them. Which
>>phone company are you with as they could be breaking the Law. It would be
>>unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
>>number - so what is to stop people spamming via text? It's the same reason
>>that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles, it reduces their
>>income. They know when a phone is stolen and which numbers are being used
>>with it, but turn a blind eye.
>>
>
>It's O2, however AFAIK it's not illegal for the carrier. The text
>spammer is the one breaking the law.
>
>
>>Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse charges.
>
>I fully agree with that.
>
>>I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
>
>The spammer must pay.
I'm with O2, and I challenged a £1.50 reverse charged SMS and got it
refunded. Do not take any bullshit from them(O2), if they charged you
for something they cannot prove you requested, they(O2) are obtaining
money from you fraudulently - what O2 then do with the originator is
between them and said originator, and is not your responsibility!
Incidentally I not had any reverse charged SMSs since that one!
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:42:17 +0100, Colin Wilson
<REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
>> Shouldn't *they* have to prove I *did* sign up for their "service"..?
>
>Funnily enough, I fired this off to a spamming company last night...
>(copied from uk.legal - wanted to know if i'd missed any major points)
>
>----------
>
>I've just fired off a snotty email to a "company" that tries to hide
>behind a PO BOX number, just wondering if i've missed anything, or
>gone wide of the mark...
>
>----------
>CC: 2 Ergo Ltd (who Phonepayplus name as the operator of 83023)
>
>I received a text from you today despite having no prior contact with
>yourselves, nor have I ever had any premium rate services.
>
>Please remove and permanently exclude these numbers from your
>database:
>
>07841 <snip>
>07841 <snip>
>
>Note that all correspondence in response to this will be used in court
>if necessary, and you will be required to provide full disclosure
>(server logs etc.) of any alleged signup you believe I have made.
>
>Please take notice in advance that if your unsolicited text results in
>a charge on my account, I will start a small claims action
>*immediately* and without further notice, for which I will be claiming
>the costs for the action itself, expenses at a rate of £30 per hour,
>the cost of the message, plus any incidentals (such as the £2 cost of
>getting the home address of the company owner from Companies House).
>
>As I am a consumer, you are required to travel to me to defend any
>action I may take.
>
>Can you please also ask your nominated Data Controller to contact me
>regarding this matter, and provide:
>
> * Your Data Protection Registration number
> * Your Company Registration number
>
>Finally, I require your full correspondence address for issuing
>proceedings, as well the name of your Managing Director in case I need
>to take this further (it'll save me adding £2 to the costs)
>
>If you don't have a Company Registration Number or Registration number
>with the Data Protection Registrar, I will be making formal complaints
>to the Information Commissioner, HMRC and Phonepayplus.
Very well put together Colin! Seems to cover all the important stuff.
The only observation I would make, is that initially, your claim is
against the network provider that bills you. It is then up to them to
take it up with the reverse charge SMS originator, in pursuit of
evidence that you requested the Rev/Ch SMS in the first place. If
enough people take this route, the network providers will find this
procedure time consuming and hence costly - and maybe then they'll ALL
give us the option to bar Rev/Ch SMS!
"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com...
> These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
>
They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them. Which
phone company are you with as they could be breaking the Law. It would be
unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
number - so what is to stop people spamming via text? It's the same reason
that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles, it reduces their
income. They know when a phone is stolen and which numbers are being used
with it, but turn a blind eye.
Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse charges.
I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
>
>"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com.. .
>> These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
>>
>
>They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them. Which
>phone company are you with as they could be breaking the Law. It would be
>unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
>number - so what is to stop people spamming via text? It's the same reason
>that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles, it reduces their
>income. They know when a phone is stolen and which numbers are being used
>with it, but turn a blind eye.
>
It's O2, however AFAIK it's not illegal for the carrier. The text
spammer is the one breaking the law.
>Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse charges.
I fully agree with that.
>I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:i01t6495b9sualugprk4vn59frsfhvchsi@4ax.com...
> [kcr], on Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:10:45 +0100, said :-
>
>>"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com. ..
>>> These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
>>
>>They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them.
>>Which
>>phone company are you with as they could be breaking the Law. It would be
>>unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a
>>wrong
>>number - so what is to stop people spamming via text? It's the same
>>reason
>>that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles, it reduces their
>>income. They know when a phone is stolen and which numbers are being used
>>with it, but turn a blind eye.
>
> It's O2, however AFAIK it's not illegal for the carrier. The text
> spammer is the one breaking the law.
>
>
The phone companies assist the reverse charge theft, they give thieves
access to your account without your permission, and share in the stolen
profits.
If that isn't illegal i don't know what is?
Problem is the networks and thieves insist you made a verbal contact
by requesting the service, without offering any proof you did.
and the authorities conspire in this by not making it law that they do so.
Ofcom don't want to get involved they are too busy figuring out which
bit of the radio spectrum to auction off next.
Which is what Ofcom was set up for
Only T Mobile offer opt out.
Which shamefully means it takes a German company off it's own bat
to show any sign of honesty
In article <g4m04i$sst$1@news.albasani.net>, kcr@hell.net says...
>
> "Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com...
> > These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
> >
>
> They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them.
Phone networks are obliged to deliver messages and calls, they are not
allowed to selectively screen out.
> It would be unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
> number - so what is to stop people spamming via text?
Codes of practise, and phonepay plus, formerly ICSTIS.
> It's the same reason that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles,it reduces their
> income.
Mobiles reported stolen are blacklisted, that blacklist is shared with
other UK networks, and soon worldwide.
> Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse charges.
T-Mobile allow people to block premium rate reverse charge, but no-one
can really stop spamming.
> I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
You would of course have to be able to prove that you never signed up to
the service. The service providers of these awful shortcodes are usually
compliant about giving refunds if approached. Mistakes do happen.
--
Regards
Jon
In news:MPG.22d924965d11a089989684@news.aioe.org,
Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: In article <g4m04i$sst$1@news.albasani.net>, kcr@hell.net says...
: >
: > "Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
: > news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com...
: > > These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
: >
: > They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch
: > them.
:
: Phone networks are obliged to deliver messages and calls, they are not
: allowed to selectively screen out.
But what if I tell them I want them to..?
: > It would be unfair to charge a customer each time someone called
: > and it was say a wrong number - so what is to stop people spamming
: > via text?
Nothing, apparently. Shouldn't that be ringing alarm bells somewhere..?
: Codes of practise, and phonepay plus, formerly ICSTIS.
Toothless shower.
: > It's the same reason that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen
: > mobiles, it reduces their income.
They do if you make them. My MP wrote them a stiff letter when mine was
stolen, they soon blocked it.
: Mobiles reported stolen are blacklisted, that blacklist is shared with
: other UK networks, and soon worldwide.
:
: > Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse
: > charges.
:
: T-Mobile allow people to block premium rate reverse charge, but no-one
: can really stop spamming.
They could, but it would reduce their income, so they don't.
: > I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
:
: You would of course have to be able to prove that you never signed up
: to the service. The service providers of these awful shortcodes are
: usually compliant about giving refunds if approached. Mistakes do
happen.
Shouldn't *they* have to prove I *did* sign up for their "service"..?
> Shouldn't *they* have to prove I *did* sign up for their "service"..?
Funnily enough, I fired this off to a spamming company last night...
(copied from uk.legal - wanted to know if i'd missed any major points)
----------
I've just fired off a snotty email to a "company" that tries to hide
behind a PO BOX number, just wondering if i've missed anything, or
gone wide of the mark...
----------
CC: 2 Ergo Ltd (who Phonepayplus name as the operator of 83023)
I received a text from you today despite having no prior contact with
yourselves, nor have I ever had any premium rate services.
Please remove and permanently exclude these numbers from your
database:
07841 <snip>
07841 <snip>
Note that all correspondence in response to this will be used in court
if necessary, and you will be required to provide full disclosure
(server logs etc.) of any alleged signup you believe I have made.
Please take notice in advance that if your unsolicited text results in
a charge on my account, I will start a small claims action
*immediately* and without further notice, for which I will be claiming
the costs for the action itself, expenses at a rate of £30 per hour,
the cost of the message, plus any incidentals (such as the £2 cost of
getting the home address of the company owner from Companies House).
As I am a consumer, you are required to travel to me to defend any
action I may take.
Can you please also ask your nominated Data Controller to contact me
regarding this matter, and provide:
* Your Data Protection Registration number
* Your Company Registration number
Finally, I require your full correspondence address for issuing
proceedings, as well the name of your Managing Director in case I need
to take this further (it'll save me adding £2 to the costs)
If you don't have a Company Registration Number or Registration number
with the Data Protection Registrar, I will be making formal complaints
to the Information Commissioner, HMRC and Phonepayplus.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:27:27 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
wrote:
>Phone networks are obliged to deliver messages and calls, they are not
>allowed to selectively screen out.
That's not true. Please feel free to quote the legislation that you
believe prevents mobile operators from screening out reverse-charged
SMS.
>> It would be unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
>> number - so what is to stop people spamming via text?
>
>Codes of practise, and phonepay plus, formerly ICSTIS.
PhonePayPlus are a trade association, funded by the industry they
pretend to regulate, and have no power to collect the "fines" that
they claim to impose.
>> I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
>
>You would of course have to be able to prove that you never signed up to
>the service.
That really isn't the way that the legal system works in this country!
In a civil case for recovery of unauthorised charges, the company
imposing the charges would have to prove, on the balance of
probabilities, that the customer *had* signed up for the service.
It's absurd to think that the customer has to prove that he hasn't.
However, since you think that, I claim that you have agreed to pay me
a thousand pounds for the advice contained in this posting. Please
send me a cheque immediately. If you don't want to do that, you'll
have to prove that you haven't agreed to these terms.
Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:27:27 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Phone networks are obliged to deliver messages and calls, they are not
> >allowed to selectively screen out.
>
> That's not true. Please feel free to quote the legislation that you
> believe prevents mobile operators from screening out reverse-charged
> SMS.
>
> >> It would be unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
> >> number - so what is to stop people spamming via text?
> >
> >Codes of practise, and phonepay plus, formerly ICSTIS.
>
> PhonePayPlus are a trade association, funded by the industry they
> pretend to regulate, and have no power to collect the "fines" that
> they claim to impose.
>
> >> I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
> >
> >You would of course have to be able to prove that you never signed up to
> >the service.
>
> That really isn't the way that the legal system works in this country!
> In a civil case for recovery of unauthorised charges, the company
> imposing the charges would have to prove, on the balance of
> probabilities, that the customer *had* signed up for the service.
>
> It's absurd to think that the customer has to prove that he hasn't.
>
> However, since you think that, I claim that you have agreed to pay me
> a thousand pounds for the advice contained in this posting. Please
> send me a cheque immediately. If you don't want to do that, you'll
> have to prove that you haven't agreed to these terms.
>
> Mike.
I had one of these last year. Orange refused to co-operate, I got onto PPP who
arranged a refund. I suspect the industry is scared stiff of a successful court
case that would shut down these scams. The police will not intervene even
though these are clear cases of theft, they say it is up to the regulator. I
wonder if the European commissioner has anything to say.
[Neil], on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:50:26 +0100, said :-
>On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:15:35 +0100, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>[kcr], on Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:10:45 +0100, said :-
>>
>>>
>>>"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:36rs64pcgbtl6udmb1no5rfmhl79hbbdde@4ax.com ...
>>>> These people have just sent a £1.50 reverse text spam.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They are assisted by your phone company, so maybe time to ditch them. Which
>>>phone company are you with as they could be breaking the Law. It would be
>>>unfair to charge a customer each time someone called and it was say a wrong
>>>number - so what is to stop people spamming via text? It's the same reason
>>>that mobile networks REFUSE to block stolen mobiles, it reduces their
>>>income. They know when a phone is stolen and which numbers are being used
>>>with it, but turn a blind eye.
>>>
>>
>>It's O2, however AFAIK it's not illegal for the carrier. The text
>>spammer is the one breaking the law.
>>
>>
>>>Phone companies need to allow people to say no to spam text reverse charges.
>>
>>I fully agree with that.
>>
>>>I would be taking them to court to recover the costs.
>>
>>The spammer must pay.
>
>I'm with O2, and I challenged a £1.50 reverse charged SMS and got it
>refunded. Do not take any bullshit from them(O2), if they charged you
>for something they cannot prove you requested, they(O2) are obtaining
>money from you fraudulently - what O2 then do with the originator is
>between them and said originator, and is not your responsibility!
>
>Incidentally I not had any reverse charged SMSs since that one!
>
>Neil;
>
>(Reply via NG please)
Thanks for the info.
Strange though, you're replying 3 days before I posted. Looks like
your clock is wrong.
83023 2 Ergo limited are text spammers (was: UK text spammer, stars18.net)
"Colin Wilson" wrote:
> CC: 2 Ergo Ltd (who Phonepayplus name as the operator of 83023)
These b******s spammed me too, on Sunday. So far no charge has shown up on
my account for the incoming message, but annoyingly I've been charged 9p for
sending them a "stop" message.
Even more annoyingly, on checking with the TPS (with which my mobile number
is registered) unsolicited text messages aren't covered, only voice calls.
What's the point of that, then?
Re: 83023 2 Ergo limited are text spammers (was: UK text spammer, stars18.net)
> > CC: 2 Ergo Ltd (who Phonepayplus name as the operator of 83023)
> These b******s spammed me too, on Sunday.
FWIW this was their reply - and as yet, no phone call as promised...
they also appear to be "dodging" the concept that it's their number by
saying they will contact the company responsible...
------
Dear Colin
Thank you for contacting 2ergo customer services.
There are no active services on either of the numbers you have
provided.
However, we will contact the company responsible for operating the
83023 shortcode and request they call you within 48hrs.
I hope this settles the matter temporarily for you.
Re: 83023 2 Ergo limited are text spammers (was: UK text spammer, stars18.net)
> FWIW this was their reply - and as yet, no phone call as promised...
> they also appear to be "dodging" the concept that it's their number by
> saying they will contact the company responsible...
Keywords for the benefit of search engines:
83023 84025 2ergo expanding vision premium rate text message spam
PO BOX 139 LA3 2WU savamob contact email
I received a call from the "company reponsible" earlier today, who say
I have not been charged for the message, and that they contract 2ergo
to put the messages out for them.
The call came from "Expanding Vision" http://www.expandingvision.co.uk
and the only number they were willing to give out was 0871 474 2708
I spoke to Adele, and she sounded uncomfortable when I asked for a
non-premium rate number and said that was the only number they had.
Sadly I missed the opportunity and should have asked for their mobile
numbers...
I asked for the company registration number and data protection
registration number and she was unable to give me either. I suggested
a company letterhead would have the company reg. but she said they'd
just moved office and didn't have one to hand... err...
Their new postcode is apparently LA1 9GN but ukdata.com shows what
appears to be their "old" address of...
Company Details - EXPANDING VISION LIMITED Registered No.04730942
Address:
CITY LABS 4-6 DALTON SQUARE, LANCASTER, LANCASHIRE, LA1 1PP
Status:
Small unquoted company filing only an abbreviated balance sheet
Adele's email address is her first name @expandingvision.co.uk and the
directors' is "morris" at the same.
The reason i've put this much info into the post is in case anyone
else needs to track the buggers down :-p
I just noticed that the PO BOX 139 LA3 2WU address they give out also
returns links for SavaMob who were running an apparently identical
scam^H^H "scheme" since at least September 2005.
A recent adjudication against 2ergo can be found here, they were fined
£15,000 and access to the service was barred for 9 months (premium
rate "you have won a competition" without warning of call costs etc)
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:03:36 +0100, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net>
wrote:
>
>Thanks for the info.
>
>Strange though, you're replying 3 days before I posted. Looks like
>your clock is wrong.
Well, so it is! Thanks for bringing it to my attention, not something
I often check.
> They are also liars, when I contacted them they said that I must have
> signed up via their website.
A common response - I got the same a while ago, my response was "that
falls - and fails - under the guidelines of the data protection act.
I'm now taking you to small claims court - please retain all your
server logs to prove your claim - destruction of which may now be a
criminal offence"
I got paid out fairly quickly too !
It probably didn't help their case that they were listed as a dormant
company, yet obviously still trading - which I told them I was going
to the HMRC about...
Re: UK text spammer, stars18.net 
Linear Mode
