grazzup

cflarry

Optimist wrote: »

Apart from a few specific instances a under age person can not sign a contract. If they do then it is not binding on the child although the terms are binding on the other party.

I would do as the company require and send details as requested to see how they deal with it.

Thank you very much for your positive advice, unlike some who just condem.

sjbrun

As far as I was aware, if someone over 18 signs a mobile contract then gives the phone to someone under 18 they are accountable for all the costs that they incur. If I was you I would have given him a pay as you go mobile and just top up 10 pound a month or so. This will allow him to manage the credit so he can be responsiable and he will learn not to give it to people as his credit will be used. And with pay as you go you dont get any nasty shocks.

I think legally since your the account holder, you may have to take this to experience but its at Gazzups disgression if they refund you or not but I would be surprised if they do refund, I think its more a case of allowing you to get out of a contract with them.

Look at it from Gazzups point of view - how else do they know if someone if over 18 or not? you have to be over 18 to have a contract and they ticked a box saying they were.... Why should they be out of pocket?

visidigi

cflarry wrote: »

It may be that he has had his phone hacked.

come on now...just chalk it up and move on...attempting to blame it on a hacking makes me wonder if you're a journalist :rotfl:

Techhead_2

Optimist wrote: »

Apart from a few specific instances a under age person can not sign a contract. If they do then it is not binding on the child although the terms are binding on the other party.

I would do as the company require and send details as requested to see how they deal with it.

I don't think that first part is correctly phrased
Under 18s can form a contract but as you say its non-binding, except for a few instances.

I agree with your advice about sending the details to the company. This is what the regulator recommends as the code of practice asks for a refund in most cases. Even though its not the providers 'fault'.

Going forward, if an 11yr old is to be given a phone then I strongly believe that the parent/guardian needs to be much more switched on. Both technically and with regard to the potential issues.

Fergie76

visidigi wrote: »

Grazzup presumes that subscriber has obtained the necessary permission, consent or approval from the payer of the mobile bill, guardian or parents.

This bit I have quoted, how can that be a fair T&C? How can someone be held liable for a contract they know nothing about?

This IMO is similar to PPC's who try to pin liability on the RK, when someone else is driving and have no knowledge of the invoice received.

squeaky

I'm reading that as the company trying to cover themselves for supplying (possible) adult type services to someone under age. After all - they have no true knowledge of just who is accessing the service concerned.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Fergie76 wrote: »

This bit I have quoted, how can that be a fair T&C? How can someone be held liable for a contract they know nothing about?
.

So what happens if a child rings up adult phone lines from the landline at home? Call charges @ £1.50 per minute would soon rack up the pounds and who would you say was responsible then given it would be the parents who have the contract with BT?

jamespir

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So what happens if a child rings up adult phone lines from the landline at home? Call charges @ £1.50 per minute would soon rack up the pounds and who would you say was responsible then given it would be the parents who have the contract with BT?

the parents for letting little johnny have a contract phone

Fergie76

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So what happens if a child rings up adult phone lines from the landline at home? Call charges @ £1.50 per minute would soon rack up the pounds and who would you say was responsible then given it would be the parents who have the contract with BT?

Thinking about it a bit more, maybe the car parking scenario, is because the contract is not deemed to be made until parked, assuming you have seen all the t&c. So probably not a good comparison on my part.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Fergie76 wrote: »

Thinking about it a bit more, maybe the car parking scenario, is because the contract is not deemed to be made until parked, assuming you have seen all the t&c. So probably not a good comparison on my part.

Probably not

Remember its the OP who took on the contract and not the child and that means that they are responsible for what gets accessed on there unless it has been stolen just the same as the landline.