3 mobile sent back, still getting bills

OneADay

Silk wrote: »

The phone has been returned so not a problem is it as far as T&C's go

.
Are you accusing the OP of fiddling here :eek:
How do you know what phone it is not that it makes a difference whatever the phone it will still have an agreed market value be it £6 or £600 and the OP is not trying to get out of being liable for it


Well because theres no provision in the T&C's to pay for the phone does not mean it doesn't happen ....theres no Law against it surely :rotfl:

I refer you to my earlier reply and add again for the upteenth time.
OP has to prove its been sent back with a tracking reference.

Yes I will doubt the OP till he/she proves they sent it back.
Ask yourself a simple question - if its been sent back, why offer to pay for it? Rather than trying to chase it up with the courier and trying to do the logical step of working out the tracking number.

How do you know its been sent back?

How do you know what the contract cost is and what the phone was worth? The worth of the phone is a red herring here, offering to pay for the phone is a red herring (it IS NOT within the T&C).

Guys_Dad

OneADay wrote: »

I am on Earth, not sure about you.

If the tracking number is availble AND courier can verify they were in receipt of an item which was not delivered to 3, then the courier is liable. QED.

If however a tracking number is not available (and 3 have no record of receipt)
OR it is available and courier has no trace of receipt of an item to return, the customer is liable for contract.

Its pretty simple - if you think about these things. I think its called sending things in the post or something. Why there is something called Special Delivery.

OK, quietly dissecting your points, just what would the courier be liable for in the bold para above - the cost of the handset or the full cost of the contract as well as the handset? No courier would wear that one at all.

And then, since you are using the t&c from 3's web site as the rock of your argument, where does it say that in the t&c?

Well, from your post 10, you seem to say that the courier would be liable for the contract.

If the phone was not received back by them - then the contract cannot be cancelled.

Question is simply - was it sent back and is there proof of sending it. Can 3 track it down somewhere - if their systems say no, then its lost and contract continues.

So, if 3 have no record of a return, then the contract must run its length?????? Regardless of if the courier lost it.

Or your post 16

The onus is on the consumer to ensure the phone is returned - otherwise service continues. There are no get out clauses of paying for mobile to end the contract.

And since you quote special delivery, you will know that you have to declare the value of the item. So would that be the Handset cost, or the handset plus the contract? But wait...., you have already said that you can't value the phone

Your post 18

"

They sell you a service with a free phone (or part paid), there is no price put on the phone formally if it is free as part of the contract. You cancel and return and its received, contract cancelled. You cannot start bartering on the price of the phone afterwards because it got lost or you failed to return it

."


'Nuff said. You have painted yourself in a corner, which is a shame, as many of your posts over the years have been quite sensible, but in this case, there has to be a reasonable way out for circumstances such as this

OneADay

Guys_Dad wrote: »

OK, quietly dissecting your points, just what would the courier be liable for in the bold para above - the cost of the handset or the full cost of the contract as well as the handset? No courier would wear that one at all.

And then, since you are using the t&c from 3's web site as the rock of your argument, where does it say that in the t&c?

Well, from your post 10, you seem to say that the courier would be liable for the contract.

If the phone was not received back by them - then the contract cannot be cancelled.

Question is simply - was it sent back and is there proof of sending it. Can 3 track it down somewhere - if their systems say no, then its lost and contract continues.



So, if 3 have no record of a return, then the contract must run its length?????? Regardless of if the courier lost it.

Or your post 16

The onus is on the consumer to ensure the phone is returned - otherwise service continues. There are no get out clauses of paying for mobile to end the contract.

And since you quote special delivery, you will know that you have to declare the value of the item. So would that be the Handset cost, or the handset plus the contract? But wait...., you have already said that you can't value the phone

Your post 18

"

They sell you a service with a free phone (or part paid), there is no price put on the phone formally if it is free as part of the contract. You cancel and return and its received, contract cancelled. You cannot start bartering on the price of the phone afterwards because it got lost or you failed to return it

."


'Nuff said. You have painted yourself in a corner, which is a shame, as many of your posts over the years have been quite sensible, but in this case, there has to be a reasonable way out for circumstances such as this

I have just answered all this I thnk but here goes again.

The courier provides a service, if they fail, they will have schemes in place to compensate 3.
It is no relevence of how they compensate or what for - its an agreement between them and whomever they are providing a service to (in this case 3).

If 3 have no record of a return - then its the courier who should be chased to work out what has happned.
But it comes back to OP to prove they sent something back.

Special delivery via royal mail only covers the bits you put into a package, not the mobile service contract.

I have already said you cannot value of the phone - what I said is that the price of the phone is not something that is stated with contract phones, if it is, then it is stated as the discounted price where the phone is not free.
If the phone is free, the price is stated as £0.00. To go back and retrospectively try to determine the full market price of a handset back in time is not practical or of any point as the T&C (yes those things again) do not provide for paying for a mobile phone to cancel the service contract.

Guys_Dad

OneADay wrote: »

I have just answered all this I thnk but here goes again.

The courier provides a service, if they fail, they will have schemes in place to compensate 3.

Agreed. But that would then override the bits in the t&c that demand that 3 have to have the handset back in their hands to cancel the contract. So there are exceptions to the rigid stated t&c then.

If the phone is free, the price is stated as £0.00. To go back and retrospectively try to determine the full market price of a handset back in time is not practical or of any point as the T&C (yes those things again) do not provide for paying for a mobile phone to cancel the service contract.

Except if it's the courier and how do they get the notional value from your assumptions? If the courier could be given a compensation value, so could the OP.

So what you are actually saying is that if the OP lost the phone they would have to pay off the contract but the if the courier lost it, magically the handset would have a value and they could pay that off and the contract would die?

OneADay

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Agreed. But that would then override the bits in the t&c that demand that 3 have to have the handset back in their hands to cancel the contract. So there are exceptions to the rigid stated t&c then.



Except if it's the courier and how do they get the notional value from your assumptions? If the courier could be given a compensation value, so could the OP.

So what you are actually saying is that if the OP lost the phone they would have to pay off the contract but the if the courier lost it, magically the handset would have a value and they could pay that off and the contract would die?

Look what the agreement is between the courier and 3 is irrelevent. What they have is a wholesale agreement (most likely) to provide a service (that service to supply a delivery service, not a mobile phone service) with fixed penalities. No idea what they are and its between them and 3.

What I am saying is if the OP cannot prove they sent the phone back, they are liable. If they did send it back and can prove it, they have nothing to worry about.

The t&c conditions are not rigid, they are the basis of most business transactions where a service is provided. Example a digital tv service, the supplier can demand to have their equipement back before agreeing to cancel the service.

Guys_Dad

Well, hope the OP writes to 3 and Trading Standards and gets a result. They are being reasonable, and so should 3.

You have not convinced me that the law would allow a network to enforce a contract, where the cancellation process was commenced within the stipulated time, because the handset was lost in the post and the customer offered restitution.

Sorry you appear blinkered on this, so we just have to agree to disagree.

OneADay

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Well, hope the OP writes to 3 and Trading Standards and gets a result. They are being reasonable, and so should 3.

You have not convinced me that the law would allow a network to enforce a contract, where the cancellation process was commenced within the stipulated time, because the handset was lost in the post and the customer offered restitution.

Sorry you appear blinkered on this, so we just have to agree to disagree.

3 are not being reasonable to expect to have the item returned to them. Again, you have not convinced me the phone was sent back and lost - no tracking number.

I already suggested that OP needs to chase the complaints department for 3 to see if they can find a record of it on their systems and the courier to see if they can help.

If neither has a record - then fail, OP has no case but to pay for the service (not the phone).

Silk

OneADay wrote: »

How do you know its been sent back?

How do you know what the contract cost is and what the phone was worth? The worth of the phone is a red herring here, offering to pay for the phone is a red herring (it IS NOT within the T&C).

Are you having a laugh here :rotfl:

The OP said it was sent back ......how do you know 3 haven't rec'd it ?

Whats the cost of the contract got to do with the price of fish ???

Why are you so interested in the cost of the phone it doesn't matter what the price is so long as the OP does not pay over the going rate

OneADay

Silk wrote: »

Are you having a laugh here :rotfl:

The OP said it was sent back ......how do you know 3 haven't rec'd it ?

Whats the cost of the contract got to do with the price of fish ???

Why are you so interested in the cost of the phone it doesn't matter what the price is so long as the OP does not pay over the going rate

How do you know the OP sent it back?

The cost of fish - what the hell are you on about?

Cost of the phone - I am not interested in it- you are because along with the OP despite the fact the contract is for the SUPPLY OF A MOBILE PHONE SERVICE WHICH INCLUDES FREE OR PARTLY PAID MOBILE PHONE. Where I have mentioned cost of the phone is in trying to prove to you it is not possible to terminate the contract without the phone being returned.

How much clarity do you need to understand the basic concept of a mobile phone contract and that there is NO PROVISION to pay off a service contract through just paying for the mobile phone.

The agreement is for the supply of a service. Mind boggling I have to keep twaddling on about this and being prompted to respond to same insanity.

Guys_Dad

OneADay wrote: »

How much clarity do you need to understand the basic concept of a mobile phone contract and that there is NO PROVISION to pay off a service contract through just paying for the mobile phone.

The agreement is for the supply of a service. Mind boggling I have to keep twaddling on about this and being prompted to respond to same insanity.

At last! The contract is for the supply of the service which was sold under DSR. We are in agreement.

OP notified network that they wished to cancel within the timescale set down by SOGA/DSR. We are in agreement.

The loss of the handset is frustrating this, but the t&c of the network that demand the return of the handset is obstructing the conclusion of the cancellation. We are in agreement on that.

Any party to a contract has the duty to mitigate any losses under English Law and the OP has offered to do that by paying for the missing handset, which, on face value, was not even OP's fault.

DSR and SOGA take precedence over unfair t&c and should 3 refuse to accept the value of the missing handset in order to allow OP to exercise their legal rights, then they are not seeking to mitigate any losses.

3 actually have PAYG prices on their Blackberry handsets and, as long as OP is prepared to settle on paying for the handset on the same basis as it would have been as a PAYG, 3 have no reason in law - and sod their t&c here if these go against English law - to refuse that offer and apply the cancellation.