In my first blog post (19th nov) I explained that I had written a letter to various authorities asking why Premium Rate tipping adverts are allowed to rip off the public by duping and deceiving people.
Today (28th Nov) I received a reply to my letter from PhonepayPlus and it beggars belief!! ….And this organization by their own words “regulate the content and advertising of all premium rate services, including 090 numbers” You will not believe what they have said!
Before reading Phonepayplus's letter, ask yourself these 2 questions.
Is Derek Thomson operating a premium rate service?
Is Derek Thompson operating an 090 number?
I’ll help you with the second question. His number is 09052330054
1st letter from Phonepayplus (28th Nov)
========================
Dear sir
Thank you for your letter received 19 November 2008. PhonepayPlus is responsible for regulating the content and advertising of all premium rate services. These include services operating on numbers beginning with the digits 090, directory enquiry services and some services accessed via a five digit short code on a mobile phone.
As your enquiry falls outside our remit we are unable to be of assistance. Please contact the relevant party.
Yours sincerely
Phonepayplus Customer Service Advisor”
==============================
Can you believe that!! This so called 'adviser' works for an authority who's remit is to regulate the content and advertising of all premium rate services (PRS)" (thats her job!) and she tells me that the Derek Thomsons PRS and his 090 number are nothing to do with her. Is not a PRS a PRS? ... Is not an 090 number an 090 number? So why is Derek Thompsons PRS and 090 number exempt from the regulatory attention of Phonepayplus!!!
I’ll ask those two questions again
Is Derek Thomson operating a premium rate service?
Is Derek Thompson operating an 090 number?
I’ll help you with the second question. His number is 09052330054
Now read their letter again!
Observation….. Unbelievable incompetence of a regulatory advertising authority that has proved that it has not got the slightest idea of what it is talking about! Carry on Thompson. You ‘aint got nothing to worry about from this bunch of bananas!....Incredible!
(My reply to PhonepayPlus’s 1st letter)
==================================
To:-
Personal attn The Manager
PhonepayPlus
Clove Building
4 Maguire Street,
London SE1 2NQ. 28th Nov 2008
Dear PhoepayPlus Manager
Thank you for the reply to my letter. I am somewhat confused by its content.
You say PhonepayPlus is responsible for the content and advertising OF ALL premium rate services. Yet you say my complaint concerning Derek Thompson’s premium rate service falls outside your remit. WHY? Please explain to me why Derek Thompson’s premium rate service is not within your remit of regulating the advertising of premium rate services!
I repeat! You say that you regulate the content and advertising OF ALL premium rate services. Then why have you rejected my complaint concerning such services?
You tell me you are responsible “for the regulation and advertising of 090 numbers”. But Mr Manager, Derek Thomson’s premium rate number is 09052330054. If you look carefully you will see that the first 3 digits are 090. In your own words you tell me that you regulate the advertising of 090 numbers and then tell me that Derek Thompson’s 090 number is not within your remit.
Before casting this serious issue aside with such inconsiderate attention, could you not have made a little more effort as to the validity of my complaint? If you did not know Derek Thomson’s premium rate number, would not a phone call have been in order?
The complaint I have made in my letter to you is a very serious complaint indeed. I am currently running a blog concerning Thompson's adverts. The blog contains the initial letter which states in its content that all correspondence relating to Thompson’s adverts will be published for all to see..
I feel your letter will not impress the many followers of the blog.
Given the seriousness of my complaint and the inability of your customer service adviser to understand it, I request with the greatest of respect that I receive a reply from somebody who does!
And finally. You say. "Please contact the relevant party" May I ask sir, whom is the relevant party? Do you not think it would have been helpful had I been told?
A most disappointing reply to a very genuine complaint. I trust the reply to this letter will be more helpful and without contradiction.
Yours faithfully
==================================
And now read this:- I recieved a reply to my letter of complaint from Ofcom! What a difference to the 'ham' fob off I recieved from Phonepay Plus!! It was helpfull and explanetry. Briefly the Ofcom letter said my complaint was not wihin their province. They said it was a complaint that should be handled by....... Phonepay Plus (what a bloody stupid name that is. In future I'm going to call them PPP!)
PPP have told me in their letter, that they are the people that deal with premium rate telephone services and 090 numbers and as my complaint was about premium rate telephone services and 090 telephone numbers, they could not help as "it was not within their remit!" That is exactly what they said!!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh ha ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
Anyway. On with the story.
After being advised by Ofcam to take my complaint to PPP, I have written a second letter to the manager. It reads as follows:-
========================================
Phonepayplus (personal attn of the manager)
The Manager
Clove Building
4 Maguire Street
London SE1 2NQ
29th Nov 2008
Dear Sir
Further to my recent letter concerning my tipping advert complaint which Phonepay Plus rejected,
I would like you to read a copy of a letter that I received from Ofcom which clearly states that my complaint should have been sent to the premium rate regulator Phonepay Plus. In other words you sir. Which I did.
I contacted PPP as Ofcom suggested and what I received from your authority was nothing better than an unhelpful and ignorant fob off by your Customer Service Adviser.
Read the letter that was sent to me by your CSA and try telling me I am wrong.
Why did your Customer Service Adviser tell me that “my enquiry falls outside the remit of Phonepay Plus” when according to all that I have read and been told by Ofcam it clearly is within your remit.
Why did Ofcom read my letter and inform me that Phonepayplus were the people to help me only for the Phonepayplus’s Customer Service Adviser to contradict Ofcom and imply they were wrong? Your staff were wrong! Not Ofcom!
And why did your incompetent Customer Service Advisor read my letter about a dubious PRS 090 tipping advert which deceives, tricks, and preys on the vulnerable with seductive WINNER ONLY boasts (fraudulent advertising) not realise that my complaint was within Phonepayplus’s remit of PRS and 090 numbers?
Your Customer Service Adviser should take note of the very helpful and excellent letter I received from Ofcom guiding me and advising me to contact Phonepayplus (good grief! That is one ridiculous name! From hereon with respect, I shall refer to your Authority as PPP) She should then compare Ofcom's professional letter with the contradictory rubbish she sent. She may then learn how to deal and advise her customers correctly. Maybe a short refresher course in customer relations may help.
I note in the helpful Ofcom letter that the code of practice is designed to set standards for PRS, in particular, provisions aimed at ensuring DECENCY and HONESTY of such services as well as advertising transparency.
In my letter that your CSA rejected Mr Manager, I actually explained the meaning of words and showed by example how they were being abused by adverts that mislead and deceive by omission. I will take this opportunity to repeat the words and blend the meaning to the advert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECENCY
"behavior that is good, moral and acceptable in society:"
Question
Are not tipping adverts that only show winners and never the losers a lure for the vulnerable to be tempted and seduced by manipulated statistics that deceive? Let me put it another way. Why don’t the adverts only show losers?
Is the behavior ‘good’ of a PRS that misleads the vulnerable by deception and trickery?
And are such premium rate adverts ‘good, moral and acceptable in our society? I think not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISHONEST
“not truthful or able to be trusted and likely to cheat or lie”
In my experience I have never known Thompson to lie. He is to clever to do to cross that boundary, but his adverts and boasts claiming only winners are presented in such a way that the unwary and innocent public trust him. Why else would they pay him.
Question
Are the public not being force fed dishonest adverts that mislead by omission and deception? If they are, is that not dishonest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENCE TRICK or SCAM
"......... is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence"
Question
Is not a misleading advert that indicates success when the reality (and I can prove the reality) is failure, not a ‘confidence trick, and as such is not the scam targeted at the vulnerable person or groups?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAUD
“In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation”
Question
Is not a misleading advert by an individual seeking personal gain that indicates success when the reality is failure not a deception? If so is that not fraudulent! And are not innocent and vulnerable people not being financially “damaged” by such deception?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DECEPTION
“ ...... is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths"
Question
Are not misleading adverts that gloat information about success but never of failure when the reality is total failure, not deceptive?
Are not adverts that seduce the vulnerable by only showing winners and never the losers not deceiving the ‘unknowing’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE ADVERTISING
“..... is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising”.
These misleading tipping adverts most certainly persuade people into a ‘commercial transaction’ by duping them into making premium rate telephone calls
Question
Is not the intention of an advert to persuade people into a ‘commercial transaction?
Is not payment to a premium rate line not a ‘commercial transaction?
Question
And what is our government doing to protect the innocent,unwary and the vulnerable?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRICKSTER
“A person who deceives people”
Question
Is not a person placing an advert in a newspaper which only shows winners and never mentions losers and knows that his advice causes financial distress to the innocent and unwary (as in a £6000 loss in 3months to a £50 level stake! Proven and on record) not deceiving people? Therefore is not such a person a TRICKSTER?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWINDLE
“to obtain money dishonestly from someone by deceiving or cheating them”
Question
Is not a person who obtains money from someone by advertising only winners and NEVER a mention of losers not deceiving? Is not a tipster who loses his clients £6000 in three months to a £50 stake and continues to obtain money with trick adverts not dishonestly obtaining money and deceiving people with his trick adverts? And how about the anger and suffering his innocent clients feel when they see the trick adverts day after day in the Racing Post whilst they are losing mega bucks backing the tipster’s losers? By continuing to obtain money via the age old tipping tools of trickery and deception is a SWINDLE. As defined in the dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMORAL
”not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behavior;”
Question
Are tipping adverts that trick and deceive “within society’s standards of acceptability?”
They may comply with the low self interest standards that The Racing Post require but they certainly are not acceptable to a respectable society’s standard! Therefore such trick and deceiving adverts must be IMMORAL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHICAL
“a system of accepted beliefs which control behavior, especially such a system based on morals:”
Question
Is not duping the public with trick and deceptive adverts not a breech of ethics?
Question
Are premium rate tipping services bound by a code of ethics? If so what are they?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary I would ask your views as to adverts that mislead and deceive by manipulation and omission,
Is that not ……….INDECENT?
Is that not………..DISHONEST?
Is that not a….… CONFIDENCE TRICK?
Is that not a….… SCAM?
Is that not a….… FRAUD?
Is that not a….….DECEPTION?
Is that not a….….FRAUDULENT ADVERT?
Is that not ……....FALSE ADVERTISING?
Is that not……....TRICKERY?
Is that not a…......SWINDLE?
Is that not…….....IMMORAL?
Is that not …….. .UNETHICAL?
I believe all the above ‘tools of the tipping advert trade’ can be applied to the adverts that Derek Thomson uses to mislead, trick and deceive by omission and manipulation. He has manufactured a coin that if tossed a million times will always come down heads. And to my mind sir, that is not decent!
I also believe he has an agreement with the Racing Post called an ‘advertorial’ whereby he places his advert for free and they share the revenue obtained by tricking and seducing the gullible and vulnerable. In my opinion sir, The Racing Post is as immoral as what he is!
The bottom line to this complaint sir is not about one vulnerable person being conned out of £5000 and making a fuss! Its about a 1000 (maybe more) people being conned out of a just £5 or so every day. Such people think “well it was only a fiver and it ‘aint worth bothering about” That is the strength behind Derek Thompson's scam. And it is a scam!
With respect, I would request that you answer all my questions. That is of course if you are of the right authority!
Yours sincerely,
===================================
Watch this space for the next instalment!
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment