Victory in sight for MoS battle to halt rip-off text robbers
AMAJOR clampdown is expected at last on rogue firms that trick mobile phone owners into paying a fortune to receive nuisance texts they did not want or ask for. Online subscription providers – offering games, quizzes and lottery updates, for example – have been allowed to sign up customers deceptively without their knowledge or consent. The charges to receive text updates are added to mobile phone bills.
The Mail on Sunday has cam- paigned for more than a year to put an end to these underhand practices after being inundated with complaints from victims.
Often the guilty firms accuse those affected of simply forgetting they agreed to a subscription – or put the blame on family members.
Now consumer watchdogs have had enough and regulations could soon be in sight to stop these firms. The chief aim is to close a gaping loophole in the system. The deception can occur when someone innocently browses the i nternet on their phone. The resulting small sums added to a bill can easily go unnoticed for a long time – either because customers have not looked at a detailed copy of their bill or simply have not spotted the charges. People often delete the costly texts confirming the subscription they have unwittingly signed up to – and details of how to opt out – because they look like nuisance spam messages.
It is happening through abuse of a legitimate payments system called Operator Billing. This includes a tool called Payforit, run by the mobile networks EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
The system allows goods and services to be e charged to a mobile phone bill for convenience – but unintentionally has also allowed d fraudsters and unscrupulous businesses to thrive.
Experts say it is a scandal that has been allowed d to persist for too many y years and that time is s almost up. David Hickson, , of the Fair Telecoms Campaign, says: ‘The regula--tion surrounding these e subscriptions is i nade--quate and has been n exploited by scammers.
‘The rear elegitimate e uses – including payments ts to charity. But if the system em cannot be brought under control ontrol and scams eliminated, we will call ll on the regulator to prohibit use of the mechanism entirely. A radical change is needed.’
The regulator responsible for goods and services charged to a mobile bill is the Phone-paid Services Authority (PSA). It is expected to announce proposals for reform as soon as the end of this year.
A spokesman for the PSA says: ‘We are aware of the considerable public concern around subscriptions, as they currently make up more than 90 per cent of complaints we receive. We have also taken robust regulatory action against non-compliance in this area of the market, issuing substantial fines to service providers.’
The number of grievances it has fielded about operator billing has recently more than quadrupled. One of the biggest holes in regulation is the fact that victims have no clear way to complain and get refunds. Hickson adds: ‘The requirement to show indisputable proof that a customer consented to be charged is not strong enough. And there needs to be a way for disputes to be resolved satisfactorily and fairly – either by showing how a request for the subscription was made, or by providing a refund.’
The Mail on Sunday has heard from countless victims who are furious after discovering a history of charges on their bills – amounting to significant losses over many months. But they cannot find anyone to take them seriously when they protest.
J a ne Tayl o r ( name has been changed) from Essex says she has been charged around £600 over threeand-a-half years for a competition service she knew nothing about. She says: ‘I contacted the company but
they t will not give me a refund. All I want w is my money back. I wrote to my mobile provider but they won’t refund me either and I don’t know w what to do next.’
The Mail on Sunday contacted Vodafone about Jane’s case. A spokeswoman says: ‘We’re sorry to hear that Ms Taylor was unaware that she had signed up for this third-party service. The charges are accurate but, on this occasion, as a goodwill gesture we will offer a 50 per cent reimbursement.’
‘Naughty grandchild’ claim that blames the victims
NOT all subscription providers are fraudsters – but they can outsource responsibility for signing up customers to other companies behaving unethically.
When customers object to the charges, providers and mobile networks routinely blame the victims under ‘ collective amnesia’ or ‘naughty grandchild’ theories. They suggest victims forgot they signed up or that a young family member probably used the handset to sign up while the owner was not watching.
In truth, there is a long history of subscription providers being fined for abusing consumer trust and allowing mobile numbers to be registered via deceptive means.
This i ncludes ‘ click- jacking’, where a user is tricked into clicking on a consent-to-charge button masked to look like something else – such as a link to an interesting article. Malicious software hidden in some apps has also been shown to trigger premium rate charges.
Meanwhile, the regulator settles the vast majority of problems raised about premium rate companies informally, rather than with penalties and public reprimands.
Only big investigations by the regulator – triggered by a large number of complaints about the same company – tend to result in a fine and orders for customers to be repaid. Refunds are otherwise at the mercy of subscription providers or mobile networks.
One reader called Scott, who wanted to keep his surname private, wrote to The Mail on Sunday about his frustrating experience. He lost £171 between June last year and the end of July this year for two subscriptions – one for a game and another for a service about wrestling – neither of which he wanted or used.
Even after he tried to halt the texts by replying with a ‘STOP’ message, the charges continued. Scott was initially offered a ‘derisory’ refund in acknowledgement that he had tried to put an end to the messages. He refused, claiming he wanted a full refund, but all of his ensuing queries were stonewalled.
In an email to the company, he says: ‘I do not understand how this subscription has been authorised. I have no interest whatsoever in wrestling. Whatever services you are offering I have never used. I did not and would not have authorised any payment to be taken from my account.’
Mobile networks typically say customer problems should be resolved by the service provider. But The Mail on Sunday asked Scott’s mobile network, EE, to intervene. He has now been repaid the money.
Despite reluctance by mobile networks to tackle disputes, they frequently hear from their disgruntled customers – and do sometimes pay refunds. As a result of complaints, EE has pre-empted future regulatory action. It now demands third parties ask customers to create an account or use a PIN sent to their mobile to confirm a subscription.
Other customers will need to wait until next year to see if the regulator and other mobile networks tighten up the system further to stamp out fraud.
Customers should also check their mobile phone bills in detail for unexpected charges. To find out more about premium rate texts visit the regulator’s website at psauthority.org.uk.