Stolen phone racked up charges. Why do I have to pay?

easy

Rusty! wrote: »

What kind of individual loses a phone and doesn't report it for five days?

Possibly a kid who is afraid his parent will "go ballistic" when he says he's lost his phone.

When a teenager says they have lost summink, we all TEND to do it - we tell 'em off, then go thru the "where did you see it last? have you left it at school / on the bus/ at fred's house etc etc."
My guess is this kid has done the frightened rabbit bit for a day or two, then checked the places he might have left it, and finally got brave enough to admit the problem.

It's one of the things I said to my son when we gave him his phone.
"Don't lose it. If you DO lose it tell us straight away" and we explained to him why he should tell us straight away.

Mind you, We would know if he'd lost it, it's never separated from him normally

macman

spokeswoman wrote: »

My son lost his orange mobile and when we finally did manage to report it 5 days later we are faced with a bill for £5170.00 for calls made to Pakistan - we have never called anyone in Pakistan in our lives. Orange immediately offered to cut the bill in half - but even £2400.00 is out of the question to me. My mobile phone bill is normally £60 - £70 per month, what kind of company allows an individual to rack up a bill of £5000!

All of them, unless you opt for a capped contract. Are you seriously suggesting that the networks should cut people off when they go above their 'normal' spend? And then what happens when they want to sue XYZ Telecom because their Great Auntie Agnes was taken ill in Ulan Bator and they had to make a number of 'unusual' and expensive international calls-and the network cut them off after they'd run up £70?

grumbler

macman wrote: »

All of them, unless you opt for a capped contract. ...

Come on... Some do have shadow limits well below £5K. Virgin springs to mind IIRC.
And in this case the calls were made from UK, not from Ulan Bator.

wantmemoney

macman wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the networks should cut people off when they go above their 'normal' spend?

Networks in other countries manage it.

macman wrote:

And then what happens when they want to sue XYZ Telecom because their Great Auntie Agnes was taken ill in Ulan Bator and they had to make a number of 'unusual' and expensive international calls

and what possible 'illness' would cause Great Auntie Agnes to call an 'international' premium rate number 24/7 to rack a bill of thousands of pounds?

The Networks are able to look at the type of number called and the call pattern.

....what a desperate ludicrous scenario you chose to defend this ongoing theft with!

macman

You are missing the point. At what precise level of expenditure does the provider prevent further calls? £70, £80, £500, £3,000? Some people spend pence per month, others £100's. Years ago I had a family emergency when abroad that resulted in a mobile bill of about £300 that month, I've never gone over £20 since. I've have been more than a bit disgruntled if they'd cut me off that one time.
The only 'theft' that has occurred is the theft of the phone. A SIM lock and a PIN lock in place (available on every mobile for years and years) will reduce the risk by a huge amount. Not having both of these on your mobile is like leaving your front door open, and then expecting your insurers to still pay out when you get burgled.

Buzby

Afraid I'm with macman on this. By not using both SIM and Handset PIN's the customer is showing a callous disregard for their own security and are fair game for the scum that will attempt to profit from it. The networks are an intermediary, and there is no reason for them not to trust their customer to act responsibly.

Calls made when roaming are not billed to the home network in real time - the first time the mobile connects to the foreign network, they check with the home network that the mobile is (a) valid (b) roaming allowed and on confirmation of this, a foreign network number is allocated to the customer and all services are activated.

Until the home network is advised that there is a problem, (and can cancel the registration) the SIM is enabled and authorised. The home network, are only passed the cost after the event as a trade transaction on behalf of the client.

Seeking to blame the network is futile - they've done nothing wrong. Not setting a SIM PIN is simply asking for trouble.

wantmemoney

Buzby wrote:

Afraid I'm with macman on this. By not using both SIM and Handset PIN's the customer is showing a callous disregard for their own security and are fair game for the scum that will attempt to profit from it.

a moral screw loose or what :eek:

Buzby wrote:

Calls made when roaming are not billed to the home network in real time - the first time the mobile connects to the foreign network, they check with the home network that the mobile is (a) valid (b) roaming allowed and on confirmation of this, a foreign network number is allocated to the customer and all services are activated.

firstly the problem of huge bills run up on stolen phones equally applies to phones that are stolen in the UK.

Secondly ALL companies, including Credit Card companies and Mobile Networks, have billing periods. They settle their bills at the 'end of the month' or at which time they agree to.

Buzby wrote:

The home network, are only passed the cost after the event as a trade transaction on behalf of the client.

Credit Card companies manage both UK and Foreign transactions and protecting their customers(through Claw back agreements which Mobile Networks also quietly operate) so what is the real reason Mobile Networks are unable to do this.

macman wrote:

The only 'theft' that has occurred is the theft of the phone. A SIM lock and a PIN lock in place (available on every mobile for years and years) will reduce the risk by a huge amount. Not having both of these on your mobile is like leaving your front door open, and then expecting your insurers to still pay out when you get burgled.

yes but the customers are not complaining about an insurance company, they are complaining about the fact that the Mobile Network and the 'burglar' have decided they are morally entitled to keep and share the stolen property.

grumbler

wantmemoney wrote: »

Yes but the customers are not complaining about an insurance company, they are complaining about the fact that the Mobile Network and the 'burglar' have decided they are morally entitled to keep and share the stolen property.

No, the thief used the stolen card with a PIN written on it (mobile phone with a sim without any protection) to buy goods/services (airtime) from some companies (networks). Why do the suppliers of the services have to suffer consequences of the card (mobile) owner negligence?

spokeswoman

Thank you for all your input. May I just add the following: my son is a student living 50 miles from me. He attempted to report the loss after 48 hours in an Orange shop - he was told 'sorry mate you have to get the account holder to do it'. He managed to get hold of me via his sister and I then rang orange but couldn't give it the 15 minutes that Orange recommend that you hang on as I was unwell at the time. I logged on to the website but was unable to access my account, I used the contact us form but got a reply to say that the orange website was being upgraded! A friend tried to get through on 150 but gave up after hanging on for 5 or 6 minutes, and when I finally did get through the operator agreed that the lines were very busy and waived the charge for the new sim.
A few things spring to my mind - you have lost your phone so why is the the only way that you can report it by telephone? Why not have a dedicated email service?
Surely unless advised to the contrary it might be possible for phone companies to send text messages during periods of high usage asking for the account password, and suspending the service if it is not forthcoming.
The staff at the Orange shop did nothing to help when the phone was lost, however when the new sim needed activating they phoned me at my son's request to verify his identity and confirm him as the approved user.
I am not naive, and had the bill been £500 I guess I would have just have borne it, but such an amount as this, when the calls are demonstrably nothing to do with us is too much to bear. I have passed the case to CISAS now and await developments.

macman

Of course it has to be the account holder-otherwise anyone could get another person's phone network-blocked for malicious reasons.
Why did your son wait 48 hours? It's the first few hours when the damage is usually done.