_kara_ Hi folks. Thank you so much for your patience here. We have done some investigations and have not been able to find any wrongdoing on the part of Wapstar from the cases that were referred to us. This said we will always be happy to look at cases that members raise to us so please raise a case with the agents if you suspect you've been subscribed to any pay-for-it service without confirming that subscription - as is now required.
Can you clarify the nature of your investigations? I assume that Remote Games Ltd have been asked to supply you with details of the consent obtained for the disputed charges, Did these include:
• Screenshots of the subscription workflow where the member signed up for the "service".
• A description of what the "service" provides and how the member is alleged to have accessed itl?
• Any evidence that after supposedly signing up for the service, the member actually used it
• The complete web server log of the subscription, including the User Agent strings containing all device details (browser, device type, device IP address) together with dates and times.
• If the subscription started after 11th May 2019, auditable proof of the additional authentication used (as required to comply with giffgaff rules)
• Details of the Accredited Payment Intermediary(API) which handled the members payment. In the case of Wapstar I believe this to be ImiMobile (Tap2Bill)
• Details of the company’s disputes procedure, including any ADR scheme the member can refer the matter to if they still dispute the charges..
Can you confirm that these details were provided to you, that they were subsequently discussed with the affected members, and that those members are satisfied t=with the outcome of the investigation?
giffgaff have previously claimed to have investigated charges like these and have failed to find a problem, probably because they failed to ask the right questions. The regulator has subsequently found the charges to be fraudulent.
It would be embarassing for giffgaff if, after having found no problem, the PSA subsequently found Remote Games Ltd to be at fault (as they have already in other cases).