Unfair mobile phone bill

Guys_Dad

I write as someone who has a son who has a brain injury which he received whilst serving in the RAF some 20 years ago. So I am well aware of the problems that someone who is "mentally disabled" can make for themselves.

The fact is that companies do not make the right sort of credit checks when giving any form of credit. They rely far too much on Experian-type credit checks and not on common sense. My son always tells the truth when he tries to get credit - says he is unemployed with only a small war pension, yet they still threw credit at him.

Thankfully, he doesn't have a mobile contract, but in the past, he managed to incur some unhealthy debts and, regrettably, some of his "friends" also took out credit in his name.

For your friend's sake, I do hope he gets a CCJ against him as this will hopefully prevent him obtaining any more credit.

But the harsh reality is that the debt has legally been incurred. Companies are severely restricted in what they can ask a potential customer and, as I wrote above, they do not, in my opinion, do due diligence when giving credit. But until the law is changed, then all you can do is either kick up a stink in local paper (not a route I would choose) or put the full facts, including medical reports, in the hands of the network and try to get a reduction.

In fact, you would probably be best to let them take him to court as their shoddy credit checking might be exposed and they would only be awarded a small amount each month, as well as your friend's credit record being severely marked to prevent any future situations arising.

As I said, having been there, I understand.

Snakeeyes21

grumbler wrote: »

"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.

I see they have internet access in asylums now then :rotfl:your obviously a few bicks short of a wall to come up with such stuff.

What utter nonsense.

I guess when employers decline women of child bearing age a job you would be happy with that as they are 'protecting' their company profits and not discriminating in any way

And since when has every mentally disabled person been unable to look after their own affairs in the correct way? My old nan was about as loopy as they come, but she managed to pay her mortgage and bills.

grumbler

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

I see they have internet access in asylums now then :rotfl:your obviously a few bicks short of a wall to come up with such stuff.

What utter nonsense.

Yes I am an idiot. Because what you say makes no sense to me.

I guess when employers decline women of child bearing age a job you would be happy with that as they are 'protecting' their company profits and not discriminating in any way

I meant protecting people, not companies. It was absolutely clear to everybody except you. Like others said above, CCJs and defaults in credit files will work similarly - protecting them in the future from getting such contracts. IMO, the OP is a victim here, not the network. It is the OP who needs protection in the first place.
Your example is absolutely OOT.

And since when has every mentally disabled person been unable to look after their own affairs in the correct way?

Who said 'every'? What I said and what you quoted without reading was "with serious mental disabilities".

stugib

moonrakerz wrote: »

TThey also have a legal duty to maximise the return for their shareholders - writing off debts does not comply with that.

moonrakerz wrote: »

Companies Act 2006:

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

Benefiting the shareholders does not simply mean maximising the profits - avoiding litigation (not that I see a case here), long-term reputation of the company, and on a micro-level writing off debts that would cost more to chase that the debt is worth, is still benefiting the shareholders, amongst many other things.

DVardysShadow

keith1950 wrote: »

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.

The best lessons in live are the ones we learn from the mistakes we make, is the mobile phone company capable of understanding what it has done?, They certainly seem to be capable of taking anyone going into a phone retailer and extracting all the necessary details required to start a contract, even if they don't have a bank account, that means they must have either put down someone else's details or made up false details. Hopefully they will learn from this experience otherwise they will just cause problems for the foreseeable future. If they cannot take responsibility for his actions their shareholders should sack the board. There is no way that either they or their shareholders should be allowed to enforce this contract.

Geese ganders sauce.

Guys_Dad

I think that there is a bit more complication in this than might have been appreciated.

The costs are as a result of premium lines. Now Vodafone can't simply say to the companies involved "Sorry, you may have provided the "service" to our customer, but we are not going to pay over your money." If they did, they would be actually out of pocket, as compared with writing off a large bill for the young man using data or going over his bundle, which would actually cost them nothing to write off as goodwill.

We don't know how he got the contract - his own bank account with a DD set up, someone else's or some other arrangement.

If he has a bank account that allows DDs, then any company can reasonably assume that if a bank extends that facility to someone and allows a DD to be set up, then that person is of sufficiently sound mind. It is up to the young man's carers to ensure that these facilities are not made available at banks - again, I speak from direct experience.

However, I come back to the credit checks that companies do on new customers being inadequate.

grumbler

Guys_Dad wrote: »

...
We don't know how he got the contract - his own bank account with a DD set up, someone else's or some other arrangement.

Mentor88 wrote: »

...this young man has never had a wage much less a bank account!

English is not my first language, but I guess "much less"="and certainly not" in this context.

However, the information we have is a little contradictory:

Mentor88 wrote: »

...£30 per week (which is half his cleaning wage) ...

robt_2

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!

He has probably fraudulently obtained the contract then. Having a bank account is a requirement.

wantmemoney

Guys_Dad wrote:

I think that there is a bit more complication in this than might have been appreciated.

The costs are as a result of premium lines. Now Vodafone can't simply say to the companies involved "Sorry, you may have provided the "service" to our customer, but we are not going to pay over your money." If they did, they would be actually out of pocket,......

you are correct it is a bit more complicated but the Networks are not really out of pocket when a customer defaults on paying a bill.

http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47425&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10#

Ofcom allows them to apply a bad debt 'uplift' to the standard retail price for each call charged.
In other words bad debt is passed on to their customers who are able and willing to pay so only impacts on profits not operating costs.

Guys_Dad

wantmemoney wrote: »

you are correct it is a bit more complicated but the Networks are not really out of pocket when a customer defaults on paying a bill.

http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47425&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10#

Ofcom allows them to apply a bad debt 'uplift' to the standard retail price for each call charged.
In other words bad debt is passed on to their customers who are able and willing to pay so only impacts on profits not operating costs.

Well I am able to pay for others' debts, but certainly not willing!