giffgaff: thieving, lying, scum
in [UK Mobile]
|
Prev: How to be a power agent in real estate
Next: PAYG dongle that can send & receive text messages.
From: Ian Smith on 27 Mar 2010 04:40 On 27/03/2010 08:22, Bob Eager wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:16:05 +0000, Ian Smith wrote: > >>> I'm surprised you and others don't see a problem with this. >> >> I completely agree. > > I was referring to Mr Jay's puzzlement at being charged 10p for the STOP > ALL message. I'm sure you were, but I didn't reply to your post, as the attribution shows. regards, Ian
From: Martin Jay on 27 Mar 2010 06:41 On 27 Mar 2010 08:22:13 GMT, Bob Eager <rde42(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:16:05 +0000, Ian Smith wrote: >>>I'm surprised you and others don't see a problem with this. >>I completely agree. >I was referring to Mr Jay's puzzlement at being charged 10p for the STOP >ALL message. Ah, I see. As I've previously mentioned, I'm not a user of premium rate text message services. Part of the advice I was given by giffgaff and others when I highlighted the initial problem was to send a text message containing STOP ALL to 82023. No one mentioned that I'd be charged for 'unsubscribing' from the service I didn't subscribed to. But, yes, I do understand why I was charge 10p for sending that message. It's all part of the con-con giffgaff con. Perhaps once Vincent has finished modifying his Excel spreadsheet <http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9008/martinjay.jpg> he'll be able to explain why there was no charge raised for the text messages he alleges were sent from my SIM to 82023... and how I managed time travel. Those are things I don't understand. :) :) :) I'm left wondering how accurate the billing data held by the mobile networks really is. Let's hope it's not used to track or monitor criminal and terrorist activity. -- Martin Jay Back the Ban: <http://www.backtheban.com/> League Against Cruel Sports: <http://www.league.org.uk/>
From: Martin Jay on 27 Mar 2010 08:48 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:16:05 +0000, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS(a)orrery.e4ward.com> wrote: >I also agree that it is unacceptable to claim that you signed up via >some web-site. Unless they operate a 'confirmed opt-in' over their >network and can supply a full record of that transaction then the >onus of proof should be on them and they should remove the charges >without question. The signing up via a website theory was something con-con giffgaff made up on the hoof to explain away why they had no billing data to support my having signed up to the premium rate text service. When that didn't work out they discovered Excel and their time travel theory was born, whereby I magically received a premium rate text message before requesting it. >Someone needs to start enforcing these rules. I think it's a free for all. giffgaff have lied and put forward several nonsensical theories to explain why they dipped their sticky paws into my account and stole a fiver. It's sad that others simply nod their heads and accept it. -- con-con giffgaff: <http://www.spam-free.org.uk/giffgaff/>
From: Martin Jay on 27 Mar 2010 10:58 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT), andy <andy.ggrps(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On 27 Mar, 13:57, Martin Jay <mar...(a)spam-free.org.uk> wrote: >>Unfortunately con-con giffgaff is too busy spending my money >>to care. >this is bollocks as well It's called humour and was used to make a point. >giffgaff don't have your money, and aren't signing you up for services >against your wishes > >your �5 went to 2ergo, the provider of the number, and thence the >largest chunk of it to the service provider you still (after a couple >of weeks) refuse to make the effort of one phone call to 2ergo to ask >about That's not entirely accurate. Con-con giffgaff, O2 and perhaps others would have taken a cut. >>I haven't fabricated anything, >you certainly have - you've lied by saying nobody was interested in >helping you, and you've lied to suggest that giffgaff removed your >discussions from their forum Perhaps your definition of help differs to mine. I don't find con-con giffgaff's lies and passing of the buck helpful. Oh, and messages I posted to con-con giffgaff's forums WERE removed. I made helpful comments and suggestions to others based on my experience of con-con giffgaff. They appeared and then suddenly disappeared. They were removed. I haven't lied about anything, whereas con-con giffgaff have stolen money from me and then lied, lied, lied about it. giffgaff: thieving, lying, and in my opinion, scum. -- con-con giffgaff: <http://www.spam-free.org.uk/giffgaff/>
From: andy on 27 Mar 2010 21:31
On 27 Mar, 21:22, Martin Jay <mar...(a)spam-free.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 04:36:22 -0700 (PDT), andy > > <andy.gg...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > >Elsewhere on the internet, one can find people having similar problems > >to yours > > giffgaff dipping their sticky paws into other customer's accounts? Oh, very droll No, problems with service providers (and from other networks), but you can't resist twisting this to drop a hint of another falsehood And those people contacted 2ergo and were helped, as I already clearly said > >On one of these, I saw that someone contacted 2ergo, that the person > >there was courteous and helpful, and gave details of how to contact > >the service provider. So I phoned up myself, and confirmed this would > >be the case, then posted to suggest it to you > > >Your number has been subscribed to the service. That was my choice of > >words previously; that doesn't necessarily mean that I am saying you > >personally did so, and I haven't anywhere else suggested you did. By > >now, anyone still reading will be happy to believe that you didn't > >want to. > > Doesn't the method by which my number was subscribed to the service > bother you? How could it happen? > It does bother me, and I've suggested how you can investigate it in the records at the supplier, and how and where you can report a complaint if they refuse to help. But if Phonepayplus do take compliance or enforcement or punitive action, it is against the service providers, not the mobile network |