A right mess and my fault!! Help please - UPDATED

popcorncat

I'm sorry...we are talking about a 14 year old boy. Not a 7 year old kid.

I think a 14 year old would be able to tell the difference from right and wrong. Ok, maybe he thought this was his 'new phone' and was VERY ignorant about the costs of mobile calls.

But puh-lease - 400pounds for ONE month is an ENORMOUS amount of money to spend on phonecalls and texts for one month. Who did he think was paying the bill? The mobile fairy? Of course he knew that he got this 'free' sim and from the ridiculous amount of money he spent in one month - it's obvious he was taking advantage of it.

At the end of the day he is still responsible for his actions - regardless of whether the OP sent the sim in error or not. If the 14year old cannot recognise his wrong doings - then the responbility lies on the parents.

If I was the boy's parent - i'd pay the bill - and make the motormouth pay it back to me either through pocket money or through chores.

I'm only harsh on him because i see these teenagers with mobile phones and they ALL know how they work.

Gorgeous_George

I think legally you are onto a loser and if you don't pay the bill you may find your credit rating will be affected (and quite rightly so IMO - you're lucky it's only £400. In the wrong hands it could have been £1,000s). You're negligence (and it's the same with those who lose credit cards) costs the rest of us millions every year.

Morally, the kid should pay. If it was my kid, I wouldn't pay unless court action was threatened (by the Police).

The Small Claims Court sounds great but a 14y.o boy will probably be unable to pay and his parents are not reaponsible - they did not give him the phone.

I'd suggest pleading with Orange for leniency but, if my experience with O2 is anything to go by, I wouldn't hold out too much hope. If you talk to Orange, make sure it's someone in authority and not a call centre worker.

Good luck.

GG

haveagoade

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I think legally you are onto a loser and if you don't pay the bill you may find your credit rating will be affected (and quite rightly so IMO - you're lucky it's only £400. In the wrong hands it could have been £1,000s). You're negligence (and it's the same with those who lose credit cards) costs the rest of us millions every year.

Morally, the kid should pay. If it was my kid, I wouldn't pay unless court action was threatened (by the Police).

The Small Claims Court sounds great but a 14y.o boy will probably be unable to pay and his parents are not reaponsible - they did not give him the phone.

I'd suggest pleading with Orange for leniency but, if my experience with O2 is anything to go by, I wouldn't hold out too much hope. If you talk to Orange, make sure it's someone in authority and not a call centre worker.

Good luck.

GG

This is the kind of nonsense which iswhats wrong with society today! How can you blame this on the negligence of the OP, It is the kids greed and irresponsibility in taking advantage of the situation.

If we all adopt the attitude of the above poster, all credit card fraud is the FAULT of the card holder, and not the person who finds it and goes on a spending spree.

"I can't help it M'Lord, I didn't think he would mind me spending his money! and anyway I wanna press counter charges for the distress of finding his credit card and spending all his money!"

D'oh.............its not the "neglegence" of the loser, its the criminality of the fraudsters that costs us millions every year!

I have found several mobiles, credit cards and always returned them!

Gorgeous_George

The real crime is Orange charging £400 for the phone calls in the first place.

To reach a bill of £400 in 11 days could be from as little as 70 minutes per day XNET at 50p per minute. Hardly excessive use for a kid and if he was used to using PAYT, he may not have thought anything of it. Anyway, it is not the kids contract with Orange.

We all need to accept responsibility for ourselves. I couldn't class this kid in the same league as credit card fraudsters. Thieves should have their hands chopped off IMO or have THIEF tattooed to their foreheads so that they can be recognised (this goes for all petty thieves and institutional fraudsters alike). TIC - a bit.

I have also returned lost wallets, mobile phones etc. but this phone (or rather SIM Card) wasn't lost. It was given to the child.

I stand by my staatement that the person with the contract should take responsibility and, assuming Orange are not willing to help, make good the losses. A lesson learned.

What I believe is wrong with society is that everyone sees themselves as victims when the truth is, its their fault.

GG

Poppy9

Agree this is not credit card fraud. The child didn't steal anything. Yes he's been foolish and if I was the parents I would punish him but I still wouldn't pay the bill. He did not steal the sim card and I doubt he knew he was running up such a huge bill.

haveagoade

As usual people want to excuse the EXCESS of the KID as not being his fault.

How about if the kid found a fifty quid note in the phone case or something, its ok for him to keep that as well is it?

£400 in a week is excessive in any language, and smacks of a kid outta control.

Gorgeous_George

haveagoade wrote:

£400 in a week is excessive in any language, and smacks of a kid outta control.

Unfortunately, when making a call, there is no warning of the cost. With my mobile, calls can be:
a) free (if inside 200 minutes per month limit)
b) 12ppm if to another on same network
c) 50ppm if XNET outside of 200 minute limit
n) there's probably other charges

Contract simcards are valuable and should be treated as such. Use the pin security to lock them for starters and if YOU have a contract then YOU have a responsibility to protect the card from improper use.

If it was my contract, I'd pay the bill. If you don't, you could be blacklisted. By all means, try to recover the costs from Orange - but don't hold your breath. The kid hasn't got a contract. Lucky it's only £400 - could so easily have been £,000s.

GG

trickytrolleys

Why on earth is a teacher buying a kid a mobile phone in the first place ?? I think there is something odd about that - if the school lost it then surely they would have gone about it in a different way than a secondhand one from Ebay.

Also, why on earth does nearly everybody on here throw about legal advice as though they're Barristers when half the time it is only their opinion of what they think the law should be instead of anywhere near what the law is!!

Also, the boy could be criminally liable for theft once he assumed the rights of the owner and by using the sim he has done this (provided he knew he shouldnt have) - he does not need to have stolen it in the first place atall. This is all pie in the sky when the boy says he thought it came with the phone (whether he did or he didnt).

Gorgeous_George

I know little about law but I do understand what a contract is. My unemployed single mother of a niece was given a mobile phone by o2 - by using her parents' address for the application. After racking up a debt of £450, she lost the phone (yeah, right).

O2 refused to help other than allowing my sister to pay the bill + the remining rental (£25pm). The risk if my sister had not paid would have been her credit rating being damaged/niece going to court. In this case, niece's contract was bailed out by parents. The case on this thread is different but I have a small inkling as to the mobile company's likely opening gambit.

GG

Wig

SkippyB wrote:

Criminal Age of responsibility is 10 not 16 years......Will be very hard to prove a criminal offence on this one!! There are many defences that can be used by the person with the phone....seek advice from CAB and hope......!!!

I wasn't talking about a criminal act, I was talking about an "age of responsibility" which may or may not be defined in law, and if it is, it will be for the purposes of criminal activity.

Let me give an example of where I am coming from (true story), a mobile phone company gave new phones under contract to people under 16, without the parents knowledge, the kids used them, and then the bills came, the parents fought the companies, and although I can't remember how it was resolved, the company did have to forget about it, because it was decided that a court would not rule in the companies favour. It is generally accepted that an under 16 cannot take on a contract.

Therefore in this case there is no contract, but the kid was given a phone which worked, he would not have to IMO pay for the calls if legal action was taken.