Channel
@vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam
On this record: Topic · Observations · Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Citations · Cite this entry
7,353subscribers
-44 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001182537069 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam |
| Description | Поможем выяснить, за какие навязанные страховки по кредиту вы переплачиваете каждый месяц и сделаем возврат этой суммы Проверить кредитный договор на наличие страховки тут: @manager_verni_svoe |
| Created | 15 October 2021 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam |
Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 11 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 52% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Posts published here appear word for word on 1 other registered channel. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
| Posted first | Then | Overlap | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam/2874 Aug 2026, 15:17 UTC | @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1802 · this entry4 Aug 2026, 15:17 UTC | 1.00 | under a minute |
| @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam/2916 Aug 2026, 14:30 UTC | @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1805 · this entry6 Aug 2026, 14:32 UTC | 1.00 | 2 minutes |
| @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam/2926 Aug 2026, 14:31 UTC | @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1806 · this entry6 Aug 2026, 14:32 UTC | 1.00 | under a minute |
| @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1797 · this entry2 Aug 2026, 07:03 UTC | @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam/2812 Aug 2026, 07:04 UTC | 0.99 | 72 seconds |
| @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1801 · this entry4 Aug 2026, 15:16 UTC | @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam/2864 Aug 2026, 15:17 UTC | 0.98 | under a minute |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam | 5 (5/5 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.99 | under a minute | @vozvrat_strahovok_po_kreditam (3–2) |
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. 2 of the 3 matches recorded here fall after that date and carried no header when we read them. The rest predate reliable capture and are not evidence either way.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 13 comparable posts for this entry, running 29 July 2026 to 7 August 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Across the whole group of 2, the earliest publisher we hold is @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam — which is this entry. That is a statement about our reading window, not a claim of authorship.
Recorded under the key clone_mutual, last confirmed 7 August 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Aug 2026, 09:48 | 7,353 | -37 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 05:06 | 7,390 | -7 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 07:00 | 7,397 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 06:54 | 7,397 | first reading |
21 posts held, back to 29 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 11 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 11 of 21 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 21 (29 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 1,300 |
| Reactions total | 22 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 17:41 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 12 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
22 reactions across 11 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 36.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 8 | 36.4% | |
| 😁 | 6 | 27.3% | |
| ❤ | 4 | 18.2% | |
| 🔥 | 4 | 18.2% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 11 of the 21 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 22reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 29 July 2026 to 12 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Естественно вам банк после всех проверок скажет, что возврат невозможен. Если бы было все так просто и можно было просто в чат написать, то зачем мы нужны были бы вообще? Маленькие суммы еще есть вероятность, что банк сможет вам вернуть в рамках лояльности. Но всё существенное надо добиваться от них. Вот здесь пример как мы это делаем, здесь банк тоже говорил невозможно, а на следующий день сделал возврат Да и в ц…
Если говорить словами клиента, то мы скажем: Мы ЗНАЕМ, что страховку вам навязали. Мы МОЖЕМ это доказать и ВЕРНУТЬ вам переплату за неё. Именно это мы сделали для клиента, которого цитировали выше 😌 107 789 руб — столько мы вернули ему за страховку по кредиту Альфа-Банка, оформленному в 2024 году. ❗️Страховка составляла целых 25% от суммы кредита Наши юристы доказали, что услуга была навязана, и добились полного в…
А вы любите дождь? 🌧️ ☔️ А если мы скажем, что это дождь из денег? 😏 Именно такой «дождь из СМС» сегодня обрушился на нашу клиентку — она прислала нам скриншоты с возвратами и написала: «РЕБЯТА!!!! Мне тут дождь из СМС посыпался» 😂 А все почему? Потому что мы вернули 65 120 руб по её кредитной карте Т-Банка, открытой в 2025 году, за подключенную без ее согласия услугу "Страхование задолженности" ⏱️ На возврат ушло…
👍1😁1
Вернули 156 582 руб за доп услуги по двум кредитным картам Т-Банка и Альфа-Банка Сначала 91 409 руб вернули по закрытой кредитной карте ТБанка за 29 дней Подробнее об этом кейсе рассказывали здесь И вот недавно пришёл возврат по второй кредитной карте, открытой в Альфа-Банке, нам удалось вернуть 65 460 руб. Карта была оформлена в 2024 году и до сих пор действует. Наши юристы изначально подавали заявление на возвра…
Вернули 87 624 ₽ по кредиту Совкомбанка за 28 дней 💥 💥 💥 На первый взгляд клиент был уверен, что возвращать уже нечего. Когда-то он случайно заметил в приложении банка одну из подключенных услуг и самостоятельно отключил ее. За нее банк действительно вернул деньги. Он решил, что на этом всё. Но на всякий случай отправил нам кредитный договор на проверку. И не зря 😏 Оказалось, что вместе с кредитом было подключен…
Все, больше никаких кредиток:
😁3
Вернули 120 702 руб страховки по кредиту Ренессанс Банка за 47 дней ⚡⚡⚡ Кредит был оформлен 26 мая 2025 года на 743 тыс руб. При проверке договора нашли страховку на 554 тыс руб (это 75% от суммы кредита!) В этом кейсе наши юристы сделали всё возможное, но вернуть удалось не всю сумму. Банк клиенту вернул лишь 120 702 руб . Считаем честным рассказывать не только о случаях, когда удается вернуть всю страховку, но …
👍2❤1
Отзыв клиента: Изначально не особо верил, что возможно вернуть деньги по закрытому продукту А зря) Потому что наши юристы знают, как вернуть переплаты даже по уже закрытым продуктам 😎
Спасибо большое за работу, получилось все очень быстро и оперативно. 3 августа обращение было подано, 5го уже вернулись деньги. Изначально не особо верил, что возможно вернуть деньги по закрытому продукту
Вернули 29 477 руб страховки по закрытой кредитной карте Альфа-Банка за 2 дня 💥 💥 💥 ⏩️ 3 августа начали работу ✅ 5 августа клиент получил возврат Этим кейсом сразу ответим на несколько частых вопросов: 1. Можно ли вернуть страховку по кредитной карте? Да, можно. 2. А если карта уже закрыта? Тоже можно. 3. Если карта оформлена несколько лет назад? Да. По Альфа-Банку мы работаем с продуктами, оформленными до 5 ле…
👍1
Сегодня берем новые договоры на бесплатную проверку на наличие скрытой страховки 🤝 💬 Отзывы наших клиентов, которые уже получили возврат, можно прочитать в этих постах: https://t.me/vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1684 https://t.me/vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam/1760 Для бесплатной проверки договора пишите менеджеру – @manager_verni_svoe
Большая благодарность Сабине, всей команде за возврат страховки! Не было особых ожиданий, но все получилось🎊 без каких-либо особых временных затрат с моей стороны! Все оперативно, четко и понятно. Вчера поступил возврат (около месяца заняла процедура).
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
@vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 11 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Возврат переплат по кредиту” (@vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam), 7,353 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/vozvrat_pereplat_po_kreditam.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.