We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Stop The Rip-Off - Demand A Mobile Communications Charter
AlexChambers
Posts: 22 Forumite
Stop The Rip Off! Demand A Communications Charter
For everybody's interest, I am staring a campaign for the investigation and regulation of mobile phone company contracts. I am looking for your advice and support support to get a real investigation with terms of reference by the UK Government and the European Commission (EEC) to see whether UK mobile communications customers are entitled to spending caps as the EU spending cap on data.
Since all calls and even phone messages are digital I do not see any reason why the EU data roaming spending cap should not apply to UK customers for all phone services over and above the bundled amount in the user's contract with the mobile communications company.
I am looking to force the Government to order an enquiry into the terms of mobile communications contracts and billing procedures to allow customers to control their bills and set limits. The problem arises because mobile phone companies specify direct debit payment only for contracts and Otelo indicate that unauthorised or accidental usage is not covered by the direct debit mandate unless a phone is use fraudulently e.g. stolen.
However, mobile phone companies do not offer customers credit card level security to protect you from excess charges and you are forced to give them a mandate to take whatever and whenever from your bank account.
In other words, you have no redress or claim for compensation because you cannot place a spending cap on your bill e.g. you have not protection if your dog chews the phone and calls Afghanistan whilst you are out or if you sit on your phone and download the latest 3hr blockbuster movie. This is a Financial Services Authority issue.
Obviously, there are also contractual issues here if the customer has no right to control spending so I reckon the Government should investigate all communications contracts and test whether they are covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
I am also looking to force mobile companies to guarantee service for emergencies for contract and Pay-As-You-Go customers other than just dialling 999 so that children and people in remote areas are given a safety net in event of emergency not requiring police, fire or ambulance. Saying you can borrow £2.00 credit is not much use if you phone is disconnected for low usage.
As it stands, the mobile phone companies are threatening to withdraw 'free connection' if they are properly regulated - see The Guardian article
"Planned cuts in mobile phone rates will leave low-income users worse off
Ofcom aims to cut £800m off UK's annual mobile bill but networks say proposals will force millions to give up their phones"
By Richard Wray dated Monday 21 June 2010
If free connection and the right to make emergency calls or access banking (since there are now many situations from ticket purchase to car hire or insurance where cash is not accepted) to get you out of an emergency situation is not guaranteed then this becomes an issue amounting to a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of association.
With the disappearance of phone boxes, village Post Offices, libraries and shops access to digital communications becomes a defining measure of poverty as well as human safety. Without family nearby or local services digital communication becomes the glue that holds society together and protects the poorest and most isolated where democracy fails.
Why am I starting a campaign to establish a Communications Charter? Because of my family's experience with Vodafone and Otelo.
My family had a bad experience with Vodafone last year when we received a large bill with excess charges because our 14 year old daughter went over her call minutes and we were charged 35p/min instead of 21p/Min on Pay-As-You-Go.
In our daughter's case, PAYG phones were of limited use because she regularly ran out of credit. Apart from being expensive, we live in a country area with no shops or Post Offices to get a top-up and the local bus service has been cut back 50% in the last 12 months and could well disappear altogether with spending cuts.
Consequently, my wife took out a cheap contract for our daughter to have the freedom and the security. In our case Vodafone stopped paper billing and sending usage text messages and our daughter ran up a few big bills before Vodafone cut of the phone and sent a bill. All of this would been avoidable if the customer has a right to place a spending limit requiring authorisation to raise the spending limit like credit cards and if phone companies security checked irregular usage like other credit providers.
Basically, contracts limit the controls you have on your bill as much as the procedure trying to keep and eye on charges. Needless to say this offers big financial benefits to the phone companies.
Consequently, I prospose a communications charter guranteeing customers the right to put automatic spending caps on their bills not just for data abroad but in the UK as well and the use of direct debit mandates should be investigated by the Financial Services Authority to prevent abuse.
I suggest an investigation by the FSA to establish
1. Whether the direct debit mandate excuses phone companies of a duty of care?
2. Whether there should be a UK spending cap automatically imposed in proportion to the contracted inclusive monthly amount or set at £34.00 + VAT as the data roaming spend cap abroad e.g. Why should phone users have protection abroad and not at home?
3. Whether contractees are entitled protection from excess charges for phones used by third parties, unauthorised or accidental usage?
4. Whether contractees should have the right to set spending caps as a contractual right?
5. Whether termination penalties are enforceable in the absence of spending caps or contract failure (e.g. if you cancel or suspend your direct debit mandate to protect priority bill payments or limit bank charges)??
6. Whether phone charges under direct debit are regulated by the FSA, UK Payments Administration Ltd. and Trading Standards?
7. Whether phone companies have a contractual duty or duty of care to authorise excess domestic charges directly with customers as with charges abroad?
8. Whether online billing should be regulated and online terms and conditions constitute contractually binding agreements?
9. Whether there should be a time limit to excess charges after failed direct debit collection to protect customers from bills they have no knowledge of or cannot pay?
10. Whether there should be a right to hold a phone contract/obtain a discount or have the personal security phone of mobile phone connection without a direct debit mandate or bank account in a modern world devoid of Post Offices or phone boxes on every corner?
11. Whether phone users should receive a free automatic text message to indicate that their credit is low or contract usage is going to exceed inclusive charges?
12. Whether of Pay-As-You-Go users should be able specify an emergency number to phone other than 999 to protect children or people like farmers or those in remote areas?
13. The right of customers to pay contract charges by standing order, in cash or by Paypoint
14. Whether free connection should be guaranteed
If you think this is a workable solution copy and paste my suggestions into a letter and ask for a Communications Charter to protect mobile communications users and post it to
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
or use the Number10 website to email the Prime Minister's Office.
Don't forget to ask for a place on the .Gov website where people can sign up and petition for a Communications Charter.
For everybody's interest, I am staring a campaign for the investigation and regulation of mobile phone company contracts. I am looking for your advice and support support to get a real investigation with terms of reference by the UK Government and the European Commission (EEC) to see whether UK mobile communications customers are entitled to spending caps as the EU spending cap on data.
Since all calls and even phone messages are digital I do not see any reason why the EU data roaming spending cap should not apply to UK customers for all phone services over and above the bundled amount in the user's contract with the mobile communications company.
I am looking to force the Government to order an enquiry into the terms of mobile communications contracts and billing procedures to allow customers to control their bills and set limits. The problem arises because mobile phone companies specify direct debit payment only for contracts and Otelo indicate that unauthorised or accidental usage is not covered by the direct debit mandate unless a phone is use fraudulently e.g. stolen.
However, mobile phone companies do not offer customers credit card level security to protect you from excess charges and you are forced to give them a mandate to take whatever and whenever from your bank account.
In other words, you have no redress or claim for compensation because you cannot place a spending cap on your bill e.g. you have not protection if your dog chews the phone and calls Afghanistan whilst you are out or if you sit on your phone and download the latest 3hr blockbuster movie. This is a Financial Services Authority issue.
Obviously, there are also contractual issues here if the customer has no right to control spending so I reckon the Government should investigate all communications contracts and test whether they are covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
I am also looking to force mobile companies to guarantee service for emergencies for contract and Pay-As-You-Go customers other than just dialling 999 so that children and people in remote areas are given a safety net in event of emergency not requiring police, fire or ambulance. Saying you can borrow £2.00 credit is not much use if you phone is disconnected for low usage.
As it stands, the mobile phone companies are threatening to withdraw 'free connection' if they are properly regulated - see The Guardian article
"Planned cuts in mobile phone rates will leave low-income users worse off
Ofcom aims to cut £800m off UK's annual mobile bill but networks say proposals will force millions to give up their phones"
By Richard Wray dated Monday 21 June 2010
If free connection and the right to make emergency calls or access banking (since there are now many situations from ticket purchase to car hire or insurance where cash is not accepted) to get you out of an emergency situation is not guaranteed then this becomes an issue amounting to a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of association.
With the disappearance of phone boxes, village Post Offices, libraries and shops access to digital communications becomes a defining measure of poverty as well as human safety. Without family nearby or local services digital communication becomes the glue that holds society together and protects the poorest and most isolated where democracy fails.
Why am I starting a campaign to establish a Communications Charter? Because of my family's experience with Vodafone and Otelo.
My family had a bad experience with Vodafone last year when we received a large bill with excess charges because our 14 year old daughter went over her call minutes and we were charged 35p/min instead of 21p/Min on Pay-As-You-Go.
In our daughter's case, PAYG phones were of limited use because she regularly ran out of credit. Apart from being expensive, we live in a country area with no shops or Post Offices to get a top-up and the local bus service has been cut back 50% in the last 12 months and could well disappear altogether with spending cuts.
Consequently, my wife took out a cheap contract for our daughter to have the freedom and the security. In our case Vodafone stopped paper billing and sending usage text messages and our daughter ran up a few big bills before Vodafone cut of the phone and sent a bill. All of this would been avoidable if the customer has a right to place a spending limit requiring authorisation to raise the spending limit like credit cards and if phone companies security checked irregular usage like other credit providers.
Basically, contracts limit the controls you have on your bill as much as the procedure trying to keep and eye on charges. Needless to say this offers big financial benefits to the phone companies.
Consequently, I prospose a communications charter guranteeing customers the right to put automatic spending caps on their bills not just for data abroad but in the UK as well and the use of direct debit mandates should be investigated by the Financial Services Authority to prevent abuse.
I suggest an investigation by the FSA to establish
1. Whether the direct debit mandate excuses phone companies of a duty of care?
2. Whether there should be a UK spending cap automatically imposed in proportion to the contracted inclusive monthly amount or set at £34.00 + VAT as the data roaming spend cap abroad e.g. Why should phone users have protection abroad and not at home?
3. Whether contractees are entitled protection from excess charges for phones used by third parties, unauthorised or accidental usage?
4. Whether contractees should have the right to set spending caps as a contractual right?
5. Whether termination penalties are enforceable in the absence of spending caps or contract failure (e.g. if you cancel or suspend your direct debit mandate to protect priority bill payments or limit bank charges)??
6. Whether phone charges under direct debit are regulated by the FSA, UK Payments Administration Ltd. and Trading Standards?
7. Whether phone companies have a contractual duty or duty of care to authorise excess domestic charges directly with customers as with charges abroad?
8. Whether online billing should be regulated and online terms and conditions constitute contractually binding agreements?
9. Whether there should be a time limit to excess charges after failed direct debit collection to protect customers from bills they have no knowledge of or cannot pay?
10. Whether there should be a right to hold a phone contract/obtain a discount or have the personal security phone of mobile phone connection without a direct debit mandate or bank account in a modern world devoid of Post Offices or phone boxes on every corner?
11. Whether phone users should receive a free automatic text message to indicate that their credit is low or contract usage is going to exceed inclusive charges?
12. Whether of Pay-As-You-Go users should be able specify an emergency number to phone other than 999 to protect children or people like farmers or those in remote areas?
13. The right of customers to pay contract charges by standing order, in cash or by Paypoint
14. Whether free connection should be guaranteed
If you think this is a workable solution copy and paste my suggestions into a letter and ask for a Communications Charter to protect mobile communications users and post it to
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
or use the Number10 website to email the Prime Minister's Office.
Don't forget to ask for a place on the .Gov website where people can sign up and petition for a Communications Charter.
0
Comments
-
Aint gonna happen. Dont see the need for it0
-
Are you seriously suggesting that contract law, specifically the way in which contracts may be communicated and agreed, should be different for communications services compared to all other goods and services? That's absurd.AlexChambers wrote: »8. Whether online billing should be regulated and online terms and conditions constitute contractually binding agreements?
And what do you mean by regulation of online billing?0 -
Good grief!
Despite what the average teenager might imagine, mobile phones are an unnecessary luxury - if people don't like the conditions associated with having one then they don't have to!
It sounds to me that your time would be better spent in giving your daughter a sound telling off for exceeding her contracted minutes, and seriously considering why the phone companies are restricted from offering credit terms to under 18's in the first place!0 -
You really need to think this through.
First contracts don't have to be by direct debit you can use cheques, bank transfers or even pay them in cash, but it cost more to administer so you pay a surcharge.
The only way you can guarantee coverage through the UK is to put more masts up. In this political climate and the NIMBYism that happens it won't occur. You'd also be asking for mast to be put in places of very low useage in the countryside. All of which will mean more expense and the bill payer will end up paying more.
You say about a way to guarantee the ability to phone a set number. BT don't offer this with payphones other than reverse charges why should mobile companies be forced to do this.
The same applies to free connections, why should it be forced on mobile companies. You have no right to a phone at home if you don't pay, why are mobiles any different.
As I said in the other post you put this in you gave your daughter a phone and let her use it without telling her limits. You KNEW from her experience on PAYG that she used the phone a lot, why did you expect it to be different on contract. In fact most of the measures you seek with regards to capping *ARE* covered by PAYG you are effectivly capped by what credit you have on the phone.
Again from the other post, you then stopped the direct debit to avoid paying the large bill in preferance to other bills being paid but didn't inform the service provider and kept using the phone for four months. Why were you suprised the cut it off?
Why should the majority of people who manage there contract well have rules enforced on them to protect the few who cannot.
Finally are you seriously suggesting that someone who does not have a mobile has their human rights breeched, really thats just laughable. The right to clean water, decent food, shelter, freedom of speech, freedome from oppression and persecution are all basic rights and you want to add that someone should have a right to a luxury device such as a mobile???
Sorry thats really just too far.0 -
Sounds like you want ALL the onus on the networks and none at all on the customer?0
-
In agree with the comments above in that we must all take some responsibility for contracts that we freely choose to take out - mostly with the express wish that we do not have restrictions imposed. For those that want to have limits imposed there is the option to pay as you go. In actual fact I work in the telecoms business (although not on the consumer side) and so have a good understanding of what is possible and in most cases you can pay by methods other than DD although at an extra cost. Also the networks frequently place caps on usage for new business customers for both voice and data until they are requested to increase them therefore I am quite sure this could be done for consumers.
Finally, I have had customers that have unexpectedly run up very large data bills whilst abroad (in one case £5000+ downloading payroll!!) and not having activated the relevant bolt on in time. Whilst the network will not refund the full cost they are often quite reasonable if the sitaution is explained and they identify a genuine mistake that is totally outside of the norm and go a certain way towards helping.
The whole idea of mobiles is to increase mobility not to get us all tied down in red tape and further legislation. Happy to give advice on dealing with the networks if anyone wants it
0 -
Hope i can get a similar petition .
Just been down the pub for lunch spent to much Tesco on the way home bought a Big TV for the weekend .
Big problem was i dropped off at the bookmakers and did my money on slow horses .
Now like the |OP i hope to get my money back by getting up one of them their petitions to the EEC .As its only fair i don't pay for my stupidity but let somebody else pay .
jje0 -
ilikewatch wrote: »Good grief!
Despite what the average teenager might imagine, mobile phones are an unnecessary luxury - if people don't like the conditions associated with having one then they don't have to!
It sounds to me that your time would be better spent in giving your daughter a sound telling off for exceeding her contracted minutes, and seriously considering why the phone companies are restricted from offering credit terms to under 18's in the first place!
Good point. I agree with both comments and I certainly did.
However, if you see my other post Vodafone withdrew the call use SMS and went to online billing (not requested by us) in May 2010. She had a monthly SMS of her usage but that stopped which is when she exceeded her limit. She was not to know.
Where the problem with contract limits came to light was that Vodafone stopped posting us printed bills and my wife was taken seriously ill and could not do any paperwork which I took over. The first bill we received after the one we queried (and were told that no itemisation could be provided because the account was suspended) was over 3 months later.
Since my younger daughter's phone ran wi-fi like an iPhone you are not much the wiser that network connection is not present since they work and send email, pictures, listen to music etc etc without being on network if there is wi-fi nearby.
That begs the question why did Vodafone leave the phone connected for months when the authorisation had been expressly withdrawn and Vodafone stated they could provide itemisation?
They don't do that when you run out of PAYG credit because they have the direct debit mandate. That is why I say contracts need regulation - our contract failed because Vodafone would not place a spending limit on calls under a contract.
My issue is that none of this would occur if, when you take out a contract, you can specify a spending cap or ask to have it lifted to a certain amount. I think consumers should be able to protect their bank accounts and have the safety and comms that PAYG does not offer.
I know from someone who contacted The Guardian Money that there is someone out there with a £5000 bill.
How would you feel if you received one of those?
My question is, why should contract consumers not have their bank accounts protected from high bills under a direct debit mandate and have the security afforded to credit cards?0 -
In agree with the comments above in that we must all take some responsibility for contracts that we freely choose to take out - mostly with the express wish that we do not have restrictions imposed. For those that want to have limits imposed there is the option to pay as you go. In actual fact I work in the telecoms business (although not on the consumer side) and so have a good understanding of what is possible and in most cases you can pay by methods other than DD although at an extra cost. Also the networks frequently place caps on usage for new business customers for both voice and data until they are requested to increase them therefore I am quite sure this could be done for consumers.
Finally, I have had customers that have unexpectedly run up very large data bills whilst abroad (in one case £5000+ downloading payroll!!) and not having activated the relevant bolt on in time. Whilst the network will not refund the full cost they are often quite reasonable if the sitaution is explained and they identify a genuine mistake that is totally outside of the norm and go a certain way towards helping.
The whole idea of mobiles is to increase mobility not to get us all tied down in red tape and further legislation. Happy to give advice on dealing with the networks if anyone wants it
Thanks, agree with your last para. If you get the option of putting a spending cap on when you take out the contract (as with data roaming), then there is no problem for parents or accidental use alike.0 -
Hope i can get a similar petition .
Just been down the pub for lunch spent to much Tesco on the way home bought a Big TV for the weekend .
Big problem was i dropped off at the bookmakers and did my money on slow horses .
Now like the |OP i hope to get my money back by getting up one of them their petitions to the EEC .As its only fair i don't pay for my stupidity but let somebody else pay .
jje
Think you are missing the point. If you refer to my other post you will find that my family live in a country area 10 miles from my daughter's school as it happens.
The bus timetable here was cut 50% last year and bus service now under threat full stop with spending cuts.
Our problem was that one or other daughter were deposited in another village last Winter and had to walk in the dark across fields or the bus did not come to our village leaving children (on the day of their first exams), pensioners and everyone in -7ºC. Hence need for a reliable phone for safety.
Girls being girls use up their credit texting so I accept there is an issue there but the fact is that mobile companies are talking about charging for connection so the emergency cover goes out the window. You can't go to Post Office, shop or garage out in the country if there aren't any and pedestrians would be foolhardy walking down country lanes in the dark or the daylight for that matter.
Again, the problem would not occur if users could specify a spending limit and have more controls overs spending.
See my other blog with an example of what can go wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards