Stop The Rip-Off - Demand A Mobile Communications Charter

simax

Thing is, if you had a spending cap on there, and she exceeded this, then Vodafone barred the line and then she really needed to make a call (ie: broke down/got stranded etc) and she couldn't and then turns up 5 hours late after walking home, you'd then be mad at Vodafone for barring the line. So they can't win, can they?!?

As the person who took out the contract, you are responsible. You could also have checked recent spend online daily if you had a mind to...

Sounds like you're trying to duck responsibility. Pay the bill, and move on. Nothing to see here.

Parva

If you signup to a contract phone then you accept the terms and conditions of that contract, warts and all. I installed data and talk counters on my phone to ensure that I know exactly where I am with my plan. That said, I went to Cyprus late September last year and having heard horror stories I left the contract sim at home and took a PAYG sim with £20 on it. I managed to get through the holiday just fine, burnt all the credit mind but still had ample texts if I needed them but more importantly, once the credit was gone, it was gone! Nobody to blame and no danger of doing serious damage.

Put a PAYG sim in your daughters phone and forget this silly crusade. There can be no accidents then, you have your spending cap preset without even trying! I have little sympathy for people that sign contracts and then moan about them when things go wrong, even less so when someone gives what is potentially a credit card to a sibling.

AlexChambers

nsabournemouth wrote: »

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?

Hi NSA,

Thank you. In answer to your points

I would have expected that myself. The phone arrived in a Fedex type sealed plastic bag with a delivery note inside and a Samsung Omnia phone in it's own box. Nothing else.

No, my wife did not question the absence of a spending cap since she was not aware of it and not informed of the unlimited liability to excess call charges by Vodafone.

The ordinary person would think that payments are covered by the direct debit guarantee which is why I think this area needs investigating - see 10 below (have to go through facts to get to the point). Otelo seem to think not in practice.

Not complaining about being charged over 200 mins in our case if we had been informed at the time or vastly excess charges but Vodafone should have flagged up 35p/min call charge over 200 mins as opposed to the 21p/min on PAYG which my wife gave up as the reason she was interested in the offer. She explained that the phone was for my daughter and the reason she wants her to be able to make a call home.

We were "happy" with the contract for over 12 months until an exceptional bill. Do you call the Police before you have been mugged?

Yes, have TOLD HER in no uncertain terms!

No, one would think that all phone companies would have security and dramatic excess usage would be flagged up.

Since there is a lot of detail in my replies I won't say look at what I have written and just state the facts in our case;

1.Vodafone stopped text SMS messages about monthly charges to the phone in May 2010 after 12 months. From the outset monthly bills without itemisation were posted.

2. The following month my daughter exceeded her £19.99/200 mins by 480% without warning from Vodafone.

3. My wife wife was told by her bank about a debit pending for £95.63 so she cancelled the direct debit authorisation since you can't suspend it.

4. My wife called Vodafone to query the bill and was told by Collections that her account was "suspended" and that they could not give an explanation or itemise the bill.

5. "Suspended" in my dictionary "means to stop for a period; interrupt: suspended the trial. a. To hold in abeyance; defer: suspend judgment. See Synonyms at defer b. To render temporarily ineffective" and my wife expected connection to be suspended not just billing. My wife did not therefore expect the phone to be usable apart from wi-fi/iTunes/internet etc

6. No bills were posted by Vodafone in July, August or September until a bill in mid October for £431.09 with no itemisation. Bearing in mind my wife cancelled the direct debit mandate in July and was told the account was suspended she had not expected a further bill for 3 months connection and calls.

7. My wife and I called Vodafone to query the bill and were told that it comprised 4 months connection but they could not itemise the calls or explain charges.

8. After a number of letters in December 2010 Vodafone Director's office supplied itemised monthly bills for June, July, August & September which revealed the phone was connected until mid August, that Vodafone hand terminated the contract and charged a early cancellation fee of £97.07 plus £19.99 connection in September whilst calls were stopped in early to mid August.

It then became apparent from the itemisation that the call charges over 200mins were higher than PAYG which raised the second miss-selling issue, the first being that if credit contracts are prohibited for under 18's then Vodafone should not have advised/accepted a contract from a parent for their child without providing a means of capping bills.

9. On 4 January 2011 I appealed to Otelo and wrote to Karen Johnson For and on behalf of Guy Laurence at the Directors Office of Vodafone. The Directors Office did not supply a copy of the contract and rate card which I requested in writing with a specific list of questions relating to spending caps and the ambit of the direct debit guarantee.

10, Otelo indicate they are ruling in favour of Vodafone because the use was not fraudulent and that my wife should have checked the contract and that the contract is readily available online. I have spent some hours on Vodafone's site and have not found their contract but only Terms and Conditions which make no mention of the extent of the direct debit guarantee or a link to a contract.

I Googled “Vodafone contract” and searched Vodafone UK’s website using the same search string and just “contract” or “24 month contract” which gave a list of results. When I click on all of the results I either get an error window saying

We're busy improving our search service right now. We'll have it up and running again soon.
Please try again later - or use the menu bar and links on each page of our site to find what you're looking for.

or a menu of links but no contract.

This is nothing like the o2 procedure where you have to read the contract before inputing the direct debit mandate.

That said, I am informed by Vodafone that no phone company allows consumers to put a spending cap on their usage intentional or otherwise to limit their liability under direct debit.

Hence, my request for a Mobile Communications Charter and request to test whether excluding spending caps is compatible with the direct debit guarantee and whether it excuses phone companies of a duty of care to provide limits.

And yes, the girls now have spare chips.

What is the ready way of getting the price per min after your mins?

Parva

The minute you get your wish and mobile companies auto-block phones that reach their limit you'll be back complaining that your daughter had to walk home through a shady part of town because the mobile company blocked her phone. Get your daughter a PAYG simcard and let her learn a valuable lesson in life, that being that everything has a price and stop relying on the networks to play the role that a responsible father should be doing. In short, pay the bill and move on.

nsabournemouth

http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/sim-only-plans/all-sim-plans?initialFilters=flt_18monthplans is where you can get price plan details, just click plan details.

Im sure if you read the small print reference charges it will say that once outside your allowance relevant charges will apply and billed.

I can sort of see where you are coming from but the networks 'lobbied' not to have anything like this done.

To cut the amount of money spent on use wifi where possible and get a PAYG tariff that give certain amounts of data and mins in cluded in each top up http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/pay-as-you-go/payg-deals

AlexChambers

simax wrote: »

Thing is, if you had a spending cap on there, and she exceeded this, then Vodafone barred the line and then she really needed to make a call (ie: broke down/got stranded etc) and she couldn't and then turns up 5 hours late after walking home, you'd then be mad at Vodafone for barring the line. So they can't win, can they?!?

As the person who took out the contract, you are responsible. You could also have checked recent spend online daily if you had a mind to...

Sounds like you're trying to duck responsibility. Pay the bill, and move on. Nothing to see here.

Thanks Simax, what I am suggesting is the ability to make a reverse charge call or build in some method (even if it costs a tenner) so that when exactly what you say happens there is a solution.

How do you check spends online daily?

I did try to “Register for ‘My Account’ at Vodafone” to access the account through Vodafone’s website for my wife when several times and got the error message which read

Sorry. There seems to be a problem with your account. Please try again or contact our help desk.

As I said, there is a public interest issue if you cannot access online anything if the device you are trying to use is "suspended". It's a bit like abolishing FM before DAB radio works or is universal.

Would it not be better that the contract user has to contract out of spending and security limits and those with limits have get out of jail option like 6am to 6pm discounted car insurance for teenagers (e.g. another £60 to be insured to 11pm)?

Yes, you exactly right I am trying to duck 'responsibility'. See my reply to nsabournemouth detailing the facts then put yourself in my position.

Would you pay a £400 plus bill for 3 or 4 months connection after you were told the account was suspended and then told you could not have itemisation or apply a spending cap?

AlexChambers

Parva wrote: »

The minute you get your wish and mobile companies auto-block phones that reach their limit you'll be back complaining that your daughter had to walk home through a shady part of town because the mobile company blocked her phone. Get your daughter a PAYG simcard and let her learn a valuable lesson in life, that being that everything has a price and stop relying on the networks to play the role that a responsible father should be doing. In short, pay the bill and move on.

Hi Parva,

See last para in reply to Simax then ask me that again!

There's no shady parts of town here just green. However, cars are 6ins wider and faster than 38 years ago when I was at school and a girl in the next class was killed walking up the lane to the village school here.

Otherwise, I agree 100%.

AlexChambers

wantmemoney wrote: »

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?

Hi Wantmemoney,

I did call the FSA and they said it is an issue they "can consider if asked to do so" by the Government and that the phone companies have kept them at bay by using 3rd parties for their approval. The FSA seemed quite aware of the loophole and profiteering going on but "have to be asked" to deal with it which "says a lot about Government" (not my words).

I was advised by the FSA that the responsibility for use of direct debit mandates rests with UK Payments Administration Ltd because the use of direct debit mandates does not directly involve credit or lending, despite the fact that Vodafone Ltd is an "appointed representative" with the FSA. The FSA regulates deposit taking and Vodafone are representatives of ACE European Group FSA ref 202803 "authorised for accepting deposits deposit taking & insurance". Vodafone's FSA number is 507701.

I have contacted

UK Payments Administration Ltd
2 Thomas More Square
London
E1W 1YN
Tel: 020 3217 8200
Email: enquiries@ukpayments.org.uk

but have not got a reply yet.

Your point (2.) is the basis of my request for an investigation and a Mobile Communications Charter.

gjchester

wantmemoney wrote: »

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?

The answer is simple. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is the regulator of the financial services industry in the UK. Your mobile contract is not a financial service, its a contract for a service but that service is not financial in base.

Mobile companies need to be licenced to offer credit under the consumer credit act, but thats's not directly covered by the FSA.

In the same vein would you expect the FSA to regulate utility companies because you pay by DD?

wantmemoney

European pressure mounts for 3G phone rebate
Sunday Herald, The, Apr 8, 2001 by Ian Fraser

CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown has been accused of singlehandedly "breaking the world economy" with his auction scheme for third generation mobile phone licences by an Edinburgh-based fund manager, just as the winners of last year's 3G auctions plead with European governments to be let off the hook.

"If you put an #80 billion tax on the fastest growing companies in Europe - a tax equivalent to more than their combined annual sales in Europe - then you prevent them from reinvesting in their businesses and you create a disastrous cashflow situation," said Grant Wilson, head of technology at investment managers Martin Currie.

He added: "The TMT bubble may have blown before that, but it [the round of auctions] was a pinprick that sent [the telecoms firms] to the bottom."

The 3G auction, which raised #80bn for European governments and #22.5bn for the UK Treasury alone, was based on "game theory". This branch of economics attempts to predict the strategies people will adopt when the outcome depends not just on their own behaviour but also on that of others.

The mechanism was dreamed up by 60-year-old professor of economics Ken Binmore. Because of its success in the UK, the scheme was widely imitated by other European governments. Binmore, of University College London received a CBE for his pains - but the European telecoms have been left crippled with debt and wondering how they are going to pay for it all.

All the companies are now desperately seeking to renegotiate their deals, both with European governments and the European Union.

Wilson said: "The auction caused normally sensible people to kill their own children. Everyone is now trying to renegotiate their 3G licences in every country - except where beauty parades were staged. The bigger the cheques they paid out the fiercer the negotiations. Whereas governments in Italy and Spain seem open to the idea, Britain and Germany are being more intransigent."

The UK's 3G licence holders - TIW, Vodafone, BT Cellnet, Deutsche Telekom/One-2-One, France Telecom/Orange - shelled out more than #4bn each last April. That was before they started trying to build a 3G infrastructure which in the UK will cost another #4bn-#5bn - with #1bn a year to cover maintenance costs.

All five winners - including BT and the Vodafone Group - are believed to be in high-level talks with Blair's government as they struggle to reduce their debt burdens. Suggestions include an extension of their 21-year licences, a relaxation of the agreement terms, plus assurances that a rollout of 50,000 masts will not be hampered by planning regulations and objections from the public.

One telecoms insider said: "It is all very well asking for money back for the licences. But it looks as if the Chancellor has already spent the money in his Budget pay-outs."

Last week it was claimed BT Cellnet was poised to join forces with Vodafone in a move which would see the two companies build their next- generation mobile networks together. Telecom experts believe such a partnership could save the firms up to #2bn over 10 years.

European telcos will try anything in an attempt to ease their pain. Many have seen their market valuations shrink by 70% since since last March and some now risk bankruptcy as mounting technical challenges have delayed the launch dates of 3G services.

Tony Blair and a Labour administration will be acutely conscious that thousands of jobs might be shed by the telecommunication companies if the situation does not get better.

Last week EU telecoms ministers met in Luxembourg to explore ways of helping the telcos out. Some European governments and even the European Commission seemed prepared to accept a softening of the terms of 3G licences.

The EC has floated such ideas as extending the life of licences and rescheduling payment. But these got short shrift in Luxembourg last Wednesday. Germany has also been examining ways of relieving the burden for the phone operators.

There are also plans to allow network sharing between licence holders. This is not the same as sharing mobile phone masts. But there are also real competition concerns, and fears that such tie- ups would be anti-competitive and mean consumers would end up paying more for 3G services.

Wilson said: "But there's also the view that it's better to have an oligarchy than not to have any broadband wireless services at all."

New rules tighten up e-money market
26 Apr 2002

Rules introduced on Friday to regulate the digital cash industry should help protect consumers against ill-conceived e-money operations, but lawyers warn they could also restrict the market to all but the biggest companies.

The rules, imposed by the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority, were introduced to open up the market to new entrants from outside the financial service industry, such as mobile operators and ISPs, but are so rigorous that they are likely to bar all but the biggest companies.

Among the new rules are measures that dictate that any company must have FSA authorisation; must not make loans, grant credit or pay any form of interest if the company is not a bank; must maintain minimum levels of liquidity (£615,000 or 2 percent of outstanding e-money); must be able to fully redeem all e-money issued; and must comply with money laundering regulations and stop unauthorised creation, transfer or redemption of e-money. Key people in any e-money organisation will have to be approved by the FSA as "fit and proper", and the organisation will have to create proper procedures for dealing with customer complaints.

Furthermore, each individual purse limit may not exceed 250 euros (£150).

But however good the intentions, the rules could see fewer companies entering the market, according to city law firm Olswang. "In practice, the rigours of the new regime and the emergence of alternative methods of making micropayments may deter all but the biggest players from branching out into the issue of e-money," the firm said in an advisory note. In the wake of failed schemes, banks are looking at other methods of enabling payments: Earlier this week online bank Egg unveiled a service that lets its customers make payments of up to £200 to anyone with Web access, an email address and a bank account.

"Any businesses considering an e-money scheme must consider carefully... whether it can implement the technological and operational systems necessary to keep within the constraints," said Olswang.

Companies will be able to obtain a waiver if the e-money they issue does not exceed a certain amount or their customers are limited by number or by area -- such as on campuses -- but this waiver carries with it a cap of 150 euros (£90) per purse. "The waiver criteria are therefore of little help to the majority of would-be issuers," said Olswang.

Mobile firms claim e-money laws threaten m-commerce
23 May 2002

Europe's mobile phone companies are urging the European Commission to interfere as little as possible with the rollout of 3G services, amid concerns that forthcoming legislation on e-money could damage m-commerce.

Senior executives from 18 European mobile network operators spelled out their demands in a meeting on Tuesday with top European politicians and administrators, including Erkki Liikanen, Enterprise and Information Society Commissioner.

These operators -- all members of GSM Europe, the European arm of the GSM Association -- want the EC to take a hands-off approach to the third-generation mobile market, and believe it should not regulate the industry too tightly.

"The Commission and regulators should recognise the adverse risk of inappropriate regulation and its overspill on to new and innovative services, including 3G," said GSM Europe in a statement issued shortly after Tuesday's meeting.

In particular, GSM Europe is concerned that the e-money directive that was recently passed by the EC, and is currently being implemented by EC member states, could damage m-commerce.

"The Commission should, with respect to the take-up of mobile commerce, ensure that mobile operators can offer innovative m-commerce services for their subscribers without being hindered by inappropriate financial regulation, that does not take into account the issues specific to the mobile market, such as pre-pay," GSM Europe added.

A GSM Europe spokeswoman told ZDNet UK that these concerns focus on the effect that the e-money directive would have on the pre-paid mobile market. GSM Europe is currently preparing a position paper on the issue, which should be published in the next few weeks.

As ZDNet UK Tech Update reported last month, the e-money directive was implemented by the UK in April and will allow companies such as ISPs and mobile network operators to issue electronic money.

This e-money will be stored on a device such as a PC or mobile phone, and will be accepted by a third party -- for example a high-street store or an e-commerce Web site -- in place of cash.

Experts have described the UK's implementation of the e-money directive as "liberal". Companies that opt to issue electronic money will not be subject such a rigorous regime as a credit card provider, for example, but there are still a number of strict safeguards in place.

Click here to read about some of these safeguards.

Positive vibes
A wide range of other 3G issues were discussed at Tuesday's meeting, including infrastructure sharing, spectrum management and network management.

In a statement, Erkki Liikanen said that 3G is a vital part of the EU's ambition of creating a broadband society. "I welcome the roundtable initiative with GSM Europe and today's discussions, which have provided a solid basis for a successful launch of 3G services in the very near future," said Liikanen.

3G pressure
After spending well over £100m acquiring European 3G licences, mobile phone companies are facing up to the challenge of creating compelling applications and services that will allow them to recoup this investment.

With most industry observers believing that the prices for 3G licences were much too high, the pressure to succeed with 3G is immense. Organisations such as the GSM Association are making it clear that if the EC is really committed to the development of high-speed data services across the European Union must not start putting hurdles in the way.

Alex,
this I believe explains to a large extent why the European/UK 'consumer' has ended up with such a raw deal concerning a publicly owned/publicly licensed utility.

gjchester wrote:

Your mobile contract is not a financial service, its a contract for a service but that service is not financial in base.

There are two issues here. Yes there is the 'mobile contract', but there is also the 'credit' that the mobile network loads onto the account to pay for 'third party' services such as premium rate calls and premium rate subscription services for example.

Originally it was suggested that these two issues should be kept separate and billed separate. It was suggested that the credit for billing premium rate services would be administered by an independent company.
The Networks convinced the Government that they could be trusted to manage and debit the accounts on behalf of these third party companies.
the rest is well documented history!