email scam ???

[mjr]

I don't really see what they (Vodafone) have done. How do they know whether the company has charged the person legitimately or not? How do they know if the customer has, or has not signed up for the services that they're being charged for?

They don't, but they are taking money on behalf of the service provider, so they ought to have a better dispute resolution procedure than telling the customer rule 5.

 

[swee'pea99]

I don't really see what they (Vodafone) have done. How do they know whether the company has charged the person legitimately or not? How do they know if the customer has, or has not signed up for the services that they're being charged for?

What they've done is to make it a conscious policy to profit from the behaviour of thieves. Another one they like is refusing to set 'credit limits', or allow customers to set a limit on their call charges. They could very easily do this. Just like the banks do. But the way they like to play it is to allow criminal types to set up premium rate numbers, then steal phones and call the numbers for hours on end. The customer gets a bill for £6,000 - legally enforceable, thanks to carefully worded terms & conditions, and boy do they enforce it - of which the crims get half, and the operators get the other half. Nice work if you can get it. Or, to put it another way, legalised robbery.

It's been going on for years. Oftel has told them they must not do it. They agree to stop doing it. They go on doing it. Why? Because it makes them lots of money.

 

[Tin Pot]

Delete, then delete it from your deleted folder.

Then burn the computer, change your name, and move house.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

What they've done is to make it a conscious policy to profit from the behaviour of thieves. Another one they like is refusing to set 'credit limits', or allow customers to set a limit on their call charges. They could very easily do this. Just like the banks do. But the way they like to play it is to allow criminal types to set up premium rate numbers, then steal phones and call the numbers for hours on end. The customer gets a bill for £6,000 - legally enforceable, thanks to carefully worded terms & conditions, and boy do they enforce it - of which the crims get half, and the operators get the other half. Nice work if you can get it. Or, to put it another way, legalised robbery.

It's been going on for years. Oftel has told them they must not do it. They agree to stop doing it. They go on doing it. Why? Because it makes them lots of money.

PAYG is a good way of capping your payments. Unless of course you keep on topping it up while complaining it is being fraudulently taken.

Various other operators offer to cap contracts.

Smartphones can be capped via third party applications.

Around 2002 ish, the Government forced all operators to introduce a £100 limit in relation to theft, and fraud.

 

[Tin Pot]

Hi All
I'm assuming this is a scam, its a new one to me.
I received the following email with an attachment that I have not opened, can anybody confirm

Message cleaned: E-Service (Europe) Ltd Invoice No: 10013405

We've removed a virus from your email
An email sent to you has been cleaned and the infected attachment removed, as it contained a computer virus. The original plain text message is shown below.
What next?
If the email is important, contact the sender and ask them to carry out anti-virus checks before resending or removing any attachments.

Original message


Dear Customer,

Please find your invoice attached from E-Service (Europe) Ltd. We kindly ask you to make payment for all transactions on or before their due date.

Please contact E-Service (Europe) if you have any issues or queries preventing your prompt payment on:

Tel (44) 01707 280000
Email: accounts@e-service.co.uk<mailto:accounts@e-service.co.uk>

Or logon and register to access your customer portal where you can view all historic orders & transactions on www.e-service.co.uk< http://www.e-service.co.uk>

PLEASE NOTE NEW E-SERVICE (EUROPE) BANK DETAILS:

Currency A/C No. Sort Code Swift Code IBAN No.

GBP 21698613 40-04-37 MIDLGB22 GB48MIDL40043721698613
EUR 71685997 40-05-15 MIDLGB22 GB75MIDL40051571685997

Kind regards

E-Service (Europe) Accounts Team

Is this on your work or personal mail account?

Do you use security software/services from someone like Sumantec, Sophos, McAfee etc? If so, they will have somewhere you can forward as attachments a suspicious email.

 

[swee'pea99]

Around 2002 ish, the Government forced all operators to introduce a £100 limit in relation to theft, and fraud.

Yeah, that's working a treat. This from 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/17/vodafone-customer-billing-nightmare-mobile-theft

 

[mjr]

PAYG is a good way of capping your payments. Unless of course you keep on topping it up while complaining it is being fraudulently taken.

Strangely enough, if you don't top it up, they stop you using the phone for outgoing calls, texts and data.

Smartphones can be capped via third party applications.

That won't stop bogus provider-billed subscription services, will it?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Yeah, that's working a treat. This from 2014.

View attachment 121059

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/17/vodafone-customer-billing-nightmare-mobile-theft

Is there any evidence of any court upholding these claims and forcing payment? Or are these just reports of the original argument?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

That won't stop bogus provider-billed subscription services, will it?

No but then, I wonder how many calls the operator gets when the persons Wife finds out they had a subscription to Glamour Chicks. They protest their innocence it's fraud. And, will call the operator right away to get it sorted.

 

[swee'pea99]

Is there any evidence of any court upholding these claims and forcing payment? Or are these just reports of the original argument?

Plenty. And like I say, all of it is totally and easily stoppable. Just as banks set a credit limit, the operators could set a limit, or just have their software flag up 'unusual activity', which is the kind of thing computers are really good at. ("Let's see now, this customer has been with us for three years and his account has never been outside the range £14-£22/month in all that time. He's just run up £180 in calls over the last hour. Um....") But they choose not to. Because it suits them.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Plenty. And like I say, all of it is totally and easily stoppable. Just as banks set a credit limit, the operators could set a limit, or just have their software flag up 'unusual activity', which is the kind of thing computers are really good at. ("Let's see now, this customer has been with us for three years and his account has never been outside the range £14-£22/month in all that time. He's just run up £180 in calls over the last hour. Um....") But they choose not to. Because it suits them.

So if there's plenty of occasions of courts enforcing the payments to be made. I'm sure you won't have trouble supplying a link to some as evidence?

 

[swee'pea99]

So if there's plenty of occasions of courts enforcing the payments to be made. I'm sure you won't have trouble supplying a link to some as evidence?

Why don't you just read the article at that link? You don't work for Vodafone (legalised robbers inc.) by any chance?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Why don't you just read the article at that link? You don't work for Vodafone (legalised robbers inc.) by any chance?

I have read it, it says they were charged by Vodafone. It also says they can still appeal to the ombudsman.

It is still far away refusal to pay, going to court, and then the court forcing them to pay.

Have you any evidence that these charges have actually been enforced by a court?

 

[swee'pea99]

Ok, you've clearly got an agenda of some sort, and you've finally bored me into submission. You believe what you want to believe. I'll stick with believing what I believe, which is that the operators cynically refuse to use the technology at their disposal to protect their customers from fraud, preferring to continue benefiting from such fraud, which they do, whether in the form of massive bills to people whose phones have been stolen, or people receiving unwanted, unrequested £3 texts from Zamano Solutions or Chicks Galore!, with the onus being on them to 'text STOP' to at least attempt to prevent further daylight robbery. But like I say, you're clearly on some kind of a mission, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Ok, you've clearly got an agenda of some sort, and you've finally bored me into submission. You believe what you want to believe. I'll stick with believing what I believe, which is that the operators cynically refuse to use the technology at their disposal to protect their customers from fraud, preferring to continue benefiting from such fraud, which they do, whether in the form of massive bills to people whose phones have been stolen, or people receiving unwanted, unrequested £3 texts from Zamano Solutions or Chicks Galore!, with the onus being on them to 'text STOP' to at least attempt to prevent further daylight robbery. But like I say, you're clearly on some kind of a mission, so I'll leave you to it.

Not really.

You said that there is evidence of these charges being upheld by courts. I challenged that, you cannot supply proof of your statement. All that is being reported is that Vodafone have invoiced some customers for calls, some have paid, some have challenged. There's no reports of any of these going to court, and the court forcing the customer to pay.