Warning! The envelope stuffing scam.

FACT:

There is NO such thing as and envelope stuffing scheme that will ever make you any money. There are only envelope stuffing scams and the only thing you can absolutely guarantee is that you'll be the loser! Why am I so sure? Because it happened to me!

Here is what happened to me in 1999 and, although there are now many more varations of this scam, the end result is ALWAYS the same... out of pocket and disappointed!

A couple of years down the line, it still pains me some to remember how I was taken in by this scam. Still, if recounting the details helps others and encourages you to relate your own stories, the experience will have not been completely wasted.

I don't remember exactly, but I think the initial contact was through a mailshot. Whatever, I sent off for the free information pack and received a package filled with various "job offers".

Having taken early retirement shortly before, I was looking for a way to supplement my pension and sent off my registration (about £25, I think) for a scheme - there were loads of them - described in the ad as something like:

"Addressing envelopes. We pay £100 per 100."

This initial fee was fully refundable with the first batch of returns and was only to "discourage time wasters."

Now, having spent a good deal my working life in management and administration, I reckon myself to be of reasonable intelligence, so I thought that there might be something more to it than just putting names and addresses on envelopes. Maybe I would have to canvas for them, or buy a mailing list. Anyway, I was prepared, I thought, for the hidden catches. Hah!

After a protracted delay, I received the material and eagerly opened the envelope. My hopes were high. After all, I wasn't looking to get rich, just earn a few extra quid. It took about all of thirty seconds to realise that I was just another mug!

The task was not, after all, to address envelopes, but to place an advertisement in my local free ad paper using a predetermined text which was "guaranteed" to pull in replies. I no longer have the literature, but the wording went something like:

"MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR HOME PC. FREE REPORT TO ANYONE WHO SENDS ME A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE AND A BLANK 3½" FLOPPY DISK."

The instructions implied that because of the clever wording of the text, it would be easy to fool the paper into believing that it was a private ad and therefore they would print it for free.

After that, all I had to do was sit back with my feet up and wait for the avalanche of replies to arrive. Then, when I had a minimum of fifty computer disks and envelopes, I was to parcel them up, post them off to the company and await my payment by return. Some hope!

For a start, I bought a couple of the local free advertising papers, turned to the appropriate section and found several ads already there - worded exactly the same!. And guess what? They were display ads. You know, the ones that cost a good few quid.

Do you think if had I submitted my own I would have been able to convince the paper to publish it for nothing? Got it in one!

Then I started doing my sums. IF I was lucky, very lucky, I might get twenty or thirty replies to my ad a week, which meant - and remember I'm being super optimistic here - that it would be at least two weeks before I would have enough disks and envelopes to return. So, IF I was lucky, I would only have to run the ad for two weeks. Mind you, it would have to be a display ad like the others. No point in placing a less prominent one, was there?

So, let's recap. Two weeks ads at around a tenner a week, not forgetting the cost of the postage to send the stuff back, let's be generous and call it two quid, shall we?

• Incoming = £50
• Outgoing = £22
• Balance  = £28

Now before you say that the balance was all pure profit, let me remind you that this was TWO WEEKS takings.

So, in summary. With all these conditions in my favour, and the wind blowing in the right direction, I could probably look forward to earning in a good fortnight - and remember that every business, no matter how successful, will have its downturns - somewhere in the region of fourteen pounds a week.

Two pounds a day!!

Taking everything into consideration, and realising that my chances of making anything from the scheme were virtually nil, I took the only sensible course of action...and chucked the lot in the bin!

While this true account was written a little tongue in cheek, there is a sting in the tail.

The company I purchased the scheme from was:

Win-Star Direct
96 Welsh Row
Nantwich
CHESHIRE
CW5 5ET.

The company is owned and run by Mr Simon Stepsys who as recently as 1998 was taken to task by the Office of Fair Trading.

The following is reproduced with thanks to Lynne O'Connor who first showcased it, among others, in her own homeworking site's rogues gallery.

Pay her a visit at http://members.tripod.co.uk/homeworking

OFT halts misleading homeworking scheme ads

The Office of Fair Trading has scored a victory in the battle against misleading homeworking advertisements which promised ‘Unlimited Earnings’.

Simon Stepsys, trading as Win-Star Direct (formerly PressWise Marketing) of Nantwich, Cheshire, has agreed to give undertakings to John Bridgeman, Director General of Fair Trading, that he will stop the publication and dissemination of misleading advertisements for working from home schemes and also information on winning the pools and betting on horse racing.

The adverts appeared in national and regional newspapers and classified-ads magazines. Consumers were encouraged to send for further details, they received information about several schemes which made claims for the ‘best paid homework plans ever’ but omitted essential information about what the work involved, the availability of the work, and gave a misleading impression of the earnings potential.

The schemes required consumers to register by paying a registration fee of £20 -£25 to work from home and promising high earnings which failed to materialise. They led consumers to expect considerable wealth without ever really spelling out how they could achieve this.

Rewards offered included: ‘Earn Thousands of Pounds Weekly With No Investment Whatsoever!’ - ‘Earn Up To £400 A Night’ and even ‘Unlimited Earnings’.

Most complaints concerned two particular schemes: ‘Homework & Moneymakers’, which claimed you could make £19,500 plus in 3 months if you had the use of an IBM compatible PC, and ‘Earn £100 per hundred’, which claimed that by ‘sending us addressed envelopes you can earn all the extra money you need daily by working from home in your spare time.’ These claims could not be substantiated.

John Bridgeman said, ‘Consumers should be wary of paying in advance for "easy money" home working schemes. Under a genuine scheme you should expect to earn money rather than pay it out. These schemes preyed on the vulnerable. If you suspect a scheme or feel you have been conned, please report it to your local trading standards officer as soon as you can. You may help to expose the scam and save others from being caught out. Should Mr Stepsys break these undertakings he can expect to be taken to court.’

OFT involvement followed action by Cheshire Trading Standards Department and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) which upheld a complaint. But Mr Stepsys continued to advertise in the same way and the ASA passed it to the OFT.

Despite being given several opportunities to do so, Mr Stepsys failed to provide satisfactory evidence to back up the various claims made in his advertisements.

Following an approach under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988,voluntary undertakings have been secured from Mr Stepsys in relation to misleading advertisements which have been placed for ‘business opportunities’, ‘business plans’ and ‘agency plans’ relating to working from home, and also information on winning the pools and betting on horse racing.

NOTES

1 The text of Mr Stepsys and Win-Star Direct (formerly PressWise Marketing) of 103 Princes Court, Beam Heath Way, Nantwich, Cheshire CW.. 6RQ, undertakings are as follows:

CONTROL OF MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATIONS 1988 UNDERTAKINGS TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

I, Simon Stepsys, trading as Win-Star Direct (formerly PressWise Marketing), hereby undertake to the Director General of Fair Trading that I (whether by myself or by my servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever) will refrain from doing any of the following acts, that is to say publish or disseminate, or cause to permit to be published or disseminated, or otherwise be concerned with the publication or dissemination in any manner whatsoever, of any of the following types of misleading advertisement within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988) namely:

1 any of the advertisements examples of which are in Schedule 1 annexed hereto and which were published in the various newspapers and periodicals identified in Schedule 2 annexed hereto;

2 any of the advertisements copies of which are in Schedule 3 annexed hereto and which were disseminated in the form of leaflets with application forms attached supplied to persons who responded to any of the advertisements referred to in (1)above;

3 any other advertisement likely:

(a) to convey a false impression that a bona fide opportunity is offered to earn money by working at home;

(b) to convey a false impression that an opportunity is offered to do work that does not involve soliciting third parties;

(c) to convey a false impression as to the financial outlay required by those who take up an offer to which the advertisement relates, in particular:

(i) by failing to state that any financial outlay is required when such an outlay is in fact required;

(ii) by stating that the only charge to those who take up the offer is an initial fee when such persons are in fact required to pay for their own advertising, postage and/or other disbursements; and/or

(iii) by failing to state that persons who take up the offer are required to pay for their own advertising, postage and/or other disbursements when such is in fact the case;

(d) to convey a false impression as to the earnings that can be achieved by those who take up an offer to which the advertisement relates, in particular:

(i) by stating or suggesting that specified sums can be earned per day/week/month/year when such sums would in fact be very difficult to achieve;

(ii) by stating or suggesting that the amount of money that can be earned is within the direct control of each person who takes up the offer when such is not in fact the case; and/or

(iii) by failing to disclose that the amount of money that can be earned is outside the direct control of each person who takes up the offer when such is in fact the case.

2 The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 gives the Director General of Fair Trading the power to apply to the Court for an injunction when he has received a complaint about an advertisement which he considers misleading. Such an injunction may apply to any person appearing to be concerned with the publication of the advertisement.

3 An advertisement is defined, for the purpose of the Regulations, as 'any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods or services, immovable property, rights or obligations'. The Regulations apply if an advertisement 'deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and if, by reason of its deceptive nature, it is likely to affect their economic behaviour, or for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor of the person whose interests the advertisement seeks to promote’.

In case you think that Mr Stepsys' activities have been nipped in the bud, check out the wording of this ad which appears in Exchange & Mart for May 20th - May 26th, 1999:

or, how about:

Now, the more astute amongst you might have noticed that there is no company name mentioned, but the address is unmistakably the same one from whence my own scheme came.

A coincidence?

I don't think so!

And finally on this one:

There is a possibility that Mr Stepsys has mended his ways and now offers only genuine home work. I wouldn't know because my own dealings with his company were quite a while ago. However, and bearing in mind old sayings about leopards and spots, old dogs and new tricks, you will have to draw your own conclusions.

I can only advise you to proceed with caution.

P.P.S

On the other hand, if you have had any experiences with the company - and, let's be fair - good or bad, why not get in touch and share.

While I was still struggling to get over the effects of the stroke I had in 2000, I got word - through Caroline Tresman of Homeworking.com - that Mr. Richard Burden MP (Birmingham, Northfield) was tabling a private members bill (The "Outworkers" Bill) in the House of Commons on the 2nd of February, 2001.

As I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch the live debate (on the BBC Parliament channel - via Sky TV) and after a couple of hours I was getting pretty bored with the whole thing. I was just about to switch off when Judy Mallaber MP (Amber Valley) mentioned my name and went to talk about my own experience!

Here is a quote from Hansard, the Official Report of the proceedings of the British Parliament.

"John Logan, who was caught by one of the many scams of Simon Stepsys of Win-Star Direct in Cheshire--who, having been caught out by the Office of Fair Trading, had to make a "voluntary" statement that he would not continue his scams--produced a cogent account of his experience. He said:

'After a protracted delay, I received the material and eagerly opened the envelope. My hopes were high. After all, I wasn't looking to get rich, just earn a few extra quid. It took about all of thirty seconds to realise that I was just another mug!'

John Logan did not make a complaint. He just felt stupid, tore up the material and chucked it in the bin. It is because many people react in the same way that cases are not referred to us, and stronger legislation is needed."

Well, I'm sorry to say that we are still waiting for that "stronger legislation" because the bill never even managed to get a second reading. As far I'm concerned I still have mixed feelings about what transpired that day. I had my day in court and the scammer's name was read out in The House of Commons as the dishonest cheat who pepetrated the fraud. When you think about it, though, I guess it all makes me look a bit silly for falling for it in the first place!

In any event, please, PLEASE don't do what I did.

Even if just person reads this and realises that envelope-stuffing is something to avoid like the plague, then this report will have served its purpose.

If you want some more information on the proceedings and would like to know what the bill was trying to achieve click HERE

John Logan, April 2004.