Verified institutional messaging
When a council, a bank or a hospital writes to someone, that person should be able to check it really came from them — and the sender should be able to prove it arrived, was read, and was answered. ADORASEC does both, on one channel.
Your council tax bill for 2026/27 is ready. Please confirm you have received this.
Your council tax bill for 2026/27 is ready. Please confirm you have received this.
The same words, in two places. Only one of them can prove who sent it. Illustrative example
Part 1 — the problem
Sixty-five seconds on what happens today, when a message looks official and nobody can check.
What the film shows
“It looked official. That was all it needed to do.”
The gap
Blocking scam messages is being dealt with. From 15 July 2027 Ofcom requires providers to know their business customers, register Sender IDs and block what does not match.
That work protects the network. It does not help the person holding the phone, and Ofcom says so in its own words.
“…intended to prevent scammers from gaining access to A2P messaging services, rather than provide specific information or verifiability to recipients.”
Ofcom, Combatting mobile messaging scams, 15 July 2026
Know-your-customer proves the sender to the operator. It proves nothing to the citizen.
By July 2027 every public body sending text messages will have been verified by its provider — Ofcom confirmed to us in writing that councils, the NHS and central government departments fall within the definition of a “business sender”.
And the person receiving the message still will not be able to tell. That is the gap we fill.
How it works
The resident is already there for something else. One question, one tap on a tablet, and a receipt appears on their phone. No sign-up campaign, no app store hunt — the consent event happens where the person already is.
Not in the SMS inbox next to the impersonation. In a list of institutions the person has themselves activated, each marked verified sender.
Read, confirmed, answered — or not. The institution sees the outcome per person, with a reference it can look up. No reply is data too: the rest become one list.
Evidence, not assertion
Between July and September 2026 we sent Freedom of Information requests to 90 English councils. Every figure below is from a council’s own written response or a published regulator source.
of the councils that answered could not produce a comparable unit cost for writing to their own residents.
ADORASEC FOI dataset, 44 of n=64difference between the cheapest and dearest price councils pay for a single text message — 0.30p to 20.72p.
ADORASEC FOI dataset, n=14median share of annual canvass responses arriving online, against 3.7% on paper.
ADORASEC FOI dataset, median of n=9 councilslost to authorised push payment fraud in a year that was never reimbursed to the victim.
UK Finance, Annual Fraud Report 2026Part 2 — the solution
Two minutes on what changes when the sender can be checked and the outcome can be counted.
What the film shows
“No reply is data too. The rest become one list.”
Two ways in
For institutions
Councils, banks, insurers, property managers, schools and health providers. Statutory notices, billing, appointments, consultations — anywhere “sent” is currently doing the work that “received” should be doing.
For people
A short list of institutions you have activated yourself, and nothing else in it. Alongside it, a small personal safety circle: an SOS, up to three guardians, and one short daily message to someone who matters.
