Orange Bill Problem, I've been robbed!

wantmemoney

RichGold wrote:

I've just become aware that for the last 3 years or so I've been paying a subscription to Orange for something called Traffic TV. I have no idea what this is or how it was signed up to.

the best of luck and don't allow yourself to be hoodwinked

just a question concerning what's being said in this thread

RichGold wrote:

I'm aware some people may say I should have checked my bill prior to this, but having never subscribed to anything ever I didn't feel the need to check.

gjchester wrote:

Unfortunatly this is the case, you can probably get 3 months worth back but little more, the onus is on you to check your bills.

Sorry it's not better news.

Buzby wrote:

Well you are right - you share responsibility to monitor your outgoings, and if you give someone the right to take a DD, even more so.
.........
Under the circumstances, I'd write to the Executive Office, putting your hands up to being inept in checking your bills in the hope they take pity
..........
Because you have been able to access the service, after this length of time they will not provide a full refund, as they have no way of (easily) knowing whether you've accessed it, and may simply trying to get some cashback.

so are people saying that if a 'theft' goes unnoticed for a certain length of time it becomes a legal sale in mobile phone world.

could any body link to anything to substantiate any of this because it sounds nonsense to me

im-lost

wantmemoney wrote: »

the best of luck and don't allow yourself to be hoodwinked

just a question concerning what's being said in this thread



so are people saying that if a 'theft' goes unnoticed for a certain length of time it becomes a legal sale in mobile phone world.

could any body link to anything to substantiate any of this because it sounds nonsense to me

Probably because it wasn't theft in the first place.
You had to 'sign up' for the service, with an enticing
first free month, which made it perfectly clear that it
was a subscription based service and you would continue
to be billed.

If people are too dim to read what they are signing up to
or too absent minded to cancel these things, then there's
nobody to blame but themselves.

And not to notice something for 2 years? Don't make me
laugh, most people atleast take a glance at their bills monthly
to see whats due to be paid.

If they don't, then they really aren't in a position to complain
months down the line when it becomes apparent that they
'forgot' to cancel a service.

RichGold

im-lost wrote: »

And not to notice something for 2 years? Don't make me laugh,

It was longer than that for me. And frankly, I don't like the tone of your post.

I think the argument is not that it was theft, its that these extras shouldn't be included in the first place.

wantmemoney

so are people saying that if a 'theft' goes unnoticed for a certain length of time it becomes a legal sale in mobile phone world.

could any body link to anything to substantiate any of this because it sounds nonsense to me

im-lost wrote:

Probably because it wasn't theft in the first place.
You had to 'sign up' for the service, with an enticing
first free month, which made it perfectly clear that it
was a subscription based service and you would continue
to be billed.

If people are too dim to read what they are signing up to
or too absent minded to cancel these things, then there's
nobody to blame but themselves.

And not to notice something for 2 years? Don't make me
laugh, most people atleast take a glance at their bills monthly
to see whats due to be paid.

If they don't, then they really aren't in a position to complain
months down the line when it becomes apparent that they
'forgot' to cancel a service.

I'll take that as a no then and you can't link to anything that says an illegal unenforceable sale becomes a legally enforceable sale if the 'customer' doesn't challenge it after so many months.

Although why you had to go out of your way to apparently malign the original poster and so many people who complain each year about the problem of mystery charges and unauthorised debiting from accounts seems odd.

im-lost

RichGold wrote: »

It was longer than that for me. And frankly, I don't like the tone of your post.

I think the argument is not that it was theft, its that these extras shouldn't be included in the first place.

Not really my problem if you don't like the tone of my post.

But the extras weren't included, you actively signed up for the
service, as did I when I was on orange, where we differ is that
I cancelled it after I tried it for the free month, and you didn't.

You can stamp your feet and say you didn't sign up as much as
you want, but its not something you had bundled with your contract,
you needed to visit the orange wap page and click on it and sign
up, where the terms that it was a subscription service were made
perfectly clear.

But of course some magical orange cs elf added it to your account :rotfl:

RichGold

im-lost wrote: »

you needed to visit the orange wap page and click on it and sign up, where the terms that it was a subscription service were made
perfectly clear.

I haven't ever used internet on a phone until last month, long after my contract changed. I've never visited any site on my mobile before then.

If you'd read the 1st post I made you'd have realised that.

Grow up.

im-lost

wantmemoney wrote: »

I'll take that as a no then and you can't link to anything that says an illegal unenforceable sale becomes a legally enforceable sale if the 'customer' doesn't challenge it after so many months.

Although why you had to go out of your way to apparently malign the original poster and so many people who complain each year about the problem of mystery charges and unauthorised debiting from accounts seems odd.

You are joking right? its not an illegal sale, its a service that the person
needed to sign up for, of course you would know this if you actually
signed up for the service. so your argument falls at the first hurdle, there
is nothing to challenge as the service was signed up for by the 'customer'
where it was made perfectly clear it was a subscription based service after
the first free month :rotfl:

Really please get your facts right before spouting nonsense.

im-lost

RichGold wrote: »

I haven't ever used internet on a phone until last month, long after my contract changed. I've never visited any site on my mobile before then.

If you'd read the 1st post I made you'd have realised that.

Grow up.

really that cant be the case, this isn't something that can be added via the phone, or some customer services rep can add to your account.

But ok, you stand by your 'story' that you didn't sign up for it, and ill stand by mine knowing how you sign up for the service.

wantmemoney

im-lost wrote:

I'll take that as a no then and you can't link to anything that says an illegal unenforceable sale becomes a legally enforceable sale if the 'customer' doesn't challenge it after so many months.

You are joking right? its not an illegal sale, its a service that the person
needed to sign up for, of course you would know this if you actually
signed up for the service. so your argument falls at the first hurdle, there
is nothing to challenge as the service was signed up for by the 'customer'
where it was made perfectly clear it was a subscription based service after
the first free month

Really please get your facts right before spouting nonsense.

@im-lost
my original question wasn't aimed at you so if you didn't intend answering it you should keep your obnoxious comments to yourself and stop trying to cause trouble.

Why does the the Telecoms/Premium Rate Industry appear to attract people like this?

Techhead_2

wantmemoney wrote: »

@im-lost
my original question wasn't aimed at you so if you didn't intend answering it you should keep your obnoxious comments to yourself and stop trying to cause trouble.

Why does the the Telecoms/Premium Rate Industry appear to attract people like this?

Where do you get Premium Rate from ? This its nothing to do with premium rate. Its an add-on to your service.