Stop The Rip-Off - Demand A Mobile Communications Charter

fthl

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.

PAYG is the solution here - you can add credit over the phone if you need to. Beyond that you need self control and awareness of what you are doing and these are things that should be expected of a 14 yr old. Considering what 14 yr olds could be getting up to, personally I'd take this lack of foresight and accountability as a huge warning sign. what else could happen?

As for your regulations ideas - think beyond what you want to achieve, consider how this would be done and how it would work in practice. Most of your problem is that there already is a solution to the problem you are seeking to deal with and so how can you justify further costs, red tape and higher bills for everyone?

wantmemoney

AlexChambers wrote:

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.

fthl wrote:

As for your regulations ideas - think beyond what you want to achieve, consider how this would be done and how it would work in practice. Most of your problem is that there already is a solution to the problem you are seeking to deal with and so how can you justify further costs, red tape and higher bills for everyone?

The original poster can correct me if I have misunderstood but I thought 'the problem' he was referring to was the shoddy practices the Networks are allowed to get away with, hence the title of the thread 'Stop The Rip Off! Demand A Communications Charter'.
The solution, as I understood it, that he proposed was a set of (long overdue in my opinion) legally enforceable guidelines.

fthl

1. Whether the direct debit mandate excuses phone companies of a duty of care?

No, you cannot exclude liability for negligence.

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?

There is - PAYG.


3. Whether contractees are entitled protection from excess charges for phones used by third parties, unauthorised or accidental usage?


There is - PAYG.


4. Whether contractees should have the right to set spending caps as a contractual right?


There is - PAYG. Some contracts also offer this.


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)??


They are. This won't change, it is a simple contract-debt thing.



6. Whether phone charges under direct debit are regulated by the FSA, UK Payments Administration Ltd. and Trading Standards?


None of the above. The FSA is going and deals with set regulated products, trading standards have a set range of statutes and regs to enforce. The proper authority is otelo and the associated ombudsman scheme.


7. Whether phone companies have a contractual duty or duty of care to authorise excess domestic charges directly with customers as with charges abroad?


contractual duty - look at the contract. Duty of care - this refers to negligence, so if there is negligence, they might.



8. Whether online billing should be regulated and online terms and conditions constitute contractually binding agreements?


it is to a degree, through otelo, the banks etc. Online terms and conditions are contractually binding unless there is something wrong with the actual term. Whether they are online or not matters not one jot.



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?


there is - 6 years. Otelo might even have a shorter time frame, I know there is a shorter period for some energy companies.



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?


there is - PAYG.



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?


I dare say some do this already, but there is no right to anything free in this country - everything needs paying for by someone.



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?


999 is for emergencies. If it is not an emergency, add credit, then make the call. I don't know if 101 works. Anyone tried? If it is a really remote area - will there be a signal? I struggle sometimes and I live on a housing estate in a reasonable sized town... I doubt I'd get a signal on dartmoor.


13. The right of customers to pay contract charges by standing order, in cash or by Paypoint


You can agree anything you like in contract. They don't have to accept it, but you don't have to take the offer. Other posters have suggested you can pay by other means, for a surcharge.


14. Whether free connection should be guaranteed


No idea what this really means, but I doubt any connection with a mobile can be guaranteed.


So, pretty much all those points seem to be covered.

AlexChambers

wantmemoney wrote: »

The original poster can correct me if I have misunderstood but I thought 'the problem' he was referring to was the shoddy practices the Networks are allowed to get away with, hence the title of the thread 'Stop The Rip Off! Demand A Communications Charter'.
The solution, as I understood it, that he proposed was a set of (long overdue in my opinion) legally enforceable guidelines.

Thank you Wantmemoney.

You have thought it through and understood the problem and my campaign.

I believe distracting people from real problems is a spin doctor's job. If I had not mentioned my daughter's circumstances perhaps those used to reading tabloids might have grasped the point!

There is a suggestion by mobile phone companies that they will drop free connection to PAYG phones (new readers check the article before challenging my use of words pls) if the industry is investigated. Google

"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

I am proposing a simple change to prevent problems and prevent excess charges (see the Oxford English Dictionary everybody else) by phone companies under a contract and the testing of existing contract charges under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Anybody posting who does not have a PAYG should perhaps try one for a year before recommending them.

Having appealed to Otelo it appears from our case that mobile contract company contracts require regulation and testing under existing law.

This cannot be done if mobile companies drop cases, do not turn up in Court or settle out of Court (I am sure there must be a lawyer out there who can explain this to those bloggers who have never been to Court on a rights case and do not understand how Common Law develops).

For those saying that existing law covers all contractual problems by remedy (look it up in the dictionary before posting everybody!) I am saying that prevention is better than cure and that there are financial interests who would like to prevent regulation. We therefore need a Communications Charter in a changing world (please read my other blog before posting everyone).

And by the way, I also had an Equitable Life pension and an endowment on the basis of financial advice . . .

Freddie_Snowbits

Simple rule to stop excessive charges. When beloved offspring run out of credit on trinket, they cannot exceed the limit set by carer. That is why you give them a payg phone.

AlexChambers wrote: »

And by the way, I also had an Equitable Life pension and an endowment on the basis of financial advice . . .

Oh and on pensions.

First boss 1978, shop floor.

"Company has subsidised shop, sport and social club and pension scheme. If I was you lot, I would not put a penny into the pension scheme, cos when you retire, there will be nought left in the pot."

Freddie I am afraid cannot offer absolution for your mistakes in this case.

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?

In a word, YES.

It is because the rest of us do noy want victim hugging red tape at considerable cost.

Oh, and I exceeded the minutes this month because I smashed my motor, if we apply ops rules, then we would all be cut off at that point. I have an excess to pay this time.

FS. "I as broken my motor."
Insurance Company. "Oh dear, where is art thou Freddie."
FS. "I is in big trouble ..... Brrrrrrrrrrr"
IC. "Hello, cany you hear me Freddie?"

wantmemoney

Freddie_Snowbits wrote:

Originally Posted by 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?

In a word, YES.

It is because the rest of us do noy want victim hugging red tape at considerable cost.

I was hoping one of the forum industry experts that frequently post and advise on moneysavingexpert could answer.

To my recollection no consumer body lobbied the Government for mobile phone accounts to be exempt from any consumer protection measures for fear it would result in higher call charges.

I clearly recall the industry lobbied the Government because of concerns they had. They were concerned that those proposed measures would be detrimental to their ability to bill for Premium Rate Services.

The two main concerns that were reported in the press at the time were the "money laundering" and "Know Your Customer" rules.

Freddie_Snowbits,

just out of interest who are 'the rest of us' you refer to
and
what 'victim hugging red tape at considerable cost' are you referring to.

Freddie_Snowbits

wantmemoney wrote: »

I was hoping one of the forum industry experts that frequently post and advise on moneysavingexpert could answer.

To my recollection no consumer body lobbied the Government for mobile phone accounts to be exempt from any consumer protection measures for fear it would result in higher call charges.

I clearly recall the industry lobbied the Government because of concerns they had. They were concerned that those proposed measures would be detrimental to their ability to bill for Premium Rate Services.

The two main concerns that were reported in the press at the time were the "money laundering" and "Know Your Customer" rules.

Freddie_Snowbits,

just out of interest who are 'the rest of us' you refer to
and
what 'victim hugging red tape at considerable cost' are you referring to.

Just a few on here if you care to read

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.

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.

nsabournemouth wrote: »

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

Oh, and that is why the iPAD, SKY and otehr money grabbing devices has a pin lock set on them and the limit is give me your money and I'll get it for you.

wantmemoney

that nonsense completely lost me

Originally Posted by 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?

I'll answer it my self.

It's because if phone accounts were subject to the same regulatory rules that credit cards are subject to, then mobile phone companies would not be allowed to debit and keep revenue from customer accounts without proof of authorization from the customer as they do at present.

There would also be a serious question relating to the fact that the same company that was loading the account with credit on behalf of the customer was the same company debiting the account on behalf of the third party retailer
(at present the mobile phone networks share this revenue 50/50 on average with the retailer).

echoecho_2

Don't all mobile phone companies have a free number to ring from your phone that tells you exactly how many inclusive minutes you have left? That being said, I think it would be a good idea for parent's to be able to 'link' their account to their child's and then get a text update to inform them if the inclusive minutes have been used. I don't agree with the idea of a cap because it is up to you to use your phone responsibly. I don't buy the whole 'by accident' reasoning.

With regards to your point of having the ability to make non-emergency calls which may be urgent; I believe O2 offer a 'borrow a pound' scheme for PAYG customers who have run out of credit. It gives you one pounds worth of credit which is then claimed back when you next top up. This may be useful for children who have run out of credit and need to make an urgent call, but for most other people, topups can be made over the phone using a debit card.

Freddie_Snowbits

wantmemoney wrote: »

that nonsense completely lost me

I'll answer it my self.

It's because if phone accounts were subject to the same regulatory rules that credit cards are subject to, then mobile phone companies would not be allowed to debit and keep revenue from customer accounts without proof of authorization from the customer as they do at present.

Why is this a problem? When I started out at school and work, certain items held teh words Valuable and Attractive. My moble phone is just that, V and A.

My phone account, water account, Electricity Account and Gas account also me to use their services without interruption and then bill me accurately for wht I have used. The Phone, BT and others do this with no problem.

Unless of course, you use your trinket in such a way that you exceed your limit, ring up the Horroscopes or the nice Girls etc.

Or are we all to be Press Ganged and hve prepay meters fitetd to our homes because some of us cannot manage our usage?