Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/17/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I received a letter stating that a credit issued to my card number ending in 9213 is going to be revoked, as the charges were supposedly valid. First issue is I've never had a card ending in 9213. Second issue is near, as I can tell. This is a telephone service provider or a cable provider based out of **********. I've never lived in ********** or attempted to do service with the company of this name at anytime. Third issue is the customer service told me they supposedly can't look it up by the reference number or the posting number that is on the letter they sent me. Fourth issue, is it says this is a valid pay per call transaction. I don't know what a pay per call transaction is. And I've never done one to my knowledge. The lady I spoke to said their name isSusan and she said she can't help me. I asked for a supervisor and she said, there's not one available, and she is the supervisor. I find it strange that she can't look app this account. By the reference number or the posting number that is on their letter. This is most likely a fraudulent charge. And the company is saying they can't help me investigate, so I need your help.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/22/2025

  Network Telephone Services (NTS) operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service on these pay-per-call transactions, the calling party is advised that if the charge incurred for a call transaction fails to settle on the credit card or other payment card presented by the caller for payment, then the party will be billed directly for the service that is provided.
  
  The charge at issue involves a call transaction made to the pay-per-call services taking place on November 15, 2024. The call to the services originated from the telephone number (720) 65x-xx37. To access the pay-per-call services for this transaction, the caller presented for payment a Mastercard debit card ending in the four digits 9213 that was issued through Keybank N.A.
  
  The payment card presented for payment by the caller to the service initially settled the charge that was incurred on the November 15, 2024 transaction. However, the charge on the transaction was later charged back on the basis of the cardholder disputing responsibility for the charge with the partys issuing bank. This charge is currently unpaid and outstanding.
  
  A billing through Card Holder Services for the charged-back transaction was sent to ***** ********* based on information provided by a third party lookup service which had identified him as the subscriber of the telephone number which originated this transaction. Following his receipt of the billing, Mr. ********* contacted Card Holder Services on January 10, 2025 and he reviewed the matter directly with our company. Following this inquiry,it was determined that ***** ********* was not the party who is responsible for incurring the charge for the November 15, 2024 transaction.
  
  Following Mr. ********** contact, his personal information was removed from the transaction and he will not receive any additional ******** or contact from our company. There was no reporting of the November 15th transaction to any credit reporting agencies. Our company apologizes to ************ for this confusion.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/23/2025

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/06/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I received a "collections" notice from Cardholder Services representing Netwerk telephone services, #BWNHLGJ #C029395807 REFERENCE NUMBER ******* POSTING NUMBER ********* for "pay-per-call" services. the charges we're investigated by citi card, green dot bank and petal card and all have correctly been found as fraudulent charges for the credit cards they refer to with the ending four digits (0750) , (7285) and (6119) . I HAVE never used a pay-per-call service. Apparently, from other *** complaints, they use a 3rd party research service to identify people and often receive erroneous information.I have received 6 letters from Cardholder Services, one dated 8/30/24 , 4 dated 8/26/24 and one dated 8/19/24, one "stating that" ******** is due now for card ending in card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-0750 , and the other 5 stating that: "This notice is in response to a recent dispute we received regarding the transaction on your credit card statement billed for pay-per-call services.""As a result of your dispute, credit has been issued to your credit/Card account numbers ****** ,******, and ****** by your bank. The following credit(s) have been issued."DATE. AMOUNT 08/26/24 $147.90, 08/26/24 ******, 08/26/24 ******, 08/26/24 ***** and 8/19/24 ******

  Business Response

  Date: 09/12/2024

  Network Telephone Services (NTS) operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service on these pay-per-call transactions, the calling party is advised that if the charge that is incurred for a call transaction fails to settle on the credit card or other payment card presented by the caller for payment, then the party will be billed directly for the service that is provided.
  
  The charges at issue involve twenty nine (29) separate call transactions made to the pay-per-call services all taking place on August *******. These 29 calls to the services each originated from the telephone number (816) 45x-xx40, which is the same telephone number that ****** **** ****** identifies for himself in these two complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). To access the pay-per-call services for these 29 transactions,the caller presented for payment six (6) different credit/payment cards: i.e.,a Mastercard credit card ending in the four digits 0750 that was issued through Citibank N.A., a **** credit card ending in 7285 issued through ********* a Mastercard credit card ending in 9029 issued through **************, a Mastercard credit card ending in 4907 issued through ****************, a **** credit card ending in 2032 issued through ********************* and a **** prepaid card ending in 6119 issued through **************.
  
  On these 29 transactions, the payment card that was presented for payment by the caller to the services initially settled each charge incurred on 22 of these transactions. However, the charges on these 22 transactions were all later charged back on the basis of the cardholder disputing responsibility for the charges with his issuing banks. The charges incurred for the remaining 7 transactions were declined by the payment card that was presented by the caller for payment. All of the charges incurred for these 29 transactions are currently unpaid and outstanding.
  
  ******** through Card Holder Services for the 22 charged-back transactions were sent to ****** **** ****** based on information provided by a third party lookup service which identified ****** **** ****** as the subscriber of the telephone number which originated each of these transactions. ****** **** ****** confirms that this is his current telephone number in the two complaints he has filed with the BBB. ******** for the 7 transactions that were declined payment on the credit card presented were also sent to ****** **** ****** as the subscriber of the telephone number that had originated each of these transactions.
  
  *** has reviewed all 29 transactions and it provides the following background: (a) the telephone number that originated each of the 29 call transactions and the telephone number that Mr. ****** identifies in his BBB complaints are the same telephone number; (b) the caller identifies his name as ***** or as **** within some of the transactions; (c) Mr. ****** identifies in his two complaints to the BBB that ********, Green Dot and other issuing banks each investigated the charges which would confirm that the payment cards presented by the caller on these transactions belong to ********** and (d) when the high volume of use by the August 10th caller was identified, a loss prevention agent contacted the originating (816)45x-xx40 telephone number and left a voice message after no one picked up the call. It was determined that the voice of the calling party using this telephone for these several August 10th transactions is a voice match to the voicemail message for the (816) 45x-xx40 telephone number. 
  
  Mr. ****** is requested to contact NTS via its toll-free number ************** in order to review each of the 29 transactions made on August 10th   as the charges billed are valid and owing.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/19/2023

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I found Network Telephone Service (NTS*Call merchant) billed my vanilla gift card on 2/6/22 though I never used the service from this company. I just found about this bill when I could not use the gift card for a purchase (lack of sufficient balance). I checked my gift card balance and found the bill from NTS*Call. I know it has been more than one year, but money is still money. Since I never used their service, I want my money back!Sincerely

  Business Response

  Date: 09/19/2023

  Network Telephone Services (NTS) acknowledges receipt of this complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau by *********************.
  
  In the complaint Fnu  ******* raises an issue that he recently determined his Vanilla Gift Card was charged in February 2022 for a transaction that he does not recognize and that he now seeks a refund.
  
  Based on the lack of any specific information provided in this BBB complaint, no review can be provided on the background of the February 2022 transaction that is the subject of the partys complaint.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/07/2023

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I used a telephone service which has no disclaimer, company name or cowt upfront. The service was horrible I got a $300 bill and called Amex. They said to call the business.I called the business and questioned the charges. I was told I would get a call back.I got a call and the call dropped. 1 minute later, I get a voice-mail threatening me. The voice-mail was from *****************. When I ****** the number, it shows a ***************** but the guy is in the military. This company is using false names.Then I told the guy I recognize the charges after he explained what they were. He told me if I charge it back, he will release recordings to the police.All I want is the Charges refunded because of the shotty service and the scam of not telling fees upfront.In addition, when ***************** didn't like my reply he called me 9 times to talk trash.He started the call threatening to *** me but after his violations, he should be ready for a suit.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/10/2023

  Network Telephone Services (***) operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services.
  
  The charges directed to ************************* were the result of two separate calls made to the services on July 3, 2023 and July 5, 2023 respectively. To access the services, the caller presented for payment an **************** card ending in 2006. These calls both originated from the telephone number (954) 99x-xx99. Following these transactions, ************** contacted the customer service department on July 7, 2023 to inquire about the charges on his Amex statement. ************** called from the same telephone number from which the two calls to the services referenced above originated from. Following this July 7th communication, the ************************** contacted ************* to review the two call transactions. *** disputes **************** characterization in  this BBB complaint of the number of calls made to his telephone number, that company personnel ever talked trash to ************** or that any communications were less than professional. During the communications,************** confirmed he was the party who originated the two calls to the *** pay-per-call services.
  
  Following receipt of this BBB complaint, *** has issued a provisional credit of the Amex charges in order to conduct a detailed review of the two transactions. If the charges are determined to be indeed accurate, then the charges incurred for the July 3rd and July 5th transactions will be addressed directly with **************. If otherwise, ************** will be provided information on that outcome as well.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/11/2023

   
  Complaint: 20287830
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Amex will allow me to fight the charges as the service had no upfront cost and was shady.

  I do stand 100% confident in the # of calls made to my line. I also have voicemails as proof of the "trash talk" letter as the agent called from a personal number as well.

  I am requesting a refund to end this once and for all. I will not file further FCC complaints as well of resolved.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business Response

  Date: 07/24/2023

  The two transactions at issue in this BBB complaint have been reviewed. It was confirmed that ************** was the party who initiated each of the calls to the pay-per-call services.
  
  ************** is requested to contact NTS at its toll-free number at ************** in order to resolve the outstanding charges.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/01/2023

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Today, I received a letter from NTS regarding a past due balance of $258.49. I have never heard of this company until today and have no idea what balance they are speaking of. This letter was addressed to my parents home and I have not even lived there in 13 years. I believe this to be fraudulent activity and I would like all balances voided and to not be contacted again.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/03/2023

  Network Telephone Services (NTS) through Cardholder Services operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service on these pay-per-call transactions, the calling party is advised that if the charges incurred for the call transaction fail to settle on the credit card or debit card presented by the caller for payment, then the party will be billed directly for the service provided.
  
  The charge at issue involves a call transaction made to the pay-per-call services on February 4, 2023. The caller accessed the services by first presenting for payment a **** debit card ending in the four digits **** issued through ** Bank, NA. The call originated from the telephone number (502)30x-xx57. The charge incurred for the February 4th pay-per-call transaction settled on the **** card presented by the caller but the payment was subsequently charged back. A billing for the outstanding charge was sent to *************************.
  
  The caller to the service identified himself as ****** at the time of the February 4th call transaction. **************** also spoke with NTS on April 4, 2023 speaking from the same telephone number that originated the February 4th transaction.
  
  **************** is requested to contact NTS via its toll-free number ************** in order to address the charge for the February 4th transaction. The outstanding charge is valid and owing.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/05/2023

   
  Complaint: 19998823
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The phone number and bank card listed does not belong to me. This was evidently fraudulent activity with someone using my name. I will call in to the number as requested by NTS on Monday, May 8th to discuss this and once again request all charges be removed.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business Response

  Date: 05/08/2023

  
  Network Telephone Services (NTS) thanks **************** for contacting our company directly on this matter this week. The matter was reviewed and it was determined that NTS had billed the wrong ************************* for the February 4, 2023 call charge. NTS records will be updated and this ************************* will be removed from all future dealings on the charges.
  
  NTS apologizes to **************** for the confusion.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/17/2023

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I received a "collections" notice from Cardholder Services representing Netwerk telephone services, **** for "pay-per-call" services. I have never had the credit card they refer to with the ending four digits (****) nor used a pay-per-call service. Apparently, from other *** complaints, they use a 3rd party research service to identify people and often receive erroneous information.I have received two letters from Cardholder Services, one dated April 3, 2023, stating that: "This notice is in response to a recent dispute we received regarding the transaction on your credit card statement billed for pay-per-call services.""As a result of your dispute, credit has been issued to your credit/Card account number ******************* by your bank. The following credit(s) have been issued."DATE. AMOUNT 03/28/2023 $889.44 "The disputed transaction(s) will be investigated, which may result in further action(s) to enforce the rights of the merchants and/or protect you as a cardholder from unauthorized use of your credit."I have received a second letter, dated April 7, 2023, stating that I had a charge of $889.44 for credit card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-****, which I do now possess or have possessed in the past."The results of our investigation revealed that the charges that were incurred and credited to your credit card account are valid pay-per-call transactions. As the service provider, we are now invoking our right to collect the unpaid debt."I need to know the original name, date, phone number, and the bank or credit card used in this transaction to dispute the charge. *********************************

  Business Response

  Date: 04/18/2023

  Network Telephone Services through Cardholder Services (NTS)operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service, the calling party is advised that in the event the charges incurred for the call transaction fail to settle on the credit card or debit card presented by the caller for payment for the services, then the party will be billed directly.
  
  The charges directed to ********************** were the result of fourteen separate calls made to the services. To access the services, the caller presented for payment a *********** Mastercard credit card ending in ****. Payment on these calls all originally settled on the credit card presented by the caller but these were all subsequently charged back by the issuing bank on the basis of card owner dispute. A direct billing of these charges was thereafter directed to ********************** based on a lookup service which identified her as the subscriber of one of the telephone numbers that originated the calls to the pay-per-call services.
  
  Following receipt of this BBB complaint, NTS reviewed the transactions and it has determined that the charges should not have been directed to *********************************. Instead it has been determined that someone fraudulently accessed the pay-per-call services using someone elses credit card. ************************ information has been removed from these transactions and this party will not be sent any further ********. There has been no reporting of these transactions to any credit reporting agencies and NTS apologizes to ********************** for this confusion.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/20/2022

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I received a "collections" notice from NTS for "pay-per-call" services. I don't have nor ever have had the credit card they refer to (last 4 digits), nor have I ever used a pay per call service in my life. Apparently from other *** complaints, they are using some sort of 3rd party research to identify people and get erroneous information.
  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/17/2023

  Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2023/01/09) */
  Network Telephone Services operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service, the calling party is advised that in the event the charges incurred for the call transaction fail to settle on the credit card or debit card presented by the caller for payment for the services, then the party will be billed directly.
  
  The charge directed to Mr. ****** was the result of a call to the pay-per-call services that was received on November 2, 2022. To access the services, the caller presented a ******** payment card ******************************* The call originated from telephone number *************** The November 2nd call charge initially settled on the ******** card presented by the caller but then the charge was subsequently charged back. A billing of the charge was directed to Mr. ****** based on a third party lookup service which had identified this party as the subscriber of the telephone number that originated the November 2nd call to the pay-per-call services.
  
  Following receipt of this *** complaint, the transaction was reviewed and it was determined that Mr. ****** is not the responsible party for November 2nd charge. Mr. ******'s information has been removed from the transaction. There was no reporting of the transaction to any credit reporting agencies.
  
  In the event that Mr. ****** receives any subsequent billing in connection with the November 2nd charge, please ignore the billing as these were sent out prior to this correction being made.
  
  
  Consumer Response /* (2000, 10, 2023/01/16) */
  (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/13/2022

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have received several letters from Cardholders Services and one from Spectrum Billing claiming I owe $19.99 plus Late Fees for pay-per-call transactions from Network Telephone Services P.O Box 4342 Los Angeles CA **********. The credit card they are implying I used I don't own. I have never used this service, I don't know how they got my name, and would like my name removed from this billing transaction. Someone has either made a billing error or is scamming me and possibly the Network Telephone Service Business. I have not made contact with any of the involved parties for fear of not knowing anything about the transaction and considering it to be a fraudulent attempt to scam me for money. Please help me get a resolution to this issue.
  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/07/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/11/21) */
  Cardholder Services and Spectrum Billing Services operate a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service, the calling party is advised that in the event the charges incurred for the call transaction fail to settle on the credit card or debit card presented by the caller for payment for the services, then the party will be billed directly.
  
  The charges directed to ************ were the result of two (2) calls to the pay-per-call services that were received on August 22, 2022. To access the services, the caller presented a debit Mastercard ending in the four digits **** that was issued through Fiserv Solutions, LLC. From the call records, one of the calls originated from telephone number ************** and the second call originated from telephone number *************** One of the call charges was declined by the Mastercard presented by the caller and the second call charge initially settled on the Mastercard but was subsequently charged back. A direct billing of the charges was thereafter directed to ************ based on a third party lookup service which identified this party as the subscriber of one of the telephone numbers that originated these calls to the pay-per-call services.
  
  Following receipt of this BBB complaint, the transactions were investigated. It was determined that ************ is not the responsible party for incurring the August 22nd charges. ************'s information has been removed from these transactions and he will not be sent any further billings. There was no reporting of the transactions to any credit reporting agencies.
  
  SBS apologizes to ************ for this confusion.
  
  
  Consumer Response /* (2000, 7, 2022/12/06) */
  (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
  It was determined that ************ is not the responsible party for incurring the August 22nd charges. ************'s information has been removed from these transactions and he will not be sent any further billings. There was no reporting of the transactions to any credit reporting agencies

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/05/2022

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I received a statement from Network Telephone Services for a charge of $39.98 for pay-per-call transactions. They referenced the credit card number *******************. This is not a credit card that I have in my name nor have ever had in my name. I have never used pay-per-call services.
  This is clearly not an accurate as I don't have nor have ever had a credit card with these numbers. This is a scam. I want a letter from Network Telephone Services clearly stating that there is no charge for pay-per-call transactions.
  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/20/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/10/14) */
  Network Telephone Services Inc. (NTS) operates a national pay-per-call telephone network offering incoming callers entertainment and information services. According to the terms of service, the calling party is advised that in the event the charges incurred for the call transaction fail to settle on the credit card or debit card presented by the caller for payment for the services, then the party will be billed directly by NTS.
  
  The charges directed to ********** were the result of two (2) separate calls made to the services on July 5, 2022 and July 9, 2022 respectively. The caller accessed the services on both transactions by presenting a ********** credit card ****************************** issued through ****** Bank Corporation. The first call originated from telephone number ************** and the other call from telephone number **************. Payment on both call charges originally settled on the ********** payment card presented by the caller but the charges were thereafter charged back based on card holder dispute with the issuing bank. Billing of the two charges were directed to ***** based on information provided in a lookup service which identified this party as the subscriber of one of the telephone numbers that originated the call to the services.
  
  Following receipt of this *** complaint, NTS will issue one-time courtesy credits for the total amount of both of these charges. There will be no further billings sent on these two July 2022 charges to **********.
  
  
  Consumer Response /* (2000, 7, 2022/10/19) */
  (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)