long distance service added to AT&T account without authorization
Complaint
Ralph Harris
Country: United States
I received the latest AT&T phone bill for phone service I set up for my 90 year old father who is on a fixed income and discovered a charge of $24.95 from Billing Resources for personal voice unlimited long distance, whatever that is. When I contacted AT&T I was told the third party was able to add the charge because I had not blocked the account so third party services couldn't be added without authorization, as if it was my fault!! AT&T was good in that they removed the charge but I am still irate their attitude is I should have blocked the account, instead of them protecting their customers by blocking the account unless told NOT to. AT&T then told me I had to contact Billing Resources to get a confirmation number and call AT&T back with that number so it could be verified I contacted the company regarding removing the charge. So far I have been unable to contact Billing Resources since all I get is a busy signal. What a scam and AT&T is party to it by not protecting their customers!
Comments
Other complaints:
http://classactionconnect.com/consumer-compla ... -phone-charges/
Many of these scam companies could not even be in business without such "billing aggregators" to front for them and give them access to the phone company billing systems, making phone directories into the equivalent of lists of bank accounts these companies can fraudulently charge. They may also be engaged in fraudulent telemarketing, using deceptive sales pitches to get some recording they then claim is an "authorization" for their charges. The elderly would be a preferred target of such fraud scams, as they are often easier to deceive, and more likely to miss small monthly charges.
The Billing Resource/Integretel was a defendent along with other billing aggregators in an FTC lawsuit against several companies caught fraudulently cramming charges on phone bills. That lawsuit against them, to recover the fraudulent charges, may still be pending.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/cram.shtm
Many of these billing aggregators have been sued by state Attorneys General, or may be subject to state or federal consent decrees requiring investigation and refunding of disputed charges. It is common with cramming scams to put barriers in the way of actually disputing, while pretending to comply with dispute requirements, for example, by providing inadequate phone access so that the company cannot actually be contacted. Your inability to be able to reach them by phone may be negligent or intentional, or may be a violation of existing consent agreements.
Block such cramming through ATT to prevent future problems. Request that they send you verification in writing that they have blocked it.
Dispute the fraudulent charges directly with ATT, IN WRITING sent certified to the billing dispute address from your phone bill. Note in your dispute that despite repeated attempts to contact The Billing Resource directly, it's phone number was always busy.
This is important, as FCC regs provide a 60 day dispute period for disputing charges on your phone bill with your phone company, during which the phone company MUST handle the dispute. You want to document timely notice to your phone company, as it gives FTC, FCC, or your state Attorney General more leverage with your phone company to force a refund.
Some phone companies (Verizon in Florida, for example, and possibly ATT in some states) are under agreements themselves with state Attorneys General to handle such fraud disputes promptly.
After blocking future charges, and disputing in writing with the phone company to establish timely disputing, contact FTC and your state Attorey General for assistance. You might also want to file a complaint with the California Attorney General, as Integretel is located in California.