Stop The Rip-Off - Demand A Mobile Communications Charter

Jeff_Bridges_hair

AlexChambers wrote: »

Hi Jeff,

You are missing the point.

1. phones are not the same as when I used to carry a lorry battery with a handset about. There is now the internet, digital music, digital messaging and digital everything from movies to scanning the barcodes of your shopping and checking the price on comparison websites using that app on iPhone. eMaoney is about to appear. Consequently, the potential charges and revenues and abuse are exponential.

If you received a bill for £5000 or £10000 because you sat on your phone and downloaded War & Peace or called Qatar at £1.00/min then you might be disappointed to find you were 100% liable and there is no in surance you can take out by way of a spending limit since there is no PIN authorisation system for calls a multiple of your bundle on contract and no limit on PAYG either.

I think you should be able to specify a call limit by PIN code myself or place a limit on account spend or there should be the same security and controls as with credit cards since charges are underwritten direct debit. If not you should be able to specify a limit to direct debits if it is decided that there should be no limit to phone charges and no security system.

What I am saying is that there should be equality with credit cards since you can run up similar bills by accident.

Check my reply to Freddie Snowbits as to the facts of our case and substitute "my mum" for daughter and see what you think then.

2. If you read the facts of our case we did not have a contract and one would think that mobile contracts are regulated by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and payments covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee.

I am campaigning for mobile contracts across the board to be tested in range of circumstances and, thinking forward, seeing what the situation would be with eMoney.

3. "Both by EU and British courts. Do you not wonder why it hasnt happened by now? See WantMeMoney's contribution and read The Guardian article I refer to.

Let us know what you think after you have read these three things.

Incidentally, I did not know my youngest had a contract phone when my wife who took out the contract was taken ill and my youngest and I had no reason to be on enquiry owing to paper bills and SMS credit mesages being stopped.

fine your wife and not your daughter then. I cant be ar5ed to read over the thread once again because all i got out of it the first time was you trying to worm your way out of paying a bill that was high through ignorance of use.

there is no abuse of the DD scheme as when you sign up you agree to them being able to take more money from your account should you go over your limit and you have signed to agree to that.. You , your wife your daughter whoever.

Yes you could get away with misuse through mistaken calls and downloads as you out lined above in your post and though war and peace wouldn't cost much to download and if you phoned Qatar its most likely the other person would hang up when they heard nothing from the other end so i would struggle to undertsnad why you would find these amounts on your bill. But of course your just being dramatic with this arent you as you have no idea how much it costs to download books because it wouldnt be that much.

also you would have to do more then one click on your iphone/smartphone to get the thing many times over.. and if your keeping it in your back pocket then more fool you


But of course - i wont let simple facts get in the way of your overly dramatic posting.

You keep on with your crusade to not pay your bill. I for one am out.

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.

So your daughter behaved irresponsibly then? And you are looking for someone to blame for this.

P.S its possible to top up by telephone too nowadays.. or there are other operators who top your phone credit up automatically when your credit is running low and i believe vodaphone do something similar by sending them a text..

of course you dont care because you feel hard done by dont you because your daughter has no idea of how to be responsible..

Admit it - If your daughter hadnt cost you a few quid more these last few months you wouldnt be bothered would you?

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.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote:

.......I cant be ar5ed to read over the thread once again because all i got out of it the first time was you trying to worm your way out of paying a bill that was high through ignorance of use.
................
................
But of course - i wont let simple facts get in the way of your overly dramatic posting.

You keep on with your crusade to not pay your bill. I for one am out.

are certain forum members really misreading or misunderstanding the original post.............the original poster is clearly asking for customers to have more responsibility concerning bills generated on their phone.

Nowhere has he tried to argue that he is not responsible for any bill...there appears to be a strange unhealthy business facing agenda going on here (a supposedly consumer facing forum).

Jeff_Bridges_hair

But they already have responsibility on their mobile phone bills and contracts. Thats called personal responsibility why doesn't any one think of that instead of trying to blame someone else or a system that appears to have worked well for many many years?

now here is a situation for his dear daughter having to cross fields at night.. What happens if she had a cap on her phone and got stuck somewhere and wanted daddy to come pick her up but couldn't use her mobile as she had ran out of her allowance? What then another thread asking that, yes we want the cap but we want a little bit leeway for emergencies?

It is EXACTLY for this very reason- capping - that they introduced PAYG phones. Your allowances are capped.

Im not playing to any agenda. You want capping - use PAYG. You want freedom and flexibility then have a contract phone... Its not hard to work out. and again this thread would never have been made if his daughter didnt overspend on her contract.

wantmemoney

Pamelavhill wrote:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3036606

expensive texts messages - help!
Yesterday, 8:01 PM

A few months ago I arranged a contract mobile phone for my disabled daughter. This was arranged through Orange and as she is not working, this became a joint account with my existing mobile account. Payment each month is deducted from my bank account. January over £220 was taken in DD. I called them today to find out why and was informed that another £500 or £600 is to be taken this month! I do not have this amount and am so worried about it. Apparently my daughter has called or texted nos 78810 and 84767. One of them is charging £10 a text and keeps sending her texts (also charable) while the other is charging £3 I think. Does anyone know of a way to claim these charges back as I feel they have taken advantage of someone with a disability.

Jeff Bridges hair....'Thats called personal responsibility why doesn't any one think of that instead of trying to blame someone else or a system that appears to have worked well for many many years?'

Jeff Bridges hair..'So your daughter behaved irresponsibly then? And you are looking for someone to blame for this'

Jeff_Bridges_hair

wantmemoney wrote: »

Jeff Bridges hair....'Thats called personal responsibility why doesn't any one think of that instead of trying to blame someone else or a system that appears to have worked well for many many years?'

Jeff Bridges hair..'So your daughter behaved irresponsibly then? And you are looking for someone to blame for this'

They are premium numbers - cant help that but you can i believe block them from being accessed.

Again - whilst this may sound harsh - Parent knows child is disabled and therefore may not fully understand what she is doing nor the consequences of their actions - so why buy a contract phone? Parental responsibility would you not say?

Why not purchase a PAYG phone where the spending is capped via how much you top up?

You can keep bringing up as many threads and posts and different scenarios but yet you still wont have it that people should be responsible for their actions and if they are so worried about high phone bills that they get a PAYG phone and not a contract one.

I also note that you say in that thread that the phone companies are STEALING Money from their customers.. You make me laugh - these are premium rate numbers the same as 0906 numbers are from your landline..

wantmemoney

wantmemoney wrote:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41019478&postcount=6

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/78810

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/84767

their are to many people making the same complaints about this company
Echovox Ltd

The Networks are the ones debiting the accounts and are keeping 50% (on average) before passing to rest to Echovox.

when is the Government going to stop this ongoing corporate theft from customers accounts?

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote:

I also note that you say in that thread that the phone companies are STEALING Money from their customers

.
and I would also note that you appear to be a liar.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote:

these are premium rate numbers the same as 0906 numbers are from your landline

78810 and 84767 are chargeable short codes that mobiles receive.
0906 numbers are chargeable premium rate numbers that are dialled from phones.

AlexChambers
this in my opinion is part of the reason why the mobile phone companies (and some posters on moneysavingexpert) are so against the type of measures you propose for parents (and all customers) to be allowed to put spend safe gaurds on their phone accounts and direct debit bank accounts.
This is why the Phone Networks and Premium Rate Industry were so against phone accounts being independently 'regulated'.

http://www.short-codes.com/pages/index.php

What is the Short Codes Management Group

UK Mobile Network Operators provide a range of services behind short codes for their own branded services and those of third party Service Providers. Over the past year, the UK Mobile Network Operators (MNO's) have recognised an increasing demand for the provision of short-codes and notably for the provision of short-codes on a common basis across more than one UK mobile network.

Historically, there was an informal agreement between the mobile network operators that they would issue short codes with an initial number which was specific to the operator. Service Providers thus obtained short codes for services with each network issuing a code which fell into "their" range, so one service could have a number of different short codes depending on the network to which the end-users were connected.

The requirement for one short code which was the same across a number of networks for one service then developed rapidly and was accommodated by the operators on a semi-formal basis.

In response to the increasing demand for cross-network shortcodes, O2, Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone and 3 have formed the Shortcode Management Group (SCMG), which manages the availability of shortcodes and agrees on guidelines related to services operating on available shortcodes.These guidelines have been published as the “Code of Practice for Service delivery of Common short-codes in the UK” and are available for download from this site in the Useful information section.

This code of practice does not govern any aspect of commercial service delivery. The provision of shortcode access on any individual mobile network will continue to be subject to the conclusion of a satisfactory bilateral agreement between the Service Provide and the individual MNO in question. It may also be affected by any transitional technical constraints of individual MNO's (as detailed within the Code of Practice).

Where a short code is issued under this scheme, the participating operators agree that the short-code will be used only by the Service Provider to which it has been provided under the rules of the scheme. The only exception shall be codes already in use at the time of the formal commencement of the scheme. Such short-codes will be subject to the transition provisions as outlined in the Code of Practice.

http://www.short-codes.com/pages/codes_browse.php?code=84767
84767 owned and managed by Vodafone

http://www.short-codes.com/pages/codes_browse.php?code=78810
78810 owned and managed by 3

Jeff_Bridges_hair

You dont get it do you. And please stop calling me a liar. I am not.

if you want a cap on your monthly bills buy PAYG. That is what it is there for. I have a contract phone because i like the flexibility it gives me should i have to go over my limit of my contract.

Those numbers may be owned and managed by those companies but they are not the companies who operate these premium rate numbers. They sell them to companies to do this.. Just like BT sell premium rate phone numbers to chat lines and so forth... now these companies do text you - Just like a whole host of others do but you do not have to text them back or if you do you text STOP and they have to stop. This does not mean that companies who sell short code numbers shouldnt be absolved of these premium rate companies making a fortune it is still a consumer choice to keep texting them.. Kind of like the subscription services for ringtones and screensavers and cheap games.

http://www.talksms.com/cat/17.aspx

wantmemoney

you get this...mind your own business.

what I may or may not want for me or my family is of absolutely no concern or business of yours.

tomwakefield

So, this capping thing. You've lost me somewhat.

You want to limit the amount a mobile phone supplier can take from you in a month, yet you don't want to be stuck in the scenario where you might be without a phone (as you would be with PAYG). In effect you want to be able to use the phone as much as you like and the mobile phone company can only take the agreed amount.

Am I correct?

Jeff_Bridges_hair

wantmemoney wrote: »

you get this...mind your own business.

what I may or may not want for me or my family is of absolutely no concern or business of yours.

So why post on an open forum about what you want and want others to do?

I have given you options. You dont like that because you feel that someone somewhere owes you..

Sorry to pi55 on your bonfire..

Your wrong