It is certainly a start. I’m not sure why 076 scams are singled out. Surely the same policy could be adopted for all premium rate scams?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by the63336: Latest blog post: premium text regulator PhonePayPlus need to adopt zero tolerance policy: http://bit.ly/bY8SH3…

Such practice is not *explicitly* covered by the PP+ Code of Practice either (PP+ simply can’t bring themselves to use the phrase “unsolicited reverse charge SMS” even though this is probably the biggest problem there is in the PRS sector) but PP+ do regularly take (ok woefully inadequate) action against this practice and, when they do, tend to describe it as being “misleading” – though quite how you can be misled by a firm you have never knowingly dealt with puzzles me.

As for you compliments on “the-scream” posts, there is still topical stuff being posted – see http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/f30.html? – but everything that needs to be said on the subject of PRS has been said many many times. What is missing is an adequate response.

I think one of the best threads on the-scream is http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t27689.html (which comes up 3rd if U google “Andrew Bud”. As well as being entertaining, this thread provides a good overview of to problems which we (ie those of us who would like to see this industry cleaned up) face.

My plea for adopting a zero tolerance policy is really part of a wider plea for PhonePayPlus to start interpreting the rules in favour of the consumers and to help start building trust in the industry. Your comment on PhonePayPlus interpreting the rules in favour of the rogue services is borne out by a separate correspondence I had with them a couple of years ago about spam.

The code is very clear on spam. In the PhonePayPlus fact sheet “Unsolicited promotions” http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/upload/factsheet_unsolicitedpromotions.pdf it says “service providers should note that senders of automated direct text messages must have the prior consent of the recipient before the message is sent”. The Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/privacy_and_electronic_communications/the_basics.aspx state you must have an opportunity to “refuse the marketing when your details were collected”

I argued that sending a question to a text Q and A service (not ours of course!) is not an acceptance to receive spam as I had no opportunity to refuse the marketing when the details were collected.

PhonePayPlus interpreted that sending a text to a service acted as an implied opt in providing that the company only spammed me within 6 months of that original contact.

The BERR have always said that unsolicited reverse charge texts are illegal. Phonepayplus have always said that unsolicited reverse charge texts are legal – unless they are promotional in nature.

It’s worth mentioning that Phonepayplus do take a zero tolerance approach to “missed call marketing” scams on 070 numbers – Ofcom obviously put pressure on them here – but have a much higher tolerance when it comes to other types of scam – especially unsolicited reverse charge SMS scams.

As for the legality of this type of scam, this is a complex question. The DTI (now BERR) have always said it is (see eg http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t24698.html?&highlight=Hodge) whereas Phonepayplus say it isn’t (see http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t21290-7.html? #184 – #200).