Premium Rate Text Message Charging - £150+ Lotto by Text - **REFUNDED IN FULL**

[reeksy86]

Hi,

 

A bit of advice needed please (for my mother, not me)

 

My mother came to me last week, after receiving a bill of £103 from o2 for her contract phone,

 

when i looked into the bill, online,

 

i noticed that there was premium text messages from Lotto by Text, at a cost of £3.50 each,

this month there was £22.50 worth of text messages,

I contacted O2 and they found text messages going back to November of 2012, at a cost of 127.50 + Vat @20% Total Cost £153.00

 

I contacted Lotto by text and asked for further information,

they have told me that on 26/11/2013 a text activation was sent back to them from the registered number,

thus agreeing to the terms and conditions, and a contract was started.

 

My argument is that the first message she received,

she believes was in relation to a free text message about the lotto number each week.

 

She has never replied to a message for them,

nor has she been entered into any lotteries,

or had any winnings or such from them.

 

They did agree that they would stop the service immediately,

and would be in contact with a letter,

and an offer of goodwill in relation to the amount of charges,

and the length of time they have been received.

 

This morning, she received a cheque for £20.00.

 

Personally i believe this to be an insult compared to the £153 they have earned from the service,

out of which, my mother has not gained anything whatsoever,

 

do i have anything that i could go back to them with to get a larger refund from them?

 

Thanks

[goodwill]

some background.

 

The company behind LottobyText was Marketing Craze Limited.

 

On 06 December 2012 they were fined by the Regulator (PhonepayPlus) £250,000 and ordered to refund all complainants.

 

PhonepayPlus don't allow links but here it is.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58055745&postcount=14

 

Marketing Craze recently changed their name to Bitstacker Limited.

 

On 2nd July PhonepayPlus launched an Emergency procedure against Bitstacker.

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2013/7/Emergency-procedures-initiated-2-July-2013.aspx

 

Emergency procedure investigation

2 July 2013

 

PhonepayPlus, the UK regulator for premium rate telephone services, has launched an Emergency procedure investigation under paragraph 4.5 of its Code of Practice (Twelfth Edition) (the Code), following internal monitoring conducted by PhonepayPlus. This monitoring evidenced affiliate marketing that appeared to utilise a form of malware known as ransomware to lock consumers’ internet browsers and force them to interact with online offers which directed them to the Level 2 provider, Bitstacker Limited’s “lottobytext” subscription service(s).

Bitstacker Limited has been identified as the Level 2 provider responsible for the service. A Tribunal will decide whether the service is in breach of the Code as soon as is reasonably possible after PhonepayPlus has received a response from the Level 2 provider to its Emergency procedure breach notice, which is to be sent to Bitstacker Limited in due course. The service has now been suspended pending conclusion of the investigation and a decision by the Tribunal.

In the meantime, other providers are reminded that enabling this service, or any other services that operate in a similar way, may result in breaches being raised against them.

 

Update to Emergency procedure investigation against Bitstacker Limited published on 2 July 2013

Update published 4 July 2013

 

Following the instigation of the Emergency procedure, Bitstacker Limited (Bitstacker) requested a review of the use of the procedure in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3(b) of the Code. The Tribunal considered Bitstacker’s written and oral submissions in relation to the grounds on which it asserted that the Emergency procedure should not have been used and, in the alternative, that access to the service shortcodes should no longer be prevented and all withheld monies released. During the course of informal representations Bitstacker withdrew its assertion that the Emergency procedure should not have been used and agreed that its use had been appropriate.

Having considered all the information before it including the particular nature of the service, the Tribunal decided that the Emergency procedure should continue pending completion of the normal Emergency procedure process, but concluded that in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3© that access to Bitstacker’s service shortcodes should be permitted, subject to the following conditions:

The Level 2 provider is to immediately cease all promotion of the service through online affiliate marketing of any form or description;

The Level 2 provider is to forthwith provide written confirmation to PhonepayPlus that it has ceased all promotion of the service through online affiliate marketing and provide an undertaking that it will not promote any part of the service using online affiliate marketing until such time as a determination has been made by a Tribunal on the substantive case;

Access to the service shortcodes may only resume once the Level 2 provider has provided evidence that its use of all online affiliate marketing has ceased, to the satisfaction of the PhonepayPlus Executive;

If PhonepayPlus reasonably suspects that the service is being promoted through online affiliate marketing prior to the Tribunal determination, PhonepayPlus may direct the Level 1 provider to immediately terminate access to all service shortcodes.

The Tribunal also decided, in accordance with paragraph 4.5.3© of the Code that the Level 1 provider should be directed to cease to retain all monies in excess of £250,000 held by it under PhonepayPlus’ direction. The Level 1 provider is to continue to retain the sum of £250,000 in accordance with PhonepayPlus’ direction.

 

You should make an official complaint to PhonepayPlus and contact Bitstacker again for a full refund (or something that approaches a full refund).

[reeksy86]

Thanks, i will get hold of them this morning and let you know what they say.

[reeksy86]

Just spoken to them over the phone, (recorded call)

and they have advised me that they will reopen the case with a view to a further refund,

and will be in touch within 7 days.

 

I explained that i am aware of the ruling made by Phonepayplus in December 2012 and that they are now under investigation again.

 

I have informed them that unless i receive a full refund within the 7 days, I will be making a formal complaint to phone pay plus.

 

Ill post back once i have heard from them again.

 

Thanks

[reeksy86]

Thought i would update this thread, as solved.

 

After calling them back and quoting a few lines from the above post, they re-looked at the file and decided to issue me with a full refund including VAT and an extra £20 for the inconvenience of having to call again.

 

Thanks for your help.

[dx100uk]

great result!!

 

well done

 

dx

[citizenB]

Excellent news