phone blacklisted (3 mobile) :(

NFH

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

lol @ distress and inconvenience. It's a phone, not their right arm.

It's a legal phrase used by the courts and other bodies such as ombudsmen. Google it and you'll find it's a widely used concept when awarding compensation etc.

Gordon_Hose

Something for nothing then? lol

NFH

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Something for nothing then? lol

No, it's not something for nothing. The OP has had to spend lots of time sorting this out as well as suffering the inconvenience of not being able to receive calls. Compensation is not always limited to the amount originally paid.

Gordon_Hose

lol *facepalm*

AnnaC88

I suppose the inconvenience adds up as well what with travel expenses to and from 3 stores, having to use landline for calls not included in my landline contract and possible loss of work as I work for an agency who contact via mobile.

Buzby

They'l point out that it was to protect the phone owner, and they were justified in doing so, it being just unfortunate that the wrong IMEI was on file, but the issue of security would take precedence, so worry and distress would be minimal. The way to do this is to emphasise the inconvenience and request a monetary credit to cover the inconvenience. Streaming in demanding money will be met with a refusal and an unwillingness to discuss further.

A court would be sympathetic, but I doubt they would force the network would force the issue under the circumstances. As Gordon says, it was only a phone.

Your loss of work etc is a consequential loss, and it would be up to you to insure for this yourself, not the mobile network to pay out if it happened.

NFH

Buzby wrote: »

so worry and distress would be minimal.

No, the distress is not minimal if the OP knows she might be missing out on potential work while she can't receive incoming calls, all caused by Three's failure to exercise reasonable care and skill.

NFH

Buzby wrote: »

Your loss of work etc is a consequential loss, and it would be up to you to insure for this yourself, not the mobile network to pay out if it happened.

On what basis do you believe that consequential losses must be borne by, and therefore insured by, the OP rather than by the negligent party?

AnnaC88

Problem still not been fixed. Staff don't care. Put in a complaint and complaints department havn't got in touch in the time they have specified. Three are sh*t.

Sigh.

NFH

Send them a letter before claim, giving them seven days to comply in order to avoid court action to recover the cost of you buying a replacement handset, quoting the legislation I mentioned above. Reiterate that time is of the essence.