Stop The Rip-Off - Demand A Mobile Communications Charter

AlexChambers

Jon_01 wrote: »

Sounds like you want ALL the onus on the networks and none at all on the customer?

No, I think it is reasonable that you should be able to protect your bank account and customers be able to place a spending cap on their bills, authorised or unauthorised.

A data roaming cap applies for use of UK mobiles abroad so why not here?

Snakeeyes21

AlexChambers wrote: »

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

No your contract was revoked because you failed to control your daughter, its not up to vodafone to do your parenting for you.

And there is a spending cap on every contract, its called your allocated minutes / texts / web usage, you have just fialed to make your daughter stick to these, obviously a child that hasnt been raised to respect rules and the word of her parents.

Nobody is to blame but yourself, you had the kid, you gave it a mobile contract, you allowed it to rack up bills, you fialed to pay the bills and you are ultimately responsible for all.

MissKeith

If you want to cap your spending, go on pay as you go. Use common sense, the majority of consumers do so there's no need for a charter. Simple.

AlexChambers

NFH wrote: »

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.

And what do you mean by regulation of online billing?

No, I am not saying comms contracts should not be different for communications services compared to all other goods and services.

I agree with you 100%. What I am saying is that contracts should be examined and consumers have the same security rights as credit cards and other financial transactions.

In other words comms contracts should be tested against the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and consumers should have the right to specify a limit on a direct debit mandate to protect your bank account ins the absence of a UK spending cap.

Currently, Vodafone told me yesterday, that there are no contracts available where you can specify a spending cap and Otelo have indicated in our case that there is no protection if another family member, your dog or you accidentally sit on your phone and run up a massive bill.

All I am saying is that the consumer should have the right to impose a limit to charges (after which connection could be cut off) as with data roaming abroad. There are so many ways a mobile phone can run upa large bill now they are communications devices.

In fact, I had a problem with o2 a few years back when I switched on my iPhone for 15 minutes to find a place abroad and got a £100 plus bill because the foreign network reported the 'header size' (e.g. full size of the email and attachments) not the amount of data downloaded which is what you are supposed to pay for.

Online billing - we found we could not access billing because Vodafone "suspended" our account. Even 'Jamie 4' in their Collections Department could not give my wife an explanation of the 'excessive' bill (e.g. 594% over the inclusive minutes).

Similarly, as we all move to mobile communications instead of wired broadband, how do you check your bill if the only method is online billing and your 'phone' has been cutoff.

Our village did not have broadband until a couple of years ago and an iPad or iPhone from O2 or Vodafone is a viable alternative. We've not had BT for years!

The other issue is that if the phone company issues a "deadlock letter" they can hide behind it and not answer any questions forcing you to go through the hoops with Otelo. I asked Vodafone for a copy of our contract several times and received a deadlock letter saying

I am sorry we have been unable to reach a resolution to this matter.
Regrettably, we have now exhausted our internal complaint review
process and this letter constitutes Vodafone’s final position.


I think we should at least be able to see the contract so we can sort out what is what.

As I said in my post, we need to think ahead. Being able to place a spending limit is basic consumer protection.

AlexChambers

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

No your contract was revoked because you failed to control your daughter, its not up to vodafone to do your parenting for you.

And there is a spending cap on every contract, its called your allocated minutes / texts / web usage, you have just fialed to make your daughter stick to these, obviously a child that hasnt been raised to respect rules and the word of her parents.

Nobody is to blame but yourself, you had the kid, you gave it a mobile contract, you allowed it to rack up bills, you fialed to pay the bills and you are ultimately responsible for all.

See my replies to other contributors.

(a) How do you impose a limit if you do not have any warning of going over inclusive use?

(b) What do you do if you sit on your phone and download 'War & Peace' by accident or your dog dials a number for you and leaves it off the hook (happened to a neighbour - first thing we new is the Police called round and asked if we knew whether a neighbour was in because someone had received a 'silent' call from their number).

(c) My wife cancelled her direct debit mandate and queried the amount when her bank advised her of an unexpectedly large amount going out of her account. What would you do if you can't set spending limits?

Do you have children or live in a country area? Different set of problems.

JJ_Egan

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.

You want the mobile company's to provide this service as a fail safe .
If i was CEO of a mobile company i might well think its agood idea but not from someone that has just called me and my business RIP Of MERCHANTS .


As to walking down county lanes what on earth did every one do twenty years ago kids as well .

The whole tone of your original post was totally and utterly selfish . Instead of raising what may well be valid points you choose to attack and put the onus on mobile company for Dark Country Lanes Poverty Safety in Remote Areas Banking Holdin Society Together etc .

If you stripped out the attack mobile company's and blaming them for life woes you might have had a sensible argument in places .

jje

nsabournemouth

You switched on your iphone........I've just turned on my HTC Desire HD and my Samsung Nexus S Android 3.0 phone.

Thing is that when i am on foreign soil use a WIFI connection, Voicemail is off and may even buy a foreign sim.

Every week i also send a text to get my remaining balance and even installed an app that keeps track of outgoing calls and texts.

You are just trying to find ways around not paying. Whilst i will take full advantage if a Mobile network cocks up i won't go loooking for ways to get out of it.

Just like a credit card i keep my phone well out of the reach of nasty people and have both a sim pin and a phone lock code.

112 does not need mobile coverage i believe

AlexChambers

MissKeith wrote: »

If you want to cap your spending, go on pay as you go. Use common sense, the majority of consumers do so there's no need for a charter. Simple.

Hi Miss Keith,

yes, she is back on PAYG now after our experience.

I don't know your age but I guess you would want the security of a phone if you have to walk over fields or 7-10 mile on top if you bus does not turn up. As I said, that is the limitation of PAYG.

However, if you read the details Vodafone cancelled the usage SMS to the phone so my daughter was not aware she had gone over limit and my wife cancelled her direct debit mandate when her bank let her know that a large debit was coming through from Vodafone.

Thereafter, Vodafone stopped posting bills (but continued connection).

I do take on board that my daughter should minimise her usage on PAYG but she is 14. Having sent her phone back to Vodafone I cannot say whether there is a way of limiting calls to 200 minutes. There is definitely no means of requesting a spending cap because I asked Vodafone sales.

What the case illustrates is that phone companies have no interest in putting spending limits. My wife went into a Vodafone store to check out an offer they sent her for a £19.99 pcm deal with unlimited texts and 200 mins. The shop referred her to Vodafone sales so she called them said she was looking for a cheaper deal for our daughter and explained the problem and costs of PAYG.

What Vodafone did not say was that you have no protection if the child goes over the 200mins or that the call charges thereafter were 35p/min instead of 21p/min as PAYG. We were not aware of this until we received an itemised bill and had gone for 12 or 14 months without knowing this until the Vodafone Director's Office provided an itemised bill which showed that the last bill contained 4 months charges of which approx 90 days were line rental but no connection plus £97.07 termination charge.

I call that miss-selling myself and unless one can impose a spending cap then the consumer should be able to break the contract to re-negotiate or terminate the contract there and then rather than be forced to see out the contract or pay a penalty charge.

My wife did not terminate the contract - she cancelled her direct debit mandate and queried the bill with Vodafone who said they could not itemise the charges because the account was "suspended". You would think that means they suspended connection and not just billing and access to the account.

My personal issue is that my wife took the contract out over the phone and did not get to see a contract. Vodafone have refused to provide a copy so we can challenge it or have it looked at to see if it fits the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 despite written and verbal requests.

The fact that the majority are served does not equal protection to the minority or when something occurs that you had not planned.

The point I am making are that PAYG and contracts are a one way street and the public needs rights as well as obligations.

nsabournemouth

AlexChambers wrote: »

Hi Miss Keith,

yes, she is back on PAYG now after our experience.

I don't know your age but I guess you would want the security of a phone if you have to walk over fields or 7-10 mile on top if you bus does not turn up. As I said, that is the limitation of PAYG.

However, if you read the details Vodafone cancelled the usage SMS to the phone so my daughter was not aware she had gone over limit and my wife cancelled her direct debit mandate when her bank let her know that a large debit was coming through from Vodafone.

Thereafter, Vodafone stopped posting bills (but continued connection).

I do take on board that my daughter should minimise her usage on PAYG but she is 14. Having sent her phone back to Vodafone I cannot say whether there is a way of limiting calls to 200 minutes. There is definitely no means of requesting a spending cap because I asked Vodafone sales.

What the case illustrates is that phone companies have no interest in putting spending limits. My wife went into a Vodafone store to check out an offer they sent her for a £19.99 pcm deal with unlimited texts and 200 mins. The shop referred her to Vodafone sales so she called them said she was looking for a cheaper deal for our daughter and explained the problem and costs of PAYG.

What Vodafone did not say was that you have no protection if the child goes over the 200mins or that the call charges thereafter were 35p/min instead of 21p/min as PAYG. We were not aware of this until we received an itemised bill and had gone for 12 or 14 months without knowing this until the Vodafone Director's Office provided an itemised bill which showed that the last bill contained 4 months charges of which approx 90 days were line rental but no connection plus £97.07 termination charge.

I call that miss-selling myself and unless one can impose a spending cap then the consumer should be able to break the contract to re-negotiate or terminate the contract there and then rather than be forced to see out the contract or pay a penalty charge.

My wife did not terminate the contract - she cancelled her direct debit mandate and queried the bill with Vodafone who said they could not itemise the charges because the account was "suspended". You would think that means they suspended connection and not just billing and access to the account.

My personal issue is that my wife took the contract out over the phone and did not get to see a contract. Vodafone have refused to provide a copy so we can challenge it or have it looked at to see if it fits the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 despite written and verbal requests.

The fact that the majority are served does not equal protection to the minority or when something occurs that you had not planned.

The point I am making are that PAYG and contracts are a one way street and the public needs rights as well as obligations.

You get a copy of the contract with the phone when it arrives. You then have 7 days to return it if you're not happy.

There are plenty of ways to get the price per min after your mins but you sign a contract for 200 mins and anything else after is chargeable

On PAYG why not tell your daughter to keep xx spare in case she needs it. Most of this is just common sense i am afraid. Did you question the spending cap before you bought the phone?

wantmemoney

1/ do any of the industry experts know why phone accounts are not regulated by the FSA?

2/ do any of the industry experts know why phone accounts are exempt from the FSA regulations that credit/debit cards are subject to?