this morning i was called by a “jonathan simmonds” of “cruise connection” who suggested that i had won a mediterranean cruise. and that this was, in fact, a genuine offer.

yeah, right.

jonathan left his name, and a premium rate phone number (09061253203) for me to return his message. i found this a little odd, because the call trace showed him to be calling from a different number (0013104645500).

i like to check up who’s calling me and why, so i googled mr. simmonds and his company, and his phone numbers.

the closest i came was a uk company called “cruise connections” who are ABTA registered (i.e. reputable) – the ABTA website is very good and provided me with this info…

i called Orr’s travel and explained that i was checking up on whether a phone number i had was one of theirs and without prompting the very nice lady on the phone asked if i had perhaps encountered a “Mr. Simmonds”.

it appears that Orrs have received several enquiries about this chap and he has nothing to do with them. they have informed the trading standards council.

so if you get a call and wonder if you should call him back – my guess is that if you do you’ll only be putting money in the pocket of a scammer by calling his premium rate line.

looking elsewhere i found this nice quote: “These scams are illegal; these premium rate lines are set up just to fleece consumers.”

If you encounter “Mr. Simmonds” or othe such scams, you should inform ICSTIS ( the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services).

i’ve also found a thread full of others who have been targetted.

inbound number analysed: 0013104645500

taking a look at the inbound number it breaks up like this; the call originated from:
00 (international) 1 (USA) 310 (Los Angeles) 464(Gardena?) 5500 (…)

googling turns up some interesting matches suggesting that many people have been hit by this scam outfit before and that the calls originate from the USA – though be warned – the “antitelemarketer” matches redirect to the most hideous picture on the net (tubgirl) so i advise you to use the google cache instead of clicking the links.

Update 17th Jan 2005

Today I received the following email:

Competition Information Lines – Unsolicited Telephone Calls

We are writing with reference to your complaint about a premium rate competition line to notify you of the outcome of our investigations. Please accept our apologies for the delay in our reply.

As you will know, ICSTIS regulates the content and promotion of premium rate services, (that is to say, services that begin with the digits 090). Our aim is to minimise consumer harm by ensuring that the companies responsible for providing these services abide by the ICSTIS Code of Practice.

ICSTIS initially received reports from members of the public who reported having received an unsolicited automated telephone call to their landline. The promotional message advised the recipient that they had won a free cruise round Spain and to call a premium rate number in order to make a claim. On the basis of the complaints received, emergency action was taken to bar access to the service, pending the completion of our investigations.

However, as a result of the receipt of further complaints and following additional investigation, we discovered that one company was responsible for the promotion of five separate competition information lines, offering different awards, all of which were advertised by way of unsolicited telephone calls into consumers homes. Consumers dialling the various premium rate numbers referred to during the promotional messages accessed recorded competition information lines which gave the caller information about the item they had been awarded and details of how to claim.

The ICSTIS Committee has recently considered the facts of the case and found that each of the five services provided by the company were in breach of the ICSTIS Code for the following various reasons:

• The use of equipment to automatically dial numbers in order to make unsolicited direct marketing calls, as appears to be the case with the delivery of these promotional messages, is generally illegal.
• The promotional messages suggested that recipients had recently or previously entered a competition, which was not the case.
• A promotional message contained a significant silent gap between the main body of information given about the competition, including the premium rate claim line number, and a statement detailing the cost of dialling the number – this appeared to be a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the message had ended and to replace the receiver without first hearing a pricing statement.
• The full cost of a call to the premium rate service was not stated in the promotional message, which is a requirement for competition services.
• The promotion of the services was inappropriate as the messages were not targeted, meaning that any member of a household had the potential to receive and respond to a promotional message. The messages were also received by individuals whose telephone numbers are registered with the Telephone Preference Service and those whose numbers are ex-directory.
• The company’s contact details were not included in the promotional messages.
• There were references to awards being ‘free’ when the only means of claiming them was by dialling a premium rate service, at a charge of �1.50 per minute (from a BT landline).
• Information specifically required of competition services, for example, a closing date, significant terms and conditions and/or costs which might be associated with an award or prize, was not stated in the promotional messages.
• A service was found to be operating after the company was instructed to suspend access to all of the services and numbers under investigation, pending the completion of our investigations.

The Committee decided that sanctions should be imposed against the company in light of the breaches found and it has therefore issued a fine totalling �300,000 across the five different services. Access to each of the services has been barred for twelve months and the company has also been barred from providing any premium rate competition service for twelve months.