Can an O2 contract be suspended when student goes abroad?

alun4

eschaton wrote: »

Blame blame blame blame - everyone else.

If you are that good at blaming, then start looking on your own doorstep as you are the one that brought this son up to act the way he has.

We do blame ourselves but can't see the reason to be role model. We have never borrowed (except for a small mortgage years ago). Never looked for a new car and always run ours into the grave. Have always saved before purchase. Didn't have children until we knew we could afford to bring them up and done the "pay in full" direct debit with credit cards. All he has seen has been PAYG phones and he knew our views on entering any contract.
So, yes we do blame ourselves. my point should have more accurately reflected my view on responsibility in lending rather than "blame" in the way you are interpreting it. In the absence of Electoral Role; no secure work history; his age; knowledge that there would be no income for two six month periods in the two years of the contract and casual/low paid work for the remaining two 6 months; no parental guarantee, I question the evolution of "the Canons of Lending" .
The salesman was in a position of knowledge. Indeed, knowledge of both my son's circumstances and the world of phone contracts. What kind of checks are carried out?
I repeat, that I look inwards with "blame" and start from the position that borrowing for non essentials is not our way. What about protecting the vulnerable from themselves by good practice. I listen to what you are saying but still think there is a point to be made about unsecured or irresponsible lending in these circumstances.

Kilty_2

Jon_01 wrote: »

Also, unless he's set it up, O2 won't talk to you about his acc. They can't under the data protection act. He need to set one of you up on his acc as a third party to give you access...

This is not true.

Anyone can service an account if they have the password and the name of the account holder. There are restrictions on what third parties can do such as cancelling the account or raising the tariff.

MissKeith

If a person passes the credit check and security checks then there's no reason for the salesman to refuse service. For a start it's discrimination, it's not for them to judge whether a person has financial security or not. When I complete a credit check, I am required to enter employment status, age and tenancy information to the network. After that it's beyond my control.

grumbler

What kind of checks are carried out?

What kind of checks have to be carried out for such a minor credit deal?
Electoral role? What do elections have to do with commercial lending? Having registered does may help you to get more serious credit, but this is up to the lender to decide what checks they perform depending on the amount.
The only semi-serious point above is that the 'salesmen' occasionally knew about the future plans of your 'child' and ignored this because he was his friend (not the best friend really). What if he did not know?
As many other students without any income my son has a contract with Orange and I am happy about this.

• Firstly, it is a great opportunity to get free minutes + texts + internet for 2 years via a redemption deal (even with a small profit).
• Secondly, it's a good opportunity to build his credit history. It's not the case for my son, but for many people that don't have access to an overdraft and credit cards it is the only way except the store cards that you have to spend on.
• Finally, a few hundred loss is not a big deal for the mobile company. Some lender has to take this risk at some point to get irresponsible people like your son blacklisted and excluded from a mainstream landing. In fact they have lost only the wholesale cost of the handset. In the worst case scenario they will recover this by selling the debt to a collection company.

alun4

They will not lose because we will obviously pay. My point remains that a system (that used to exist) would protect the vulnerable. I would not regard 2 years of debt and £1000 as minor credit to a child in these circumstances.

grumbler

Your son is not 'vulnerable'. Maybe stupid, but not vulnerable. If he really needs protection, then nanny state springs to mind. Former USSR for example.
It may be £1000 for your son (well deserved), but it is far less for the company.

custardy

alun4 wrote: »

They will not lose because we will obviously pay. My point remains that a system (that used to exist) would protect the vulnerable. I would not regard 2 years of debt and £1000 as minor credit to a child in these circumstances.

they gave it to an adult
Jesus,I had been away from home for years by then
at 18 i was living on my own and dealing with the day to day grind of working life and bills

alun4

MissKeith wrote: »

If a person passes the credit check and security checks then there's no reason for the salesman to refuse service. For a start it's discrimination, it's not for them to judge whether a person has financial security or not. When I complete a credit check, I am required to enter employment status, age and tenancy information to the network. After that it's beyond my control.

With your experience, would the circumstances of my son have given a credit agency the idea that this was "a character of good financial standing"?. I have ever seen these forms but had imagined the information requested would (if filled in properly) indicate he was a very uncertain risk!

alun4

custardy wrote: »

they gave it to an adult
Jesus,I had been away from home for years by then
at 18 i was living on my own and dealing with the day to day grind of working life and bills

So if I am reading you correctly, you had years of experience, you had established yourself as independent. you had work ...... you were not a school boy or a student. You had started to establish a path that a lender could look at.

custardy

alun4 wrote: »

So if I am reading you correctly, you had years of experience, you had established yourself as independent. you had work ...... you were not a school boy or a student. You had started to establish a path that a lender could look at.

lol,nice try
look at you twisting and turning any way to argue that your son is not at fault and its all the companies fault.
many 000's of 18 year olds takes out contracts every year.your idea is that they should what,need mummy and daddy to hold their hand until when?21,25?
perhaps in those 18 years you had a little bit of education on calanders and responsibility would have been more prudent.
however im sure he has learned how to pass the buck