Knowledge Base
Community

Giffgaff, you really need to consider stopping your collaboration with these scammers!

Started by: glaswegianeric
On: 23/12/2018 | 07:13
Replies: 154
Reply

by: glaswegianeric
on: 12/01/2019 | 01:53
@jaymailsays

Mass enquiries to ICO would be a start, nevermind class action.

No T&Cs can enforce conditions that contradict current legislations.

In my opinion, T&Cs could very well contradict GDPR - passing your personal details to a third-party isn't required to provide you with calls, texts, and data services.

All above is, of course, my opinion and not written in stone. But I really struggle to understand how we can expect networks to change or regulators forcing them to change if we don't show our determination in a first place. If they don't feel pressure, why the heck would they pull the plug on a steady money stream?
Message 71 of 155
by: jaymailsays
on: 12/01/2019 | 02:41

@glaswegianeric Here's a challenge for you. The next time you contact the complaint's agent tell them you withdraw your consent for the sharing of your mobile number with third party payforit merchants, make it clear that any reasonable time limit you grant them is non negotiable and any funds withdrawn from your balances by these merchants will be fraudulently obtained after the expiry of your notice to them.

Worth a shot!

 

The difficulty is that they, giffgaff, will claim that payforit is not a third party and they may be right.

 

I've been caught out by the payforit sting in the distant past so I generally use an encrypted browser app that hides your identity from merchants and will generally keep you safer.

 

I shouldn't  have to do so but for now I do.

Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 72 of 155
by: glaswegianeric
on: 12/01/2019 | 12:15
@jaymailsays

A challenge for me? I didn't realise I was the only one that got scammed courtesy of a scammer, Payforit and my mobile provider.

I sometimes don't even blame the networks and the scammers for trying to pull one. It's easy and people will accept it (moaning how disgraceful this is and not doing anything to try and challenge it doesn't count), so why the heck not...
Message 73 of 155
by: jaymailsays
on: 12/01/2019 | 13:46

glaswegianeric wrote:

A challenge for me? I didn't realise I was the only one that got scammed courtesy of a scammer, Payforit and my mobile provider.


@glaswegianeric but you are challenging the right, under GDPR for Telefonica (giffgaff)to use your mobile number?  If so, withdraw your consent, see what they say.

 

The Mail on Sunday has used their newspaper and online influence for over a year, to vigorously  campaign for payforit reform,  without much success. Usually Regulators run scared when they are exposed in this way, not this time.

Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 74 of 155
by: glaswegianeric
on: 12/01/2019 | 17:35
@jaymailsays not to use my mobile number but to pass my mobile number to third-parties where there's no need to do so to provide service, no legal requirement to do so, or no explicit consent from my side.

As for being exposed by papers / BBC Watchdog and alike and running scared because of it...this is a very common urban myth. Media exposure is very much needed but quite often it is nothing but letting consumers to blow off some steam.

Anyway, lessons learnt - if some hard done by consumer shouts "scandal! disgrace! daylight robbery!" that doesn't necessarily mean they are prepared to do something to change it, in fact, could well be that they don't actually mind being mistreated.
Message 75 of 155
by: glaswegianeric
on: 05/02/2019 | 10:24 edited: 05/02/2019 | 10:31

@jaymailsays

@woodyuk

@various_mm 

@paul_d_

@persco

 

and others

 

So after some considerable time of silent treatment (since before Christmas), giffgaff replies me with "

I can confirm that I have now received an update from our technical team.

They have confirmed that the premium rate bar on your account has been set up correctly and should therefore be working as normal. They have turned this off and on again to ensure that this is the case."

 

OK, I've asked them n-teen times that I want for them to confirm that Payforit/Charge to Bill will also be barred and I repeat myself once again:

 


"Could you please confirm that by premium text bar "working as normal" your Technical Team means that all Payforit/Charge To Bill charges are also completely blocked and I would not be able to incur them no matter what I do unless I specifically turn off the aforementioned Premium Rate bar on my giffgaff account?

Since it has been a while, I take a precaution to remind your Technical Team once again that it is the Payforit/Charge to Bill charges that are of my main concern. I told giffgaff that since the beginning and the reply was (now for the second time and "from the horse's mouth", i.e. Technical Team) that the aforementioned bar would block them as well. As my own experiment and that of others customers suggested that the Premium Texts Bar doesn't block Payforit/Charge to Bill charges, I kindly ask your Technical Team for the very final confirmation before I start conducting any more experiments."

 

 

 

The reply to that was:

"

The Premium Rate bar is to block premium rate services and as such; it should prevent any premium rate charges from being incurred going forward. As advised initially, this would not stop any subscriptions you have already been signed up for.

As the PayForIt/Charge to Bill is used for Premium Rate Services this should be barred by the service on your account, but it will not stop charges for a service you have already signed up for."

 

 

Basically, they are insisting that the Payforit/Charge To Bill charges are also completely blocked with their Premium Bar, and that's from the Technical Team now I take it.

 

 

A quick experiment with TFL shows that but of course they don't get blocked:

photo_2019-02-05_10-17-27.jpg

 

 

 

 

Now, if someone from the first line of support tells wrong info about the product that they provide support for, it's not acceptable but unlikely to be malicious.

 

But surely when the same info comes from a Tech Team and it is known to be wrong, it can't be because of lack of knowledge this time, can it?

 

 

 

 

 

Message 77 of 155
by: jaymailsays
on: 05/02/2019 | 10:43

@glaswegianeric In your, almost unique correspondence I would reply to them, along the lines of:-

 

"Fantastic, you have confirmed that you will indemnify my airtime balance, by replenishing any of my credit wrongly deducted by a pay for it merchant."

Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 78 of 155
by: glaswegianeric
on: 05/02/2019 | 11:03
@jaymailsays

I've got my £4.50 scammers tried to steal off me initially and I'm not going to moan over few pence I've spent on the TFL transactions.

It's not about getting back credit, the issue seems to be much more complex now Smiley Happy.
Message 79 of 155
by: jaymailsays
on: 05/02/2019 | 11:11

@glaswegianeric putting them on notice that they should refund you rather than the merchant, saves you from doing the work. They say the have blocked payforit subscriptions and you are entitled to rely upon that.

 

tfl is not strictly premium rate is it?

I understand their service is run by O2 and not necessarily payforit.

Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 80 of 155