£293 Vodafone Bill

munchings-n-crunchings

Any parent has to take some responsibility for what their children access.
If you don't understand it, then find out. I'm not technology minded, but I have to use the people and resources around me to know what my kids are doing.

Both my kids have autism, and my daughter has had a contract phone, in my name, since she was 11, and she is now 15.
A characteristic of autism, is that they like rules, and things to be black and white. As a parent you need to put the boundries.

If my daughter wants a phone app that's not free, then she will ask.
When she's not sure, she'll quit, and ask me to look at it for her.
The rules are there, so she is always within her contract allowance.

Regards
Munchie

MrsTinks

Can I just suggest that the debate about autism is neither here nor there in this instance?
In the eyes of Vodafone and the wallpaper provider this contract with between the OPs mum and Vodafone and the 3rd party service provider. IF there is any room to fight this it will be through mis-selling when she took it out. If she was clearly told that £15 would be the most she'd be charged then this is the angle to fight. She may have been led to believe that a limit HAD been placed on the phone...
This is what any fight needs to be focused on. If the OPs mum believes this is the case then state so to Vodafone and ask for the recording of the call in which the contract was sold. Once you have that start looking at what was actually said and agreed to...

The condition or ability of someone using the handset OTHER than the legally responcible person (the OPs mum) is completely irrelevant in the "fight" with Vodafone and the 3rd party service provider. As for the services to the tune of £293 that haven't been recieved... by all means fight that with the 3rd party company... however I guess she might end up with £293 worth of wallpapers! Still... if you don't ask...

shaun_from_Africa

If she was clearly told that £15 would be the most she'd be charged then this is the angle to fight

And if that figure is quoted on the contract then the OP may have a case to contact her bank and claim on the direct debit guarantee.

I don't know how the wallpapers thingy actually works, but it may be that once you pay then you get sent a text with a link to a website to download it.
Maybe if this is the case the texts are still in the phones inbox.

halibut2209

At the most, I would expect that the £15 would cover calls (possibly only to landlines) and text messages. It certainly wouldn't cover premium rate services which is what is in contention.

And seeing as companies are legally allowed to use the term "unlimited" willingilly (as highlighted in the last series of Watchdog), the OP is on a hiding to nothing.

MrsTinks

halibut2209 wrote: »

At the most, I would expect that the £15 would cover calls (possibly only to landlines) and text messages. It certainly wouldn't cover premium rate services which is what is in contention.

And seeing as companies are legally allowed to use the term "unlimited" willingilly (as highlighted in the last series of Watchdog), the OP is on a hiding to nothing.

My point is that a lot will hinge on what exactly was said on the call... once that evidence is in hand it's far easier to decide on how to proceed...

DCFC79

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And if that figure is quoted on the contract then the OP may have a case to contact her bank and claim on the direct debit guarantee.

I don't know how the wallpapers thingy actually works, but it may be that once you pay then you get sent a text with a link to a website to download it.
Maybe if this is the case the texts are still in the phones inbox.

yes thats pretty much how it works

nonnatus

The original post makes me quite cross actually. A mistake has been made by the mother who needs to step up and pay the bill. I echo the posts about it not being the fault of vodaphone or blue-thingy!
My kids are 12 and 13 and have contract mobiles (for a year now).
When I got the phones I sat them down and explained the implications (financial) of the contract and what was and wasn't allowed. If I had thought they were incapable of undertanding this I wouldn't have let them loose with them.
No different from handing the girl a cash card and PIN number. Daft now to expect someone else to pay.

Markb06

You say there was no wallpapers visable in the phone. How do you know the minor did not delete them and same for the text messages?

fluffnutter

Deco wrote: »

My sister has paid £293 for ringtones she has not received.

In amongst all the squabbling about autism, and the helpful advice that Deco's mum is stupid to let her daughter use the phone, so pay up and shut up, it's seemingly being overlooked that this £293 bill refers to what exactly? Nothing. How can that be right? That's grounds for complaint as far as I'm concerned. Although not half as much fun as pointing out the error of someone else's ways, it would appear.

Deco

Thank you for those who gave constructive advise. I'm disappointed with the amount of "My kids have contract phones and did not do this responses". Good for you. I've came here asking for help, I do not need to be told that my mum has made a mistake and because she is stupid she should pay up.

We'll be contacting the citizens advise bureau and the phone regulator service today along with boltblue. I've got hold of blotblues terms and conditions. They have a £4.50 weekly subscription. We have only had the phone two weeks so it appears they have been backlogging the payments that could not be afforded whilst my sister was on a PAYG phone. I thought for a contract of unfixed length the standard would be to cut off the contract rather than build a backlog of £293 if a phone runs out of credit.

The T&C does not seem very extensive so maybe we have a chance.