£1300 vodafone bill in one month!!

Guys_Dad

zagfles wrote: »

Strange how when banks sell PPI, endowments, and unsuitable pensions to mugs who don't do their research, they get done for mis-selling.

You have hit the nail on the head! Unrestricted open-ended contracts are unsuitable products for teenagers (generalisation, I know!).

That's why the networks don't do it - they only offer contracts to adults. They have PAYG or, if parents are determined to give kids contracts, some networks offer capping.

So, and I am with you here, parents who don't take advantage of these alternatives are, using your logic, "mugs who don't do their research".

The best way to get Vodafone etc to offer capping is for parents who want to give their kids contracts to boycott those networks who don't offer it. If they lose business as a result, watch them offer the choice.


I suspect, however, that this isn't the thrust of your argument - but it should be !

Andy7856

Would you expect your electric company to text you when you had used more that your usual quota of leccy? Sounds harsh but I have no sympathy for those who complain that XY company has sent them a big bill for excessive usage... errm no one forced them to use the service. Why should the rest of the customers foot the bill for those.

Nuff said.

zagfles

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You have hit the nail on the head! Unrestricted open-ended contracts are unsuitable products for teenagers (generalisation, I know!).

It's no more a generalisation than ages for buying booze, driving, age of consent, age of criminal responsibility etc. Some children are more mature than others, but the law still sets age limits on what they can do. Parents may think they know better, and in a lot of cases do, but companies should not be encouraging parents to circumvent these limits, no more than a barmaid should be trying to get me to buy Stella for my kids. That is "mis-selling" at its worst, far worse than banks selling PPI to a grown adult.

That's why the networks don't do it - they only offer contracts to adults. They have PAYG or, if parents are determined to give kids contracts, some networks offer capping.

Go into any mobile shop with a teenager. Look around the PAYG phones. I'd wager some spotty erk will try to persuade you to get them a contract. They tried it with me when I was with my daughter when she was 12 !!!

So, and I am with you here, parents who don't take advantage of these alternatives are, using your logic, "mugs who don't do their research".

The best way to get Vodafone etc to offer capping is for parents who want to give their kids contracts to boycott those networks who don't offer it. If they lose business as a result, watch them offer the choice.


I suspect, however, that this isn't the thrust of your argument - but it should be !

Capped or fixed-priced contracts are really no different to PAYG essentially, except with PAYG you pay in advance. So why not just go PAYG? All the networks offer pack/bundles which work out similar price as a contract, with far greater flexibility as they can buy extra packs in months where they have a new "special friend" they want to talk to 5 hours a day, then stop buying them completely when they break up and none of their friends they've neglected want to talk to them :rotfl:

grumbler

Andy7856 wrote: »

Would you expect your electric company to text you when you had used more that your usual quota of leccy? Sounds harsh but I have no sympathy for those who complain that XY company has sent them a big bill for excessive usage... errm no one forced them to use the service. Why should the rest of the customers foot the bill for those.

I've never heard of any 'quotas' on electricity. And, unlike with mobiles, I'd expect to pay less per a KW if I use more electricity, not to pay, say, 1000% more than per the background tariffs.

Abbafan1972

Herongull wrote: »

Never give a child or teen a contract phone. PAYG is the only safe way to go.

I agree with this.

Guys_Dad

zagfles wrote: »

It's no more a generalisation than ages for buying booze, driving, age of consent, age of criminal responsibility etc. Some children are more mature than others, but the law still sets age limits on what they can do. Parents may think they know better, and in a lot of cases do, but companies should not be encouraging parents to circumvent these limits, no more than a barmaid should be trying to get me to buy Stella for my kids. That is "mis-selling" at its worst, far worse than banks selling PPI to a grown adult. :

No it's not. Contracts require adult collusion - in other words a 3rd party. PPI was add to many loans as a precondition of getting the loan, particularly when the "insurance" was never able to be enacted. That was deemed illegal. Overuse of mobile calls is a decision made by the caller.

AS far as advertising and targeting is concerned, the networks and resellers create a desire for the latest shiny new handset resulting in so many threads on here for people running into financial bother and being tied to 24 month contracts they can't afford. Ban these ads too???

And KFC. Britain is obese - ban food ads. You can go on and on but sometimes that's the price you pay for living in a "free society".

easy

grumbler wrote: »

I've never heard of any 'quotas' on electricity. And, unlike with mobiles, I'd expect to pay less per a KW if I use more electricity, not pay, say, 1000% more than per the background tariffs.

But actually that is what you get with your monthly DD payment to the gas & elec companies. The idea is that they/you look at what your usage is likely to be, and pay a fixed amount each month which. SHOULD cover the bill.
But generally speaking, we accept that it is the consumer's responsibility to keep track of their usage, and that the consumer will pay more if they use more units.

Where is the difference?

zagfles

Guys_Dad wrote: »

No it's not. Contracts require adult collusion - in other words a 3rd party.
PPI was add to many loans as a precondition of getting the loan, particularly when the "insurance" was never able to be enacted. That was deemed illegal.

People are getting PPI refunds where it wasn't compulsory, just advised. With any old excuse, like the bank didn't tell them they could get PPI elsewhere. Tesco don't tell me I can get milk from Sainsbury's, is that misselling? But a bit off the point...

Overuse of mobile calls is a decision made by the caller.

As is overuse of alcohol. If I walk into an off licence with a 14 year old and in front of the staff let him choose the booze he wants, and make it clear to the staff I am buying for the child, do you think the off licence should bear some responsibility if the child gets drunk? How do you think a magistrate would view it?

Or do you think arguments that "some children can drink sensibly so it should be allowed and the staff did no wrong" would carry any weight?

Yet mobile shops not only allow it but positively encourage it!

AS far as advertising and targeting is concerned, the networks and resellers create a desire for the latest shiny new handset resulting in so many threads on here for people running into financial bother and being tied to 24 month contracts they can't afford. Ban these ads too???

And KFC. Britain is obese - ban food ads. You can go on and on but sometimes that's the price you pay for living in a "free society".

Yeah, may as well legalise sale of alcohol to kids while you're at it. Some may get drunk a lot but that's the price of freedom.

zagfles

easy wrote: »

But actually that is what you get with your monthly DD payment to the gas & elec companies. The idea is that they/you look at what your usage is likely to be, and pay a fixed amount each month which. SHOULD cover the bill.
But generally speaking, we accept that it is the consumer's responsibility to keep track of their usage, and that the consumer will pay more if they use more units.

Where is the difference?

Whoosh....

The difference is if you use twice as much electricity as usual you pay twice as much as usual.

If you use twice as many minutes as usual you might pay 10 times as much as usual.

An adult might be expected to understand this. A child, perhaps not.

diamonds

zagfles wrote: »

If I walk into an off licence with a 14 year old and in front of the staff let him choose the booze he wants, and make it clear to the staff I am buying for the child, do you think the off licence should bear some responsibility if the child gets drunk? How do you think a magistrate would view it?

If you have legal rights over ther child it would be a waste of the courts time ?

It is not illegal for a person under 18 to drink alcohol at home or at a friend’s house. Parents can choose to give young people some of their *own* alcohol when at home.

"OWN" as in they paid for it.

Thus parents should educate young ones about booze, for instance: a beer, wine or cider with a meal (same as 16/17 yr olds can do in a pub with a adult).