£121 bill on £15 contract. T-Mobile

smk77

ispartacus75 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying completely. But you can look at it another way.

Lets take that customer that generates them £50 income every month. Because of the people I have introduced to T-Mobile they get £80 per month in income and give out 900 across the contracts for that £80. To one customer 900 minutes is £40. So because of me and the people I have introduced they are getting 200% the advertised price for 900 minutes. Over the course of 24 months, nearly £3000. I call that loyalty.

I suggest that you approach TMobile about them introducing a refer-a-friend scheme where you get given a % of the income generated by those you recommend.

Exhortation

ispartacus75 wrote: »

I call that loyalty.

No, loyalty is sticking with them when your contract is due for renewal.

You obviously have a very sad, lonely existence, as the only reason I can see for you continuing this debate is that you crave the attention.

You were offered £50 off your bill as a gooDwill gesture. Bloody-mindedness on your part made you reject that offer. At that point T-Mobile were under no obligation to keep the offer on the table and, quite rightly, revoked it. You've screwed yourself over and got what you deserved out of the situation. IT SERVES YOU RIGHT!!!

spook

smk77 wrote: »

oh come on! They must be 18 to have a contract phone. If they're not savvy enough at 18 then probably shouldn't be allowed a contract phone. Or, they should at least get someone they trust to explain it. How about "if you use more than Xmins a month then it's going to be expensive...so DON'T DO IT!!!"

Who's going to stop them? I'm sure if they walk into a phone shop and ask for a contract phone, they won't be told "I'm sorry, you're not savvy enough to own this phone".

smk77 wrote: »

Why is it unfair?

Because lapses in judgement can lead to spectacular bills - this strikes me as not particularly fair. Not the biggest injustice ever, admittedly, but annoying.

Why is it so bad to make a profit? They're not forcing anyone to go over their allowance!

I never said they were. I would personally just be happier if they took more steps to prevent people from doing it unintentionally. It would be the Right Thing To Do, in my book. They don't have to.

ispartacus75

Exhortation wrote: »

No, loyalty is sticking with them when your contract is due for renewal.

You obviously have a very sad, lonely existence, as the only reason I can see for you continuing this debate is that you crave the attention.

You were offered £50 off your bill as a gooDwill gesture. Bloody-mindedness on your part made you reject that offer. At that point T-Mobile were under no obligation to keep the offer on the table and, quite rightly, revoked it. You've screwed yourself over and got what you deserved out of the situation. IT SERVES YOU RIGHT!!!

Nice. Appreciate your well reasoned input.

kai666

ispartacus75 wrote: »

All I have expected is a little loyalty from the provider to the consumer for a change. By the majority of responses on this thread it seems the UK public are happy to be screwed left right and centre, so from now on it will only get worse.

Did they not show you some 'loyalty' by knocking £50 off the bill?

ispartacus75

kai666 wrote: »

Did they not show you some 'loyalty' by knocking £50 off the bill?

Yes Kai666 they did. But given the length of the contract left would it have been so hard for them to take another £20 off, or even meet me halfway. Like Ive said, Im going to be with them for another 17 months. Its not like they arent going to get another penny from me.

eranou

ispartacus75 wrote: »

Yes Kai666 they did. But given the length of the contract left would it have been so hard for them to take another £20 off, or even meet me halfway. Like Ive said, Im going to be with them for another 17 months. Its not like they arent going to get another penny from me.

They basicly did try to meet you halfway!

50% of £106 would be £53 you were offered £50

smk77

spook wrote: »

Who's going to stop them? I'm sure if they walk into a phone shop and ask for a contract phone, they won't be told "I'm sorry, you're not savvy enough to own this phone".

Lets go back to what you said:

people who aren't savvy enough to get their heads around complex pricing schemes

Right, so if they try to get their heads around the complex pricing schemes but fail then surely they shouldn't just carry on and sign regardless? Oh, but of course, their mates have an iPhone 4 so they must have one too!

spook wrote: »

Because lapses in judgement can lead to spectacular bills - this strikes me as not particularly fair. Not the biggest injustice ever, admittedly, but annoying.

I hope none of these people who have a "lapse in judgement" ever get behind the wheels of a car...

spook wrote: »

I never said they were. I would personally just be happier if they took more steps to prevent people from doing it unintentionally. It would be the Right Thing To Do, in my book. They don't have to.

Yep, a default maximum when signing a contract.

ispartacus75

smk77 wrote: »

I hope none of these people who have a "lapse in judgement" ever get behind the wheels of a car...

I wonder how many people who have got into a car and been over the drink drive limit were sensible people who didnt go over their contract minutes.

7891368

ispartacus75 wrote: »

I wonder how many people who have got into a car and been over the drink drive limit were sensible people who didnt go over their contract minutes.

The correlation between people that go over their contract minutes and drink drive is relevant why?

Would you dispute a speeding fine as someone had not jumped infront of you stating such the second you went to 41 instead of 40.

It's a learning curve;) You won't make the same mistake again now will you.