mobile phone contract -v- credit report

robt_2

savin_a_bob_or_two wrote: »

Do you take picnics to road crashes..?

Do you purposefully have road crashes?

savin_a_bob_or_two

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Stop playing the victim card, people here are trying to help you. Nobody on this thread has said pay up, we have said you should not put yourself in breach of contract - you have also been advised how to correctly go about lodging a complaint. The internal complaints procedure and ombudsman are there to help the consumer, use them.

I'm genuinely at a loss to understand how I can have "put myself in breach of contract", since my contract is void, ref: below.

robt wrote: »

There is no dispute though. The customer is paying for a service and is receiving a service through the handset provided. Unless the customer was guaranteed 3G coverage as part f the contract there is no dispute.

Oh I've no doubt you're right in that the operators small print will say they're not liable for anything even if their phone explodes and takes your damned hand off. But I'm sure there's someone on here bright enough to understand that no contractual clause can detract from the customers _statutory_ (the clue is in the word) rights, and SOGA is pretty definitive on goods and services that don't meet their description. My operator sold me a 3G mobile phone and a 3G network to go with it, they haven't (ever) delivered that, and they're happy to admit they've absolutely no idea when they _will_. My operator breached his contract, and I voided it.

DarkConvict wrote: »

I agree, customers sign up to contracts without actually knowing what they cover and what is considered a dispute or failure on the side of the operator.
For a customer excessive usage of unlimited bundles, failure to pay is generally the main 2 breaches. For an operator it is signal has stopped due to a mast failure or changes in T&Cs. Poor reception, customer service skills, certain phone functions or the phone itself not working is not ground to cease payment.

Would you care to provide a judgement which backs up that claim that a non-working phone is not grounds to cease payment? Not that I disbelieve you - I just want to see what the bench relied on to make such a judgement, as it completely flies in the face of SOGA (presuming that the phone was purchased with the contract direct from the airtime provider, rather than carphone warehouse or whatever.

robt_2

savin_a_bob_or_two wrote: »

Oh I've no doubt you're right in that the operators small print will say they're not liable for anything even if their phone explodes and takes your damned hand off. But I'm sure there's someone on here bright enough to understand that no contractual clause can detract from the customers _statutory_ (the clue is in the word) rights, and SOGA is pretty definitive on goods and services that don't meet their description. My operator sold me a 3G mobile phone and a 3G network to go with it, they haven't (ever) delivered that, and they're happy to admit they've absolutely no idea when they _will_. My operator breached his contract, and I voided it.

Where have you ever been sold a 3G network?

You can repeat all you want, but until you show you have been sold that, then you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Incidentally, just because people tell you facts that you don't want to hear, doesn't make them not 'bright'. Cheap 'digs' like yours only weaken your argument and make you look more and more bitter.

Your mobile network might be in the wrong, however you ARE in the wrong by not paying.

Guys_Dad

Bob or two - What people are saying is that they don't know of any precedents that support your position. It would br great if there was, but we don't think so.

So would you rather have the truth based on others' experience and knowledge or would you prefer to hear what you would like to hear?

By all means, carry it through then come back on here and stick the proverbial two fingers up and tell us we are wrong. I, for one, would love that to be the outcome, but I genuine fear that you are tilting at windmills - windmills with a lot more financial clout and legal expertise that you - or I - have.

The outcome is that other who extend credit will find it easier to reduce the risk by believing the network.

But turn a deaf ear if you prefer - it's your choice.

Good luck.

savin_a_bob_or_two

robt wrote: »

Where have you ever been sold a 3G network?

You can repeat all you want, but until you show you have been sold that, then you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Incidentally, just because people tell you facts that you don't want to hear, doesn't make them not 'bright'. Cheap 'digs' like yours only weaken your argument and make you look more and more bitter.

Your mobile network might be in the wrong, however you ARE in the wrong by not paying.

Where did I get a 3G contract? From my airtime provider, who states in his paperwork that I can have 3G where 3G is available in my contract price. I _am_ in an area where 3G is available. Just not to people saddled with my particular phone.

My apologies if you saw a "cheap dig" where none was intended. I merely pointed out that some 4pt clause in your contract saying the provider isn't liable no matter what happens doesn't necessarily make it a valid condition. Where a cheap dig _was_ intended was with the delightfully unpleasant multiple handclaps alongside "enjoy your ruined credit score" - I always thought schadenfraude was restricted to other forums...

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Bob or two - What people are saying is that they don't know of any precedents that support your position. It would br great if there was, but we don't think so.

So would you rather have the truth based on others' experience and knowledge or would you prefer to hear what you would like to hear?

By all means, carry it through then come back on here and stick the proverbial two fingers up and tell us we are wrong. I, for one, would love that to be the outcome, but I genuine fear that you are tilting at windmills - windmills with a lot more financial clout and legal expertise that you - or I - have.

The outcome is that other who extend credit will find it easier to reduce the risk by believing the network.

But turn a deaf ear if you prefer - it's your choice.

Good luck.

Oh no, I want the true position. I was hoping that someone would have some judgements that back that position though, so I could dig into them and learn exactly how the phone companies manage to completely ignore legislation intended to protect the consumer and get away with it!

robt_2

savin_a_bob_or_two wrote: »

Where did I get a 3G contract? From my airtime provider, who states in his paperwork that I can have 3G where 3G is available in my contract price. I _am_ in an area where 3G is available. Just not to people saddled with my particular phone.

I'm not doubting you, but would be interested to see that, and especially how it is worded too - because however it is worded will affect your case.

savin_a_bob_or_two

robt wrote: »

I'm not doubting you, but would be interested to see that, and especially how it is worded too - because however it is worded will affect your case.

I'll see if I can find it and take a scan

eranou

The thing is Bob or two is that the network is still supplying the 3g where its available just that there is a problem with your device itself that is preventing access to the 3g service.
If you put the SIM card in another 3g phone it would work therefore the service is still there so you cannot argue that the airtime contract is not being fulfilled.

You should start pursuing the issue with the handset under the sales of goods act

savin_a_bob_or_two

eranou wrote: »

The thing is Bob or two is that the network is still supplying the 3g where its available just that there is a problem with your device itself that is preventing access to the 3g service.
If you put the SIM card in another 3g phone it would work therefore the service is still there so you cannot argue that the airtime contract is not being fulfilled.

You should start pursuing the issue with the handset under the sales of goods act

Indeed, the 3G network operates for other handsets. My handset has never, ever, connected to 3G, (some other people with my handset only have this problem sometimes rather than all the time) and my provider gives repeated assurances that it will be dealt with in the next few weeks, at the end of which they say a few more weeks, (repeat as often as necessary).

My handset and my airtime provision were part of the same contract - I only signed one, which included both items. My provider wouldn't give me the phone unless I agreed to airtime, I wouldn't agree to airtime contract without the phone. They're indivisible, and a fault with the handset is a fault with the overall contract of provision.

Still, here's the relevant chunk from the T&C:

3.1. We will always try to make the Services available to You but
sometimes they may be unavailable as a result of, or be affected
by:
3.1.1. things like the weather and faults in other networks; or
3.1.2. degradation, congestion or maintenance requirements of
the Network including (but not only) re-positioning and/or
decommissioning of base stations.
3.2. At any time Our Network comprises lots of different types of
technologies. The Services are made available provided You are
in range of base stations forming part of the relevant technological Network when trying to use any particular Service. For example, You can only use 3G Services when You are in range of a 3G base station. You may have to connect to a particular Price Plan and/or use particular Equipment to gain access to certain Services.

(my emphasis)

robt_2

That T&C has nothing at all to do with your complaint I'm afraid.

All it is saying is that you can't use 3G if you haven't got a 3G phone. It definitely does not make any form of guarantee of 3G service.

It is the same as saying 'You can only call people if your phone has a microphone'.

Also we have also been over the fact that they are 2 separate contracts (despite you not agreeing). It comes up several times a week on this site.