We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Orange Lose Court Battle Over Bad Signal.
Mobile phone customers with poor network coverage could win compensation after landmark ruling
It is one of modern life's bugbears - hearing a cackle of interference then being cut off mid-sentence while chatting on a mobile phone.
Now customers who get consistently poor mobile coverage could be in line for payouts. It follows a court ruling that has opened the door to mobile owners to cancel their contracts, claim refunds and even compensation if their service is not up to scratch.
Tom Prescott, 32, took Orange to court after signing an 18-month contract, only to find he could neither receive nor make calls in and around his home. When he tried to cancel the deal, he was rebuffed.
He said: 'As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it. But the phone networks are using bullying tactics and would not let me off the contract.
'Dealing with Orange was awful. I would ring them and it would take 15 minutes to get through then my phone would cut off and I'd be at the back of the queue.'
Mr Prescott, of Richmond, Surrey, turned to his local county court in Brentford where he was awarded £500 and the right to cancel his contract.
Although county court rulings are not binding, the case will serve as a useful precedent.
Mr Prescott argued that having been sold an 18-month contract by the mobile phone operators there ought to be a reasonable expectation of service.
'I started an 18-month contract and the phone never really worked as I couldn’t get any reception,' he said.
Mr Prescott, aged 32, was so fed up by the gap between the services promised by Orange and the reality of the reception that he tried to cancel the contract, but they would not let him.
'As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it. But the phone networks are using bullying tactics and would not let me off the contract,' he said.
Eventually, Mr Prescott was so exasperated that he turned to the courts for help.
Following his successful hearing, he urged others to follow his example.
'I hope people who have the same problem now realise they can do something about it,' he said.
'I didn’t take them to court to try to get the money. It annoyed me that you have this huge great company that advertised this great image, but when you deal with them they take you nearer and nearer the edge.'
A spokesman for Orange said it could not comment on the case as it was awaiting details.
However, a spokesman said the company provides high quality coverage to 99 per cent of the UK population and continues to invest in its network.
She added: 'As with all mobile operators, it is worth noting that continuous network coverage cannot be guaranteed and network coverage can be affected by factors outside of our control.'
It is one of modern life's bugbears - hearing a cackle of interference then being cut off mid-sentence while chatting on a mobile phone.
Now customers who get consistently poor mobile coverage could be in line for payouts. It follows a court ruling that has opened the door to mobile owners to cancel their contracts, claim refunds and even compensation if their service is not up to scratch.
Tom Prescott, 32, took Orange to court after signing an 18-month contract, only to find he could neither receive nor make calls in and around his home. When he tried to cancel the deal, he was rebuffed.
He said: 'As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it. But the phone networks are using bullying tactics and would not let me off the contract.
'Dealing with Orange was awful. I would ring them and it would take 15 minutes to get through then my phone would cut off and I'd be at the back of the queue.'
Mr Prescott, of Richmond, Surrey, turned to his local county court in Brentford where he was awarded £500 and the right to cancel his contract.
Although county court rulings are not binding, the case will serve as a useful precedent.
Mr Prescott argued that having been sold an 18-month contract by the mobile phone operators there ought to be a reasonable expectation of service.
'I started an 18-month contract and the phone never really worked as I couldn’t get any reception,' he said.
Mr Prescott, aged 32, was so fed up by the gap between the services promised by Orange and the reality of the reception that he tried to cancel the contract, but they would not let him.
'As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it. But the phone networks are using bullying tactics and would not let me off the contract,' he said.
Eventually, Mr Prescott was so exasperated that he turned to the courts for help.
Following his successful hearing, he urged others to follow his example.
'I hope people who have the same problem now realise they can do something about it,' he said.
'I didn’t take them to court to try to get the money. It annoyed me that you have this huge great company that advertised this great image, but when you deal with them they take you nearer and nearer the edge.'
A spokesman for Orange said it could not comment on the case as it was awaiting details.
However, a spokesman said the company provides high quality coverage to 99 per cent of the UK population and continues to invest in its network.
She added: 'As with all mobile operators, it is worth noting that continuous network coverage cannot be guaranteed and network coverage can be affected by factors outside of our control.'
0
Comments
-
Best news I've heard all week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
About bloody time.0 -
Do you have a link to the story ?0
-
Ex forum ambassador
Long term forum member0 -
great news, interesting, thanks :-)0
-
i for one think this good news, but there are so many more who failed0
-
not really that good, county court only so not binding without going to court. sets a precident but the next count court judge may take the networks side.
A useful plus but nothing more, cartinaly not a landmark. Must be a slow news day at the DM.0 -
I dont really understand this TBH. Why didnt he return the handset and cancel his contract within the 7-14 days allowed?
I think he got lucky.0 -
I'm thinking the same thing... He says 'As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it' but if he had done that in the first 7 days they would have taken it back without question any way !0
-
If the Networks say that the reception may not work due to reasons outside of their control then should the contract you sign have a get out clause for the customer?end the tv tax0
-
But you have 7 days to test it in your home. If it doesn't work during that time why keep it ?
If there was a get out clause it would be abused, the networks can't send someone round to your hose to test it.
And what about what happened to me. They built a block of flats at the end of my road (between my house and the mast) and my signal just about vanished, is that the networks fault ? and should they lose out because of it ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards