Vodafone not protecting customers!!! HELP PLEASE!

simax

Jon_01 wrote: »

Roaming isn't billed in realtime like when you're on your home network.
The data is sent to your network once every 24/48 hours by the network you roam on. High usage is then flagged up and acc blocked (one of my jobs).

If you've been billed for usage after you reported the phone stolen you shouldn't have to pay, but you are liable for all usage until you do (its in your T&C's).

Your contact isn't a credit agreement, it's a service contract.

Although I agree partially with this, as calls and texts go through the local networks etc, data still uses the UK APN's to transfer data to and from the handset so has the ability to be measured in real time.

Proof? Vodafone sim abroad with EU data traveller bundle, within 2 mins of using data, you get a text from 40506 stating:

From Vodafone: Just to let you know that you have a 25MB data allowance to use in this country today. We will let you know if you get close to using all the allowance. If you'd like to stop receiving these alerts, text STOP to 40506 Sent *DATE* @ *TIME* UK

And when you have 1 to 1.5MB left, you get this (usually within minutes again):

From Vodafone: Just to let you know that youre approaching the end of your 25MB allowance and to remind you that there is a charge of £1 per MB inc VAT once the allowance is used. If you'd like to stop receiving these alerts, text STOP to 40506 Sent *DATE* @ *TIME* UK

So, data *CAN* be measured in real time, as the UK APN's still control data flow.

Roaming

No good news from Vodafone I'm afraid. Our travel insurance would not cover it because of various specifics.

I would however like to share with you news about Ofcoms Consultation on Unexpectedly high bills and/or bill shock.

stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/unexpectedly-high-bills/summary

Also, interesting and worth reading are these unfair terms which Ofcom has elaborated previously.

ipandit.practicallaw.com/9-384-3362

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/schedule/2/paragraph/1/made[/url]
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/schedule/2/made[/url]

If you've got something to say - I say you should put it on the Ofcom consultation. It starts; 10 May 2011 and Ends; 14 June 2011

Get your voice heard.

OneADay

Roaming wrote: »

No good news from Vodafone I'm afraid. Our travel insurance would not cover it because of various specifics..

Try contacting the vodafone rep on this forum as described here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43472372&postcount=1010

You might be able to argue for a reduction in the bill etc.

Roaming

OneADay wrote: »

Try contacting the vodafone rep on this forum as described here


forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43472372&postcount=1010

You might be able to argue for a reduction in the bill etc.

They have already offered 50% off the bill saying they are letting go of profits and any more would mean loss to the company.

OneADay

Roaming wrote: »

They have already offered 50% off the bill saying they are letting go of profits and any more would mean loss to the company.

Well its a start but you could point out to them that its still very unfair for the amount of data that has probably been used.

You could ask for a breakdown of the data used by the offender and point out that its unfair for the amount of data used even overseas - unless the bill was racked up with downloads of music/games and wotnot.

Its down to you to make the case and appeal to their good nature - eherm. Might get luck and get another 50% off and then stop moaning (because you will have got a good lesson for future then).

grumbler

Roaming wrote: »

They have already offered 50% off the bill saying they are letting go of profits and any more would mean loss to the company.

This explains why they are not interested in setting any limits and sending any warnings.

Roaming

Exactly. It doesn't serve to protect consumers.

I could be wrong, but I'd like to know how these unfair terms came about and if they exist, why they aren't taken any notice of;

SCHEDULE 2
INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of–

(a)excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

(b)inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

(c)making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(d)permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

(e)requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

(f)authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

(g)enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;

(h)automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;

(i)irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

(j)enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(k)enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

(l)providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

(m)giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

(n)limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

(o)obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

(p)giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement;

(q)excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

OneADay

Roaming wrote: »

Exactly. It doesn't serve to protect consumers.

I could be wrong, but I'd like to know how these unfair terms came about and if they exist, why they aren't taken any notice of;

SCHEDULE 2
INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of–

......

Losing me now - those are consumer rights, not contract terms - for which you need to look at what you agreed to with the contract on the vodafone site.

Roaming

Ok... Like I said, I could have gone off on the wrong tangent. I followed this information from here; ipandit.practicallaw.com/9-384-3362

"Ofcom has published a final statement containing regulatory guidance on the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 to additional charges in standard form communications services agreements, together with associated consumer guidance"

And then looked up the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulation which is what I quoted above. I thought Ofcom was giving guidance over and above the contracts with operators ie, if the contract has terms which imply the aove unfairness, then, they are, unfair.

Can't put URLs as I'm still a new user on the forums. Sorry.

OneADay

If you want to take it up with Ofcom - call Ofcom and ask their opinion, they will probably ask you make a formal complaint to Vodafone in writing / arguing the case for a bigger reduction as the charge is very high. That way you will know exactly what Ofcom opinion is.

There is no point trying to get the world changed, its not going to happen.

The actual contract terms with Vodafone - you can read them on the vodafone site.