A nationwide ‘Scamnesty’ campaign by Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), aims to help end the scourge of mass marketed scam mailings in the UK. It is coming to Leicestershire this February. Nearly half of the UK adult population has been targeted by a scam. Every year,3.2 million adults – one in 15 people – across the country fall victim to a scam involving deceptive unsolicited mailings, phone calls, or emails, which are designed to con victims out of their cash. UK consumers lose around a staggering £3.5 billion to scams every year.

‘Scamnesty 2010’ calls on the people of Leicestershire to fight back against the fraudsters by dropping any scam mailings they receive into designated ‘Scamnesty’ bins that are to be found in all County Libraries. Last year Leicestershire people handed in about 10% of the national total and, as a result a number of foreign and British mailers have been put out of business or taken to Court (see the bottom of this page).  That 2009 campaign revealed that the top five mass-marketed scam mailings were:

1) deceptive sweepstakes,

2) misleading prize draws,

3) fake clairvoyants/psychics,

4) bogus foreign lotteries, and

5) ‘miracle’ health cures.

The Scamnesty bins will provide up to date intelligence to Trading Standards and the OFT and this will help with future investigations which will prevent others from being scammed.

If you think you have been the victim of a scam, or you suspect a scam, call Consumer Direct for clear, practical advice on 08454 04 05 06 or visit www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/scamnesty

Consumers can report all types of scams at https://secure.consumerdirect.gov.uk/reportascam.aspx on the Consumer Direct website.During Scamnesty month (February 2010), they can also report online scams to the‘virtual bin’ on the Consumer Direct website.

The very best advice to anyone who receives a possible scam offer is:

The OFT has issued High Court proceedings against the companies and individuals behind five UK prize draw promotions in an attempt to prevent mailings and the distribution of scratch-cards which, the OFT considers, are misleading.

The proceedings seek an injunction preventing unfair practices by Gloucestershire-based Purely Creative Limited, and Strike Lucky Games Limited, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Limited, The Winners Club Limited, and Dodd Marketing Limited, all of which are based in Herefordshire.

The injunction is also being sought against Adrian John Williams, a common director of all the companies, and Wendy Elaine Ruck, the common secretary, as well as Catherine Cummings a second director of Purely Creative Limited, and Peter Jude Henry, a previous director of The Winners Club Limited.

The businesses promote various premium-rate prize draw scratch-cards which are distributed through inserts in magazines and newspapers, as well as direct mailings. The action is being taken under the Enterprise Act 2002 for breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs).

The OFT considers the promotions are legally unfair because they:

·create the impression that the recipient has won a prize, which in fact cannot be claimed without incurring a cost, such as through a premium line telephone call or a payment for 'insurance and delivery'

·deceive consumers into believing they have been particularly fortunate to have been selected or to have won a prize

·deceive consumers that a prize is of a high value

·omit information, or provide ambiguous information, about the chances of winning, costs of claiming, and terms and conditions of the prize draw.

The companies believe that their promotions comply with the relevant laws and guidelines and have refused to cease their publication.

Heather Clayton, OFT Senior Director, said:

'Our case is that these promotions encourage people to believe they have won a valuable prize when, we argue, the plain fact of the matter is that people are being sold a low value product. We have been unable to reach agreement with the companies or secure voluntary agreement that distribution will cease. So we think the best thing now is for the High Court to decide the matter.'