Multiple Texts Off 84222 number just now?

[Penny7]

I have received multiple text messages off a 84222 number that states it is a Friday lockdown offer. The usual text STOP to unsubscribe or visit link for whatever. I’ve not replied to it, I’ve just blocked the number via my phone, but will I be charged for even receiving the texts?? Thanks in advance 🙂

[MI5]

---

@bouncealong313 wrote:

@MI5 I'm pretty sure there are laws that say you can't financially benefit from the proceeds of crime, otherwise you can be held accountable for the very same crimes yourself?

---

@bouncealong313 

If you or I walked around town taking a £1 from shoppers pockets, it would be a crime, unfortunately there is no legislation against these "scams" so not a crime (well it is, but legalised)......

[bouncealong313]

@madasaf1sh I appreciate that if they were just random criminals but if O2 are saying they're a genuine "merchant" then they need to have some kind of structured approach to obtaining data - so if O2 stand by them being genuine "merchants", then what evidence have they seen of the company obtaining data through legal means rather than the guess approach? That's why I bring things like that up. If O2 are "investigating" then they should be able to find out very quickly and easily if the company has used your "guess numbers" approach and just spammed any number possible - and ought to do something about that even more than if they'd obtained data in a dodgy way, so it'd be even more shocking if they're not taking any further action against the company.

And on the other point you brought up - technically it is already meant to be an opt-in. GDPR has made it so that the company even obtaining your data (phone number) and being able to process it in any way is MEANT to be opt-in only. The current "standard" for premium rate texts is meant to be that the premium number texts you and you have to reply to it to "opt in" before actually being able to receive any charged texts. Clearly, neither of those opt-in approaches have worked well enough to prevent fraud in this way. For example, GDPR itself making data sharing/usage opt-in doesn't actually prevent any more data abuse than what happened previously - it only now gives the ICO more ability and scope to carry out enforcement when it chooses to. Until phone providers are held directly responsible and accountable for fraudulent actions through the services they provide the same as banks and financial services companies are, there will always be ways around optional approaches and phone providers will continue to be disinterested.

[SpaceGeek]

Can we confirm that we will be recieving refunds? O2 fraud team in customer services treated me like it was my fault I received 25 of the same message in 1 minute and despite never signing up to them.

I am feeling a bit deflated by the whole experience. I think he put a block on premium numbers on my phone, but then gave me an 0333 number to call to dispute charges which doesn't work (possibly because he just blocked charges for me???). I feel really helpless.

[Payforit_Sucks]

@bouncealong313 

There is zero chance of O2 taking any serious steps to stop these fraudulent charges, as they receive as much as 30% of the proceeds themselves! O2 used to dispute this figure, but figures released in recent PSA adudications show it to be accurate.

The flaw in the system is that a "third party" who has your phone number can place fraudulent charges on your account through an aggregator like Tap2Bill. O2 make no attempt to validate these charges.

Imagine a system where anyone knowing your bank account number could just wander in to your bank and take money out of your account without any authorisation. The system is utterly ridiculous and we have been pressing for changes for nearly three years now.

Although changes have been made making fraudulent charges much less frequent, the fundamental problem descibed above still exists.

The queston of how Moblix obtained the phone numbers used for charges still remains a mystery. Did they buy them? Did O2 leak them?  IF they tried numbers at random (unlawful in itself) why did Tap2Bill not pick up on the large number of delivery failures?  

The fact that a third party CAN make charges to your phone account doesn't mean that doing so is lawful. It isn't. Charging without consent is in itself contrary to UK law. The PSA Code of Practice lays down the rules for obtaining consent, which clearly have not been followed in this case. I'm sure that PSA will "investigate" - probably for at least 18 months, by which time Moblix will have been liquidated and there will be no prospect of refunds or of PSA fines being paid. 

It sounds as though O2 intend to "do the right thing" and see that consumers are refunded. Be thankful that you are not with Three!  

What is badly needed is for O2 and the other networks to take on the full responsibilities of an FCA regulated payment processor and verify that consent has been obtained BEFORE applying charges.

To see our own demands for reform of the system, look here: https://psconsumers.org.uk/psa-consultation-on-15th-code-of-practice/ 

Please consider helping us fight for these changes by joining our Facebook group and/or responding to relevant PSA consultations.

Paul

[bouncealong313]

@MI5 are these transactions also exempty from contract law and the Consumer Rights Act?

[MI5]

@SpaceGeek 

O2 have confirmed that they will be refunding all charges for an indeterminate period of "when the error occurred"

See the post by @Chris_K 

[bouncealong313]

@MI5 I mean surely these actions are not actually scams. Scams involve some kind of deceit or misrepresentation to obtain an unlawful benefit (money) - which involves some kind of interaction from the victim before the criminal is successful. There was no interaction here, it was "just" outright fraud/theft.

[MI5]

Theft is the best word to describe it for sure.

[Payforit_Sucks]

---

@bouncealong313 wrote:

@MI5 are these transactions also exempty from contract law and the Consumer Rights Act?

---

@bouncealong313 I don't think anyone would deny that these charges are unlawful. The issue is that there is no easy way of enforcing the law in these cases. We encourage consumers, where the evidence warrants it, to take the "service provider" to the Small Claims court (after having first complied with all the pre-action protocols). However, even where consumers win in court, the providers sometimes refuse to pay. Enforcing CCJs is near impossible as these companies use a PO Box for the company address so there are no assets for a bailiff to seize. There are several Phone-paid Services currently still operating despite consumers having obtained CCJs against them. The entire system is loaded against consumers.

Because the amounts involved are relatively low, Action Fraud and the Police are not interested, and as already stated, there is no disputes procedure like those required by FCA for other payment mechanisms.

[84222]

Just spoken to an O2 operative who actually sent over the fraudulent text message and told me to register with them to get a refund. I called back and reported the initial call handler as I suspect the guy was part of a gang working inside o2. I was told they are starting an internal investigation. My suspicion is this is probably going to come out as an internal data breach. The last person I spoke to said they would sort my refund and I didn't need to take any more action.

I think O2 will be doing the right thing corporately on one.