<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Which? Archives - Quayside Technical Services</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/tag/which/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.qts-ltd.com/tag/which/</link>
	<description>Delivering effective IT &#38; telecoms services &#38; support across Devon &#38; The South West.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 18:15:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.12</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Airline Awareness: Fake X Accounts</title>
		<link>https://www.qts-ltd.com/airline-awareness-fake-x-accounts/</link>
					<comments>https://www.qts-ltd.com/airline-awareness-fake-x-accounts/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[staff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop-Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scammer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Which?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[X]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.qts-ltd.com/?p=128405</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Consumer association Which? has warned that scammers are posing as airline customer service representatives on social media to steal sensitive data. Which? says that scammers are crawling social media, often using bots, to find customers contacting airlines, and then contacting them or infiltrating their existing conversations with an airline via fake ‘X’ (Twitter) accounts. Which? [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/airline-awareness-fake-x-accounts/">Airline Awareness: Fake X Accounts</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p>Consumer association Which? has warned that scammers are posing as airline customer service representatives on social media to steal sensitive data.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Which? says that scammers are crawling social media, often using bots, to find customers contacting airlines, and then contacting them or infiltrating their existing conversations with an airline via fake ‘X’ (Twitter) accounts.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Which? reports that it has <i>“found examples of bogus X accounts impersonating every major airline operating in the UK, including British Airways, EasyJet, Jet2, Ryanair, Tui, Virgin Atlantic and Wizz Air”</i> and that some have even paid for a blue tick in order to appear genuine. Also, Which? claims that the scammers are often faster at responding than the real airlines!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Tactics scammers have been using to steal data for use in identity fraud or to sell to other criminals include sending victims legitimate looking DMs, directing victims to phishing websites to harvest card details, and using claims of compensation entitlement to trick victims into downloading a payment or money transfer app such as Remitly, Skrill and WorldRemit.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The advice is this: before engaging with a company on social media, to check the official website for links to its social media profiles, check when an account joined X, and check how many followers it has, to help reveal whether it is genuine.</p>
</div>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/airline-awareness-fake-x-accounts/">Airline Awareness: Fake X Accounts</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.qts-ltd.com/airline-awareness-fake-x-accounts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>EE and Plusnet Customers To Get Refund From BT</title>
		<link>https://www.qts-ltd.com/ee-and-plusnet-customers-to-get-refund-from-bt/</link>
					<comments>https://www.qts-ltd.com/ee-and-plusnet-customers-to-get-refund-from-bt/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[staff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 09:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tech News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ian Strawhorne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ofcom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plusnet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rocio Concha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[service providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Which?]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.qts-ltd.com/?p=128300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>After an Ofcom investigation that found BT didn’t give clear and simple information to customers who signed up to deal with its subsidiaries EE and Plusnet, BT has been told it must refund early exit fees and let existing affected customers walk away penalty free. What Happened?  Under new consumer protection rules, known as ‘General [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/ee-and-plusnet-customers-to-get-refund-from-bt/">EE and Plusnet Customers To Get Refund From BT</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After an Ofcom investigation that found BT didn’t give clear and simple information to customers who signed up to deal with its subsidiaries EE and Plusnet, BT has been told it must refund early exit fees and let existing affected customers walk away penalty free.</p>
<h5><strong>What Happened? </strong></h5>
<p>Under new consumer protection rules, known as ‘General Conditions’ (GCs), that came into force in June 2022, phone and broadband companies, of which BT is both, must give consumers and small businesses the details of a contract, as well as a summary of its key terms, before they sign up. These details must include the price, the length of the contract, the speed of the service, and any early exit fees.</p>
<p>UK Telecoms regulator, Ofcom, says that it opened an investigation into BT after it received information that two of BT’s wholly owned subsidiaries, EE and Plusnet, may not have been providing the required documents to some customers.</p>
<h5><strong>The Findings </strong></h5>
<p>Ofcom says its investigation revealed that since the introduction of the new rules on 17th June 2022, EE and Plusnet made more than 1.3 million sales without providing customers with the required contract summary and information documents. Ofcom found evidence that 1.1 million customers were affected by this between 26th June and 30th September 2023: in other words they were not given contract information before they signed up as is required under the new rules.</p>
<p>Other key findings by Ofcom were that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Despite telling Ofcom in February 2022 that it was confident the deadline to meet the new rules would be met, evidence showed that BT knew as early as January 2022 that some of its sales channels would not meet the deadline.</li>
<li>In some cases, BT deliberately chose not to comply with the rules on time.</li>
<li>Ofcom says that whereas other providers dedicated the resources required to meet the implementation deadline for the new rules, BT may have saved costs by not doing so.</li>
<li>Some sales channels are still non compliant, and BT is still not providing the required information at the right time to some customers.</li>
</ul>
<h5><strong>The Outcome </strong></h5>
<p>The outcome of Ofcom’s findings in this case are that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Ofcom has issued a £2.8 million fine to BT, although this includes a 30 per cent discount as a result of BT’s admission of liability and its completion of Ofcom’s settlement process.</li>
<li>The 1.1 million customers affected have been given the opportunity to request the information and/or cancel their contract without charge.</li>
<li>For those customers who left BT before the end of their contract and were charged an early exit fee, BT must refund those early exit fees, and let existing affected customers walk away penalty free.</li>
</ul>
<h5><strong>Other Action </strong></h5>
<p>Other actions that BT has been instructed to take by Ofcom in relation to this case include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Identifying and refunding any affected customers who may have been charged for leaving before the end of their contract period, within five months of Ofcom’s decision.</li>
<li>Within three months, contacting the remaining affected customers who are still with BT and have not already been contacted, to offer them their contract information and/or the right to cancel their contract without charge.</li>
<li>Amending remaining sales processes that are still non compliant within three months of Ofcom’s decision.</li>
</ul>
<h5><strong>Unacceptable </strong></h5>
<p>Ofcom’s Enforcement Director, Ian Strawhorne, said:<em> “When we strengthened our rules to make it easier for consumers to compare deals, we gave providers a strict timeline by which to implement them. It’s unacceptable that BT couldn’t get its act together in time, and the company must now pay a penalty for its failings.”  </em></p>
<p>Also, Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy for consumer organisation ‘Which?’ said: <em>“It’s absolutely right that Ofcom is fining BT for not providing EE and Plusnet customers with clear contract information before they signed up – as some people will have been hit with pricey exit fees they never should have faced.” </em></p>
<h5><strong>What Does BT Say? </strong></h5>
<p>BT has been reported as saying that it is sorry, will “<em>implement the remedial actions”</em> required by Ofcom and has <em>“taken steps to proactively contact affected customers and arrange for them to receive the information and be refunded where applicable.” </em></p>
<h5><strong>What Does This Mean For Your Business? </strong></h5>
<p>Ofcom’s ruling against BT is a reminder to telecoms companies and service providers about the importance of compliance with the latest regulatory requirements. For BT, this incident highlights the critical need for transparency and accountability in customer communications, especially in a competitive market where trust is paramount. The £2.8 million fine, which some commentators say should have been higher, and the mandated refunds are examples of the financial and reputational risks associated with non compliance.</p>
<p>For other providers, this case is a cautionary tale that emphasises the need to adhere to consumer protection rules and the potential consequences of failing to do so. It also shows that companies that decide to push boundaries in their marketing campaigns must think more carefully about these strategies, ensuring that their promotional activities do not leave customers in the dark about what they are signing up for. In an industry where bundling services into complex contracts is common, maintaining clarity and simplicity within customer interactions is still essential to avoid regulatory scrutiny and potential penalties.</p>
<p>For customers, this case may see them benefit a little from increased regulatory oversight and assurances that providers must comply with clear guidelines, thereby helping them make more informed decisions about their service contracts. Also, the knowledge that you can exit contracts without penalty in cases of non compliance should be reassuring, and help stop consumers from being unfairly trapped in agreements they did not fully understand.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/ee-and-plusnet-customers-to-get-refund-from-bt/">EE and Plusnet Customers To Get Refund From BT</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.qts-ltd.com/ee-and-plusnet-customers-to-get-refund-from-bt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scam Ad Linked To Phishing Site Tops Google</title>
		<link>https://www.qts-ltd.com/scam-ad-linked-to-phishing-site-tops-google/</link>
					<comments>https://www.qts-ltd.com/scam-ad-linked-to-phishing-site-tops-google/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[staff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 03:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop-Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google search listing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lyca Mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[malicious actor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vodafone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vodafone Finance Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Which?]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.qts-ltd.com/?p=127866</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>UK Consumer champion &#8220;Which?&#8221; has reported that a scam mobile advert linked to a site mimicking the legitimate Lyca Mobile site was able to bypass the Google Ads verification check, to reach the top of Google’s search listing. Which? reported that scammers got around Google’s ad verification check by claiming to be &#8220;Vodafone Finance Management&#8220;, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/scam-ad-linked-to-phishing-site-tops-google/">Scam Ad Linked To Phishing Site Tops Google</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p>UK Consumer champion &#8220;Which?&#8221; has reported that a scam mobile advert linked to a site mimicking the legitimate <a href="https://www.lycamobile.us/en/">Lyca Mobile</a> site was able to bypass the <a href="https://ads.google.com/home/">Google Ads</a> verification check, to reach the top of Google’s search listing.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Which? reported that scammers got around Google’s ad verification check by claiming to be &#8220;<a href="https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02139168">Vodafone Finance Management</a>&#8220;, a subsidiary of Vodafone.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The scam ads, which appeared at the top of Google for three days in late January linked to a copycat phishing website designed to steal card details.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>A spokesperson for Vodafone told Which? they had <em>“reported the issue to Google for immediate resolution and to stop it happening again.”</em> Also, a spokesperson for Lyca Mobile told Which? that they <i>“welcome moves by Google and others to crack down on this type of activity to protect both consumers and brands from malicious actors.” </i></p>
</div>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com/scam-ad-linked-to-phishing-site-tops-google/">Scam Ad Linked To Phishing Site Tops Google</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.qts-ltd.com">Quayside Technical Services</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.qts-ltd.com/scam-ad-linked-to-phishing-site-tops-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
