Don't get mad, get even! Law question.
Discussion
Following the USA cold call thread
[ur]here|http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=141&h=&t=185976[/url] I’ve been doing a bit of lateral thinking, because I’m really determined to nail these bastards now. (ooops sorry Bliarout can I claim one of my £1 donations to your swear box back?)
Posting this in SP&L because it does concern an issue of law and wanted to run it past the real geezers.
Vipers and tonker on that other thread suggested that some of these calls if returned are on premium rate numbers where the rates involved may be excessive.
Also it is alleged that BT is aware of this, happy to take their cut off the excessive rate and pass on the remainder of the call cost to the scammer. I do not recall hearing any message that the cost of the returned call will be $x/min, but I’ll take more note next time.
My thoughts, would appreciate comments from those who know better than I.
I would argue that this method of cold calling amounts to a scam or a fraudulent business.
Therefore for these people to get in possession of the money, it first has to be charged on a customer bill by BT, who then retain a share and pass on the remainder.
If BT have had enough complaints about this, then they must be in a position to know that they are in receipt of money fraudulently obtained from their customers. Knowing that you are in possession of the proceeds of crime is a crime in itself.
Applying principle of law known as "constructive trust" then if BT knows money in its possession has been fraudulently obtained then they must ensure that such money does not get passed to criminals.
If they do when there are reasonable grounds to suspect the money has been fraudulently obtained then they are guilty of a crime and a criminal complaint could be made against BT under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 specifically sections 328 (arrangements) and 329 (Acquisition, Use and Possession). Possibly also 327 (Concealing) dependant upon how comunications with BT unfold.
Could it be argued that such dealings also amount to money-laundering? In which case UK statutes do not limit offences to those only taking place in UK.
As you can tell I’m not getting angry, just getting even.
I haven’t actually been billed by any of these scammers yet, just doing homework before the dogs of war are unleashed.
Any thoughts? Anyone?
[ur]here|http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=141&h=&t=185976[/url] I’ve been doing a bit of lateral thinking, because I’m really determined to nail these bastards now. (ooops sorry Bliarout can I claim one of my £1 donations to your swear box back?)
Posting this in SP&L because it does concern an issue of law and wanted to run it past the real geezers.
Vipers and tonker on that other thread suggested that some of these calls if returned are on premium rate numbers where the rates involved may be excessive.
Also it is alleged that BT is aware of this, happy to take their cut off the excessive rate and pass on the remainder of the call cost to the scammer. I do not recall hearing any message that the cost of the returned call will be $x/min, but I’ll take more note next time.
My thoughts, would appreciate comments from those who know better than I.
I would argue that this method of cold calling amounts to a scam or a fraudulent business.
Therefore for these people to get in possession of the money, it first has to be charged on a customer bill by BT, who then retain a share and pass on the remainder.
If BT have had enough complaints about this, then they must be in a position to know that they are in receipt of money fraudulently obtained from their customers. Knowing that you are in possession of the proceeds of crime is a crime in itself.
Applying principle of law known as "constructive trust" then if BT knows money in its possession has been fraudulently obtained then they must ensure that such money does not get passed to criminals.
If they do when there are reasonable grounds to suspect the money has been fraudulently obtained then they are guilty of a crime and a criminal complaint could be made against BT under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 specifically sections 328 (arrangements) and 329 (Acquisition, Use and Possession). Possibly also 327 (Concealing) dependant upon how comunications with BT unfold.
Could it be argued that such dealings also amount to money-laundering? In which case UK statutes do not limit offences to those only taking place in UK.
As you can tell I’m not getting angry, just getting even.
I haven’t actually been billed by any of these scammers yet, just doing homework before the dogs of war are unleashed.
Any thoughts? Anyone?
Sorry but you're on a fat hiding to nothing here. Firstly as has been said many times - both the the £20 a minute and the being charged for an incoming call are complete myths. The maximum charge is £1.50/min, and it's impossible to be charged for a call that didn't originate on your phone, no matter how many buttons you press.
Secondly, it's well established in law that providers of services like that are not liable for what their customers might do. You may as well say that Southern Electric should be put into the dock because they provide the electricity used to power the lightbulbs used by criminals.
Thirdly, BT doesn't pay any money at all to these offshore scammers. BT have an arrangement with other networks, which in turn sell network bandwidth to service providers who may well re-sell it down again. Somewhere down the chain is a financial transaction involving the scammer and a service provider, but it's a long way from BT.
Fourthly, BT are strictly bound in what they can or can't do by all kinds of regulatory requirements. Witholding payment due a customer would mean that they'd be dumped on from a great height.
Fifthly, BT are not the bad people here. BT regularly cut people off, block numbers etc. etc. when they find out that they're doing naughty things. Save your anger for the baddies!
Disclaimer: although I don't work directly for BT they are one of my biggest clients and I spend a lot of time in BT offices. They also pay a large proportion of my mortgage
Secondly, it's well established in law that providers of services like that are not liable for what their customers might do. You may as well say that Southern Electric should be put into the dock because they provide the electricity used to power the lightbulbs used by criminals.
Thirdly, BT doesn't pay any money at all to these offshore scammers. BT have an arrangement with other networks, which in turn sell network bandwidth to service providers who may well re-sell it down again. Somewhere down the chain is a financial transaction involving the scammer and a service provider, but it's a long way from BT.
Fourthly, BT are strictly bound in what they can or can't do by all kinds of regulatory requirements. Witholding payment due a customer would mean that they'd be dumped on from a great height.
Fifthly, BT are not the bad people here. BT regularly cut people off, block numbers etc. etc. when they find out that they're doing naughty things. Save your anger for the baddies!
Disclaimer: although I don't work directly for BT they are one of my biggest clients and I spend a lot of time in BT offices. They also pay a large proportion of my mortgage
deckster said:
Sorry but you're on a fat hiding to nothing here.
8< snip 8<
Disclaimer: although I don't work directly for BT they are one of my biggest clients and I spend a lot of time in BT offices. They also pay a large proportion of my mortgage
Thanks for declaring the conflict of interest.
You might like to know that BT are subject to investigation for what they describe on their website as "Premium rate scams."
These are where software is installed on your computer without your permission and alters your dial up connection to a premium rate or international number.
The argument applied is exactly as I have above, except that the installation of unauthorised software is an offence under the Computer Misuse act, and therefore it is clear that any monies so obtained are the result of a fraud and criminal act.
deckster said:
both the the £20 a minute and the being charged for an incoming call are complete myths. The maximum charge is £1.50/min,
Acc BT it's up to £2.18/min, and the rate/min doesn't matter, it's still a fraudulent transaction imo.
deckster said:
providers of services like that are not liable for what their customers might do.
That isn't the argument being applied, it is what BT does by demanding and handling money obtained as a result of a crime.
deckster said:Absolutely true, its set up through a very complicated and hidden network of companies. If the connection (pardon the pun) can be made, and a crime proved. yabba dabba do!
BT doesn't pay any money at all to these offshore scammers.
deckster said:So sitting on 100,000 plus complaints about the premium rate dial up scams and effectively doing feck all about it makes them a good guy then.
BT are not the bad people here.
I think not.
Flat in Fifth said:The 'dialer' software you describe is installed when the user clicks a link to install it (most commonly when trawling pornography sites). CMA does not apply - Streaky
You might like to know that BT are subject to investigation for what they describe on their website as "Premium rate scams."
These are where software is installed on your computer without your permission and alters your dial up connection to a premium rate or international number.
The argument applied is exactly as I have above, except that the installation of unauthorised software is an offence under the Computer Misuse act, and therefore it is clear that any monies so obtained are the result of a fraud and criminal act.
streaky said:
You might like to know that BT are subject to investigation for what they describe on their website as "Premium rate scams."
These are where software is installed on your computer without your permission and alters your dial up connection to a premium rate or international number.
The argument applied is exactly as I have above, except that the installation of unauthorised software is an offence under the Computer Misuse act, and therefore it is clear that any monies so obtained are the result of a fraud and criminal act.
The 'dialer' software you describe is installed when the user clicks a link to install it (most commonly when trawling pornography sites). CMA does not apply - Streaky
Like installing an mp3 download and they get the dialler without being told? Agree to disagree?
If you want to find out who owns a number stick it into this:
www.ukphoneinfo.com/section/home/introduction.shtml
It will tell you a load of info about the owner and cost. It's not 100% but a good indication.
As for the Reverse billing stuff. The only way I've seen it done is they take your CLI and ring you back to get your name and address then send a bill. If you don't pay it they become very aggressive and threatening. They have a good knack of getting the name and address out of people, I'm sure it doesn't work all the time.
You should be able to search Offtel's site for previous complaints about numbers as well.
www.ukphoneinfo.com/section/home/introduction.shtml
It will tell you a load of info about the owner and cost. It's not 100% but a good indication.
As for the Reverse billing stuff. The only way I've seen it done is they take your CLI and ring you back to get your name and address then send a bill. If you don't pay it they become very aggressive and threatening. They have a good knack of getting the name and address out of people, I'm sure it doesn't work all the time.
You should be able to search Offtel's site for previous complaints about numbers as well.
Flat in Fifth said:
You might like to know that BT are subject to investigation for what they describe on their website as "Premium rate scams."
To the best of my knowledge, the only information that is in the public domain is that a 'short report' has been sent to the CPS to keep an MP happy. Unless I've badly misunderstood the situation, the chances of a prosecution being brought are somewhere between none and bugger all.
Flat in Fifth said:
The argument applied is exactly as I have above, except that the installation of unauthorised software is an offence under the Computer Misuse act, and therefore it is clear that any monies so obtained are the result of a fraud and criminal act.
Yep, nothing to disagree with here.
Flat in Fifth said:
providers of services like that are not liable for what their customers might do.
That isn't the argument being applied, it is what BT does by demanding and handling money obtained as a result of a crime.
<...>
If the connection (pardon the pun) can be made, and a crime proved. yabba dabba do!
Indeed - and this is BT's problem. They can't legally withold funds, no matter how odious the customer, until wrongdoing has been proven. A few - or even a lot - of complaints do not a crime prove. Now whether they should, out of goodness of their hearts (or commercial interests, which is much the same thing
) then not charge the end customer for a disputed transaction is a different matter - and I happen to believe that the charges should be waived. They are however under no legal obligation to do so. Flat in Fifth said:
BT are not the bad people here.
So sitting on 100,000 plus complaints about the premium rate dial up scams and effectively doing feck all about it makes them a good guy then.
Doing nothing? Hardly. It's very widely discussed in the industry as a whole, these companies are routinely fined huge sums (which are never paid, but that's a different matter) and BT have released free software that not only cleans up your system for you, it effectively stops it from ever happening again. You really can't accuse them of bad faith here.
deckster said:
Now whether they should, out of goodness of their hearts (or commercial interests, which is much the same thing
Well they have offered (or maybe actually do) to pay their share to charity. That would not be the case unless they accepted the money is dodgy.
Comments about clean up software accepted, but they do not waive the debt. The most they do is arrange some sort of payment plan.
This is not just a UK problem so maybe BT is not alone in their stance.
I don't think a short report to shut an MP up is enough. They ARE the subject of a criminal complaint afaik, and criminal complaints MUST be investigated. The question is the priority given.
I wonder if the boot were on other foot, UK companies scamming US citizens how the picture would look.
What I find unbelieveable about the situation is that after direct discussion the official line from BT is that they admit they get hundreds of complaint calls each and every day about these "You have won.... press 9..." calls. Yet they say they don't know, and have not investigated what happens if you do press 9. If that is so they are seriously delinquent imho.
They say you can be charged though, and the rate, whilst it should be £1.50/min max, could in fact be higher, "it just depends upon how the scammer has set it up." Note the quote marks.
I do accept their comments that this is something for the Govt to act upon, I don't approve of their mealy-mouthed stance that they must sit on their hands until such Govt legislation is fully in place.
Unimpressed.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 16th June 09:19
Flat in Fifth said:
Now whether they should, out of goodness of their hearts (or commercial interests, which is much the same thing
Well they have offered (or maybe actually do) to pay their share to charity. That would not be the case unless they accepted the money is dodgy.
Blimey. Guilty until proven innocent or what. What are you going to say next, 'no smoke without fire'? The giving or otherwise of the money to charity is neither here nor there - it's purely for PR purposes.
Flat in Fifth said:
What I find unbelieveable about the situation is that after direct discussion the official line from BT is that they admit they get hundreds of complaint calls each and every day about these "You have won.... press 9..." calls. Yet they say they don't know, and have not investigated what happens if you do press 9. If that is so they are seriously delinquent imho.
Of course they know what happens - absolutely nothing. This DOES NOT and CANNOT cost you any money. If you press 9 then you are connected to an operator - that's it! Spend five minutes on google and read the first few links.
Flat in Fifth said:
They say you can be charged though, and the rate, whilst it should be £1.50/min max, could in fact be higher, "it just depends upon how the scammer has set it up." Note the quote marks.
References please. I can provide many that say the precise opposite - as can the aforesaid five minutes on google.
Flat in Fifth said:
I do accept their comments that this is something for the Govt to act upon, I don't approve of their mealy-mouthed stance that they must sit on their hands until such Govt legislation is fully in place.
So exactly *what* do you want them to do? *Which* problem is it you're trying to fix? You've mixed up so many different things here it's not clear. There are at least three separate issues that I can see:
1) Offshore diallers that *do not* charge you anything to listen to them, and *do not* receive any money from BT. BT simply cannot do anything about these.
2) Trojans that change your dial-up settings and run up big phone bills. Notwithstanding the issue of personal responsibility (do you blame the door manufacturer if fit inadequate locks?), you want BT to:
a) not charge customers for the cost of the calls, and
b) not pass on monies due the scammers
The first is an ethical issue and basically boils down to BT paying for a customers mistake and/or stupidity. There's also the very real chance of your teenage son (generalising here...) deliberately if naively installing a porn dialler and then claiming 'oh no, I didn't do that'.
The second you claim to be an illegal act - well, I'm no lawyer but frankly it seems unlikely given the nature of BTs legal obligations towards its customers. However none of us can second-guess the CPS (although I'll bet good money that BT has better lawyers
) Replying to comments not in the original order but hope it all ties together..
Well yes it is a complicated issue unfortunately.
The legal position on the dial up trojan issue is clear if not tested in court. Discussions have taken place with national Hi-Tech Crime unit and they, BT, HAVE been informed that a criminal offence has occurred. BT admit that they cannot refuse to carry telecommunication traffic unless a criminal act is clearly established. I think it has been so established.
That issue is clearly indicated as a “scam.” Not my choice of word, it is your “employers” wording. I think you agreed with that earlier.
The dial up aspect was introduced to the discussion to show that the legal logic works in that case, and the question was whether a similar logic could be applied to the telephone “marketing” aspect.
BTW nice try to introduce the smokescreen re surfing for porn element. Many people have been caught in other much more innocent ways.
Of course I would say, in all fairness, that these people are guilty of being naïve and not having all the drawbridges closed and defences fully armed on their computers. Possibly also they may be “guilty” of surfing in areas of the internet I wouldn’t go near with a bargepole.
Just for the record in case you hadn’t already figured I have not suffered in any way from these scams apart from receiving the calls which are left well alone. Equally re the dial up, the security systems and user discipline in place on my PCs are such that this has never been a problem. That includes never visiting dodgy parts on the internet.
too many members of public have sworn same thing, never agreed, no knowledge, no consent. Dunno on that to be honest, seen too many PCs where the user has sworn “No I never touched nuffink” and then you find they had tipped coffee into the keyboard.
Are you aware that some of the companies in these chains are actually selling network products on behalf of BT? This makes BT’s claim that their stake in this is only the 1.85% which they pay to charity as being somewhat economical with the truth.
So why don’t they say EXACTLY that then?
Why all this, you might/might not be charged, we don’t know, it all depends stuff?
Either they DO know, but for some reason are not saying. Possible internal communication error? Or they genuinely DON’T know and are not investigating and just sitting on their hands, but continuing to rake money in from callers, some of whom may be their customers.
Either way the above two situations are despite them admitting that they receive hundreds of complaints and queries avery day about this single issue. Whichever of the options is true this is incompetence or worse deliberate arrogance.
Which bit of “direct discussion” needs further explanation. Perhaps its left hand right hand scenario, more incompetence?
I do accept you are trying to protect your “employer” and fair enough.
And finally
If BT pays money to odious companies before it claims the money from its own customers this is BT’s problem, not its customers.
What is more it appears from investigation that some of these intermediary companies have a policy that as soon as a customer complains the money is automatically refunded. Cynically I would say this is to avoid an investigation. So if these “odious customers,” using your terminology, behave like this what does that say about BT?
Well actually the case is that if you have legal clout then BT will back off, exercise their discretion and not pursue the matter, whilst at the same time negotiating payment terms with other customers who are less well equipped to argue their case. BT actively does not want people to know about this policy. There is possible legal argument that they are in default of other laws if they aggressively pursue the payments which is why they automatically back off when faced with a fight. Cynical? Moi?
It may be that with hindsight BT will say at some point that they wished they had paid more attention to complaints from customers.
Someone else summed it up as follows.
“Wilful blindness” is no defence.
“Not our problem” is no defence.
“Needs Govt to act, until then not sure what we can do” is no defence.
“Call the regulator” is no defence.
“We are a huge corporation with political connections and are arrogant enough to think we have better lawyers than the CPS” is no defence.
Good day.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 16th June 12:04
deckster said:
You've mixed up so many different things here it's not clear.
Well yes it is a complicated issue unfortunately.
The legal position on the dial up trojan issue is clear if not tested in court. Discussions have taken place with national Hi-Tech Crime unit and they, BT, HAVE been informed that a criminal offence has occurred. BT admit that they cannot refuse to carry telecommunication traffic unless a criminal act is clearly established. I think it has been so established.
That issue is clearly indicated as a “scam.” Not my choice of word, it is your “employers” wording. I think you agreed with that earlier.
The dial up aspect was introduced to the discussion to show that the legal logic works in that case, and the question was whether a similar logic could be applied to the telephone “marketing” aspect.
BTW nice try to introduce the smokescreen re surfing for porn element. Many people have been caught in other much more innocent ways.
Of course I would say, in all fairness, that these people are guilty of being naïve and not having all the drawbridges closed and defences fully armed on their computers. Possibly also they may be “guilty” of surfing in areas of the internet I wouldn’t go near with a bargepole.
Just for the record in case you hadn’t already figured I have not suffered in any way from these scams apart from receiving the calls which are left well alone. Equally re the dial up, the security systems and user discipline in place on my PCs are such that this has never been a problem. That includes never visiting dodgy parts on the internet.
deckster said:
your teenage son (generalising here...) deliberately if naively installing a porn dialler and then claiming 'oh no, I didn't do that'.
too many members of public have sworn same thing, never agreed, no knowledge, no consent. Dunno on that to be honest, seen too many PCs where the user has sworn “No I never touched nuffink” and then you find they had tipped coffee into the keyboard.
deckster said:
Blimey. Guilty until proven innocent or what. What are you going to say next, 'no smoke without fire'? The giving or otherwise of the money to charity is neither here nor there - it's purely for PR purposes
Are you aware that some of the companies in these chains are actually selling network products on behalf of BT? This makes BT’s claim that their stake in this is only the 1.85% which they pay to charity as being somewhat economical with the truth.
deckster said:
Of course they know what happens - absolutely nothing.
So why don’t they say EXACTLY that then?
Why all this, you might/might not be charged, we don’t know, it all depends stuff?
Either they DO know, but for some reason are not saying. Possible internal communication error? Or they genuinely DON’T know and are not investigating and just sitting on their hands, but continuing to rake money in from callers, some of whom may be their customers.
Either way the above two situations are despite them admitting that they receive hundreds of complaints and queries avery day about this single issue. Whichever of the options is true this is incompetence or worse deliberate arrogance.
deckster said:
References please
Which bit of “direct discussion” needs further explanation. Perhaps its left hand right hand scenario, more incompetence?
I do accept you are trying to protect your “employer” and fair enough.
And finally
deckster said:
a) not charge customers for the cost of the calls, and
b) not pass on monies due the scammers
If BT pays money to odious companies before it claims the money from its own customers this is BT’s problem, not its customers.
What is more it appears from investigation that some of these intermediary companies have a policy that as soon as a customer complains the money is automatically refunded. Cynically I would say this is to avoid an investigation. So if these “odious customers,” using your terminology, behave like this what does that say about BT?
Well actually the case is that if you have legal clout then BT will back off, exercise their discretion and not pursue the matter, whilst at the same time negotiating payment terms with other customers who are less well equipped to argue their case. BT actively does not want people to know about this policy. There is possible legal argument that they are in default of other laws if they aggressively pursue the payments which is why they automatically back off when faced with a fight. Cynical? Moi?
It may be that with hindsight BT will say at some point that they wished they had paid more attention to complaints from customers.
Someone else summed it up as follows.
“Wilful blindness” is no defence.
“Not our problem” is no defence.
“Needs Govt to act, until then not sure what we can do” is no defence.
“Call the regulator” is no defence.
“We are a huge corporation with political connections and are arrogant enough to think we have better lawyers than the CPS” is no defence.
Good day.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 16th June 12:04
I may be barking up the wrong tree here but I am fairly sure that the recent Proceeds of Crime Act makes it an offence not to report cases where you have reasonable grounds to suspect that monies are a result of a criminal or fraudulent act.
I am currently arguing over my phone bill with BT which has a number of auto-dialled premium rate numbers which I am refusing to pay. The fact that I have told them that I did not knowingly make these calls and that it was an autodialler illegally downloaded into my computer means that they must have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the transaction is fraudulent.
If they continue to press me for payment then they must therefore be in breach of the law themselves.
The stupid thing is that I advised them of the numbers as soon as my bill arrived and suggested that they don't pay the 3rd party. Their response was an arrogant, "We will pay them, you will pay us. If it is fraudulent you can recover your money from them." My response to that was "You can pay them, I won't pay you." I now get red reminders every few weeks and each time I just send them a copy of my original letter to them which they promptly ignore.
From these other posts it looks as though some legal judgement has recently gone against BT. Can anyone explain what this is in more detail?
T
I am currently arguing over my phone bill with BT which has a number of auto-dialled premium rate numbers which I am refusing to pay. The fact that I have told them that I did not knowingly make these calls and that it was an autodialler illegally downloaded into my computer means that they must have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the transaction is fraudulent.
If they continue to press me for payment then they must therefore be in breach of the law themselves.
The stupid thing is that I advised them of the numbers as soon as my bill arrived and suggested that they don't pay the 3rd party. Their response was an arrogant, "We will pay them, you will pay us. If it is fraudulent you can recover your money from them." My response to that was "You can pay them, I won't pay you." I now get red reminders every few weeks and each time I just send them a copy of my original letter to them which they promptly ignore.
From these other posts it looks as though some legal judgement has recently gone against BT. Can anyone explain what this is in more detail?
T
streaky said:
The 'dialer' software you describe is installed when the user clicks a link to install it (most commonly when trawling pornography sites). CMA does not apply - Streaky
Not always, much of the time the provider uses browser exploits to install the software. I have cleaned several computers which have had dialers installing the this way, and there are sites which list dialers known to use explots. I don't know of a conviction involving their use, probably because forensic IT investigators are in short supply and there is a year's backlog for them as it is.
Gareth
the t boy said:
From these other posts it looks as though some legal judgement has recently gone against BT. Can anyone explain what this is in more detail?
T
That is the problem, there isn't a legal judgement.
It could be argued (considering IANAL) that BT by acting the bully are in violation of an offence under statute 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which deals with the unlawful harrassment of a debtor.
So far, afaik, when confronted they have backed off if they see someone is serious. Get your MP involved!
If you so desire drop me a mail through PH and I'll send you the text of a draft letter to send them.
No promises it will work, but you see the Miss Trunchbowl [1] attitude as demonstrated by others above.
[1] Miss Trunchbowl in the film of Roald Dahl's Matilda
"I'm big, you're small. I'm right, you're wrong."
edited to add ICSTIS amended its Code of Practice on Monday see www.icstis.org.uk/icstis2002/pdf/Emergency%20Code%20amendment.pdf
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 16th June 14:05
Flat in Fifth said:
No promises it will work, but you see the Miss Trunchbowl [1] attitude as demonstrated by others above.
[1] Miss Trunchbowl in the film of Roald Dahl's Matilda
"I'm big, you're small. I'm right, you're wrong."
If by 'others' you mean me, then please don't put words in my mouth! I don't believe I've ever said that. The closest I've got is to say that there is as yet no legal case for BT to answer, and that morally perhaps they should consider returning the money to the wronged customer.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course you can tell where the calls come from, but that's not the point. What they *can't* do is withold any money from them, as a) they don't have any contact with the scammer, and b) they aren't giving them any money anyway.
People seem to be thinking that I'm some kind of a BT-weenie, or apologist for big business here. I'm not! They don't employ me! They do however come in for a lot stick from otherwise intelligent people who frankly should know better than to shoot the messenger (the messenger being BT).
The prevailing PH opinion seems to be that people should be responsible for their own actions and not seek to blame others needlessly - witness the low regard that ambulance chasing no-win-no-fee law firms are held in. Why is this situation any different?
>> Edited by deckster on Thursday 16th June 14:50
deckster said:
and b) they aren't giving them any money anyway.
Everyone at BT that I have spoken to regarding this issue has said words to the effect of "We are contracted with the third party to pay them money for calls made through our newtork. We are merely collecting the money on their behalf and are contractually obliged to do so."
Seems contradictory to the above.
deckster said:
If by 'others' you mean me, then please don't put words in my mouth! I don't believe I've ever said that.
Fair comment, sorry about that, though the "BT has better lawyers" crack was pushing it somewhat I thought.
No probs, sorry if it riled you, and it was incorrect of me to aim that partially in your direction.
the t boy said:
and b) they aren't giving them any money anyway.
Everyone at BT that I have spoken to regarding this issue has said words to the effect of "We are contracted with the third party to pay them money for calls made through our newtork. We are merely collecting the money on their behalf and are contractually obliged to do so."
Seems contradictory to the above.
The point, t boy, is that BT are relying on the probable fact that you do not have the ability to track the transaction from start to finish through the maze of international companies which will have been set up. This will include odd ball outfits with accommodation addresses amounting to not much more that dead letter drops in Lausanne or Cayman Islands or New Jersey or some other god forsaken place. Deliberately double blind companies will be set up to put folks off the trail.
Up to you but I think you need to document your complaint in writing and make them aware you are serious.
Bit worried about your statement that you told them "you can pay them......." Hmmmm potentially tricky that.
Start off by contacting ICSTIS and asking which company runs / leases the numbers that you have been charged for dialling. Will help put your case together, and you may be able to follow a trail so far before handing it over to the professionals.
Contacting them will NOT be easy, their line is apparently permanently engaged with folks ringing up to complain about premium rate scams of one sort or another, hence emergency code of conduct change referred earlier.
Just my 2p on your case.
the t boy said:
and b) they aren't giving them any money anyway.
Everyone at BT that I have spoken to regarding this issue has said words to the effect of "We are contracted with the third party to pay them money for calls made through our newtork. We are merely collecting the money on their behalf and are contractually obliged to do so."
Seems contradictory to the above.
Argh. I seem to be repeating myself.
There are *two* scams here - the offshore, 'press 9' scam which although technically illegal under UK law doesn't (can't) actually cost you money, and the trojan dialler one. That comment referred to the first, not the second which I absolutely agree is illegal, costs innocent people money and should be stopped by all means possible.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff