Beware Onestop Phone Shop (merged)

MORPH3US

Thanks to alnsv1000s and reehsetin, I couldn't even be bothered to reply to OldGold because he has either not even bothered to read the whole thread before commenting, or has not understood the crux of the comments....

To blame all the helpful MSE'rs for giving their opinions ("attacking" - !!!!!!?!?) to the OP is absurd!

Old_Gold

alnsv1000s wrote: »

So in your view, even if CPW sent a letter by special delivery, to the OP detailing the fact that if the PAC code was unused within 30 days then the contract will continue, unless they can prove that the OP has bothered to read it, that statement is invalid.

No in that scenario would have done more than enough to inform the customer. What I have said though is not that. I have said that to send a text would not be enough on its own unless the provider knew you regularly access texts and maybe even that is not enough.
The point above any other is that the OP told CPW to cancel the contract. So unless the OP is not telling us the truth then that is the issue. The pac code will not negate that instruction unless CPW specifically told her it would and received an agreement.

redux

Old_Gold wrote: »

I find it amazing that you are attacking the OP on a site that is basically set up to help not wildly attack. Please tell me where it is written in black and white that one loses rights by not looking at text messages. I very much doubt that a court of law would accept a text message as being proof of a received communication unless it is known the recipient actually read it.

The OP was rather self-contradictory about whose idea the PAC was in the first place, first he/she claimed to have asked for it but later this shifts to the firm talked him/her into it, allegedly motivated by a chance of deception.

Surely the PAC came with instructions on how and when to use it, but the OP claims to have not bothered to read these.

If the case is to brought to the attention of Trading Standards or a Court, then the OP may very likely have to produce evidence to support the allegation that a certain letter was worded negligently or even was intentionally deceptive.

But errrrm, I wonder can we guess where this letter is by now?

t8769 wrote: »

Perhaps this was hidden somewhere on a letter I received, I can't tell.

[...]

They should have warned me that I would be charged if I didn't use the PAC code, they should have sent a letter making clear the fact that they'd keep my account over.

Even if both this and the bank statements showing direct debit payments were overlooked, surely the continued arrival of monthly statements for this mobile phone account might have alerted the OP out of his/her torpor a bit sooner than £150 worth?

Or will we soon start hearing more details that we haven't been told so far, that these account statements were ceased as a further aid to perpetrating this so-called scam?

Old_Gold

MORPH3US wrote: »

Thanks to alnsv1000s and reehsetin, I couldn't even be bothered to reply to OldGold because he has either not even bothered to read the whole thread before commenting, or has not understood the crux of the comments....

To blame all the helpful MSE'rs for giving their opinions ("attacking" - !!!!!!?!?) to the OP is absurd!

Ah but you have replied and I wonder if you can even contemplate the fact that it may be you that has not read this thread properly. The OP said that he/she asked for the contract to be cancelled. So did you give the OP helpful advice or just get something off your chest?

Old_Gold

redux wrote: »

.

If the case is to brought to the attention of Trading Standards or a Court, then the OP may very likely have to produce evidence to support the allegation that a certain letter was worded negligently or even was intentionally deceptive.

But errrrm, I wonder can we guess where this letter is by now?



Even if both this and the bank statements showing direct debit payments were overlooked, surely the continued arrival of monthly statements for this mobile phone account might have alerted the OP out of his/her torpor a bit sooner than £150 worth?

Or will we soon start hearing more details that we haven't been told so far, that these account statements were ceased as a further aid to perpetrating this so-called scam?

Yes Redux I am sure that more details would come out in the wash as we continue to try the case. I wish though the OP would let us know his or her sex so we can stop saying he/she. It seems quite a number of people dont even look at their statements in detail so a lot of entries go through unchallenged either for a long time or forever.
Personally if it wasn't for reading mainly these forums I think I would have been caught out by if not scams then the little tricks used by certain sellers.

quidsinquentin

So, what is a PAC then, anyone?

MrRincewind

it stands for "port authorisation code".
it`s a 3 lettter 6 digit code for example VTC718463, it`s the code you give to a new network if you wish to move your number to a new network,

when its used by the new network it cancels your old contract and moves your number over, But if it`s given and not used (as is the case here), then your contract continues

shrenikchikani

I actually registered just to reply on this topic. :rolleyes:

I cant believe someone is defending himself so much... and calling his own carelessness as a CPW scam!!
If you cant read text msgs then you shuld just use landlines.... If you are not eager to open up your posts as soon as you see them then you better live in a tent...
and if you cant check your bank statements regularly then dont agree to any Direct Debits.

I dont understand how did you suddenly get charged £150??? you must have got your regular monthly bill if your accnt wasnt closed. oh... you didnt get time to check your posts bcoz you are so important on this earth that everyone sends you 100s of posts!!!
I'm sure this £150 is not the first time you've lost some money.... :eek:

kasbah_2

I don't fully understand how you got your PAC code from Carphone Warehouse. I have bought mobiles from them but when I have asked Carphone Warehouse to check how much longer I have had to go on my contract they have given me that information but they have always advised me to contact the provider direct to obtain the PAC code. Funnily enough I telephoned T-mobile at the beginning of this week and the customer services lady (very helpful) explained everything very clearly, including the fact that I had 30 days in which to use the PAC code and if I decided not to use it in that time that the phone and my contract would carry on as normal but I could always request another PAC code if needs be.

maxfactor_3

What an interesting debate,I know of one person who hasnt opened their post in months and a pensioner lady who can use a mobile to phone but doesnt know how to open or read texts.
Its always good to read t&c,s and small print,so a lesson learnt an expensive one.
But as far as I was concerned I,ve never heard of this sort of thing and thanks for making us aware,I thought if you cancel your contract thats the end of it.
As so did you so you wouldnt be looking on your statement for something like this.
People who change their phones a lot would know this is procedure but not a lot of vulnerable or older people.

I would take this up with CPW head office.

I think you had a badly trained rep who didnt explain everything properly.

But it is a lesson to us all to read our communication or get someone else to read it .