£293 Vodafone Bill

squeaky

Perhaps the OP's first option would be to talk with Citizen's Advice?

pulliptears

halibut2209 wrote: »

Sad to say this is exactly why young people should not have a phone on contract.

Please do not tar all young people with that particular brush. Both of my children have had contract mobiles and neither have ever gone over their minutes because they are sensible children who can be trusted.

We changed DD's contract recently to a £15 a month contract that cuts off after her allowance has been reached. She has never got anywhere near the allowance.

halibut2209

I apologise, that was not my intention

Tupperware_Queen

my son did something similar when his dad (my ex) stupidly gave him his old phone when he got a new one...was supposed to be £5 a month for 100 text and minutes.....the first bill was over £200. Ex asked for my help to pay bills, I said no way hose....who in their right mind gives a teenager a phone which will connect to the internet, and with no limit on spending. He appealed to T-mobile, who removed some of the charges to over 18 services (he had told the sales guy on the phone that he was giving the handset to a minor), but there was still about £150 to pay. A lesson learnt by all.

I meanwhile very smugly sat with the other son and his payg costing about a fiver a month all in!!

IndigoBlue_2

There have been some very malicious comments in this thread, there clearly must be a lot of ignorant people who do not understand what autism is or the broad spectrum it is part of. Despite this, the general consensus is that you do not have a case in court, and I agree with this. I do feel for your mother though as all she has tried to do is be a good mother, unfortunately with consequence.

DCFC79

Deco wrote: »

My mum was naive but the common opinion of this thread blaming her rather than the company selling ringtones to kids for £295 or the support staff who misled her with appalling advise that led to this loss is a bit absurd and I hope for our sake the courts see it differently.

the phone was your mums to use and was in her name, bluebolt/boltblue werent aware that a 14 year old was using the phone to download wallpapers etc, but as you havent received any of the wallpapers etc then you need to chase bluebolt/boltblue for the refund,

DVardysShadow

Deco wrote: »

My mum was naive but the common opinion of this thread blaming her rather than the company selling ringtones to kids for £295 or the support staff who misled her with appalling advise that led to this loss is a bit absurd and I hope for our sake the courts see it differently.

The only thing you have in your favour is that mother relied on the advice from the [mis]representative. If this person did advise that the contract would fix the problem, then it would be misrepresentation. Whether you were laughed out of court would depend on the quality of your evidence of misrepresentation.

halibut2209

IndigoBlue wrote: »

There have been some very malicious comments in this thread, there clearly must be a lot of ignorant people who do not understand what autism is or the broad spectrum it is part of.

Woah there. Apart from the OP and you, no-one has mentioned that, and certainly no one has been malicious. We are advising on law and rights, nothing else. Medical conditions are irrelevant.

soolin

IndigoBlue wrote: »

There have been some very malicious comments in this thread, there clearly must be a lot of ignorant people who do not understand what autism is or the broad spectrum it is part of. Despite this, the general consensus is that you do not have a case in court, and I agree with this. I do feel for your mother though as all she has tried to do is be a good mother, unfortunately with consequence.

I feel that this thread has been very mature in not referring to the autism. However, since you bought it up are you seriously suggesting that the mother was not aware of the effect that autism has on her own daughter? Obviously if she was aware and still gave the phone to a minor with an additional health complications , then doesn't that make it worse?

I think the responses of people on this thread suggests that they do understand the nature of the broad spectrum of complaints connected with autism and maybe that is why there is even more shock that a phone was handed over.

I feel sorry for anyone that gets into this situation but I can only echo yours and other posts that suggest there is nothing here that can be 'sued' for in court.

IndigoBlue_2

soolin wrote: »

I feel that this thread has been very mature in not referring to the autism. However, since you bought it up are you seriously suggesting that the mother was not aware of the effect that autism has on her own daughter? Obviously if she was aware and still gave the phone to a minor with an additional health complications , then doesn't that make it worse?

I think the responses of people on this thread suggests that they do understand the nature of the broad spectrum of complaints connected with autism and maybe that is why there is even more shock that a phone was handed over.

I feel sorry for anyone that gets into this situation but I can only echo yours and other posts that suggest there is nothing here that can be 'sued' for in court.

No, that is not what I am suggesting.