Unfair mobile phone bill

jayme1

keith1950 wrote: »

Its the same as giving a mobile phone to a child, if the user is not capable of responsibly using it and doesn't have any one to accept responsibility then they should not be allowed to use them. They have run up the debt so why try to wriggle out of paying it. The rest of us end up paying for this sort of behaviour.The phone company are acting in a responsible manner by recovering the debt,there is nothing to sort out. I do hope you have confiscated the phone!!

the difference there is a child cannot go out and get a contract under their own accord then rack up massive debts,
so must have been given use of someone elses contract phone, therefore it is the adults/parent in question who is only responsible.

in this case because the person is above 18 they have been able to get the contract by themselves, and because the law dictates that mental state cannot be used to decline credit then it can only be the customers fault, if a debt is racked up.

perhaps there should be guidelines for mentally disabled people but then that brings into question where is the cut off how mentaly disabled do you have to be to be refused credit, and what if you are disabled with almost everything but a whiz at maths and money, perhaps there should be a countersigner, it all get very complex very quick, and in these times any effort to change the system would be held up for years in 'human rights' cases.

grumbler

Techhead wrote: »

Is the phone company qualified to make a decision as to a persons mental or physical health ? I don't think they are, they can make a decision about extending a form of credit but not whether the person has the ability to make a proper decision for themselves.

"mentally disabled" is an official diagnosis. As I said above, it's a pity if lenders cannot check applicants against some official list of people with serious mental disabilities. IMHO, this would act like 'protection' rather than 'discrimination'. Unfortunately, there are far too many stupid laws around.

grumbler

moonrakerz wrote: »

...They also have a legal duty to maximise the return for their shareholders...

Legal? Are you serious?

moonrakerz

grumbler wrote: »

Legal? Are you serious?

Companies Act 2006:

"directors must continue to act in a way that benefits the shareholders as a whole"

"The Act gave shareholders a statutory right to pursue claims against the directors for misfeasance on behalf of a company "


It's all there - if you can find it ! The Act is 700 pages long !!!!

grumbler

Well, I am neither a law expert, nor a linguist and I can be wrong. However, my understanding is that a 'legal duty' is something that would be illegal not to do.

I've never heard of anybody prosecuted for such an [STRIKE]illegal[/STRIKE] 'illegal' activity like writing off a part of some debt (unless they had some personal interest in doing this). In fact it's a common practice for all mobile providers.

legal duty
Definition

Obligation arising from operation of law, a breach of which would constitute a legal wrong (illegality).

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-duty.html

moonrakerz

A Legal Wrong can be either Civil or Criminal.

Both Illegal and Unlawful are "legal" terms, in the broadest terms they have exactly the same meaning.

Just because it might be classified as a Civil Offence does not mean it is not a "Legal" requirement.
If there is a Law that lays down certain requirements, such as the Companies Act, then those covered by it are legally bound to obey it. Whether failure to do this is then followed by Criminal or Civil proceedings is irrelevant.

Probably the most (mis)quoted Law on this site is the Sale of Goods Act, this is not Criminal Law - but is still a legal requirement that retailers must adhere to.
Sect 75 of the CCA is the same........along with many others..........

You do in fact seem to be confusing yourself even:

grumbler wrote: »

I've never heard of anybody prosecuted for such an illegal activity like writing off a part of some debt

(My highlighting)

I never said it was "illegal" ..............

Mentor88

Hi,

Just a few calrifications as it seems there is a mix between sympathy, helpful advice and other comments.

The young man went for the phone himself as his condition allows him to move around in safety and he is encouraged to live as 'normal' a life as possible. His parents and carers did not know that he had got the phone. The phone contract was cancelled after three weeks and he is now ona PAYG phone to enable him to communicate and interact, plus ensure his safety as he moves between training, work and home.

I find it hard to believe that as a young man on benefits he would not be able to get a loan etc but yet the phone company gives him a mobile with an unlimited credit amount. Bear in mind, this young man has never had a wage much less a bank account!

It just seems unfair to have allowed an obviously uneducated young man to have a free phone and a free line to anywhere whilst creating buills that he never displayed he would be able to comprehend or pay!

The forum seems to have got tied up between people arguing about the rights of shareholders, maximising profits and what is legal. I simply joined to ask for some help and guidance. I dont want to get into moralistic arguements or debates on good housekeping.

Thanks for the helpful comments.

Charlie

grumbler

Mentor88 wrote: »

....I find it hard to believe that as a young man on benefits he would not be able to get a loan etc but yet the phone company gives him a mobile with an unlimited credit amount. Bear in mind, this young man has never had a wage much less a bank account!

It just seems unfair to have allowed an obviously uneducated young man to have a free phone and a free line to anywhere whilst creating buills that he never displayed he would be able to comprehend or pay!

You may be interested to read this discussion:
Can an O2 contract be suspended when student goes abroad?

nomoneytoday

What end result would you deem fair to all parties involved?

keith1950

The best lessons in live are the ones we learn from the mistakes we make, is this young man capable of understanding what he has done?, he certainly seems to be capable of going into a phone retailer and giving all the necessary details required to start a contract, you say he doesn't even have bank account, that means he must have either given someone elses details or given false details. Hopefully he will learn from this experience otherwise he will just cause problems for the forseeable future. If he cannot take responsibility for his actions his parents should restrict his movements. There is no way that either he or his family should get out of paying what is owed.