£1300 vodafone bill in one month!!

Fergie42

nonnatus wrote: »

But WHY is it Vodafones responsibility to check who your daughter is speaking to at night????

This is why phones are for adults, who alledgedly understand the financial commitment...

I have a feeling your daughter is going to owe you that money for a very long time

I don't think the OP was saying that Vodafone should monitor who her daughter is speaking to at night!!
She is simply saying that their should be some alert trigger when you are nearing your limit and I completely agree with her. As they are a technology company how difficult can that be! God even the screwed up banks can get an alert when you are approaching your overdraft and they are also a 'business'.
Good luck with getting the bill reduced

bedpotato_2

JethroUK wrote: »

If you can't see a moral issue with Vodafone 'knowingly' allowing minors to spend £1300 per month (on £5 worth of facility) without confirmation then it's something only age and wisdom will teach you

I see no need for you to insult other people and imply that they are young and silly merely due to your own failure to understand the situation.

I am only guessing here, because I've never taken out a contract phone for a minor, so I may be misunderstanding things as well, but I'm guessing the contract was in the parent's name, not the minor's. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in order to have a contract phone you have to be over 18.

Once somebody has taken out a contract they are free to hand their phone to anybody else and say: "here. Make calls on that. Use it as though it's yours." Once this is done people often conveniently pretend to themselves that they have actually handed over legal ownership of the number. They forget that, as far as Vodaphone are concerned, the account is still in their name and has not been legally transferred to anybody at all.

Once you hand over your contract phone to somebody else whilst still retaining the contract in your name, any charges billable to you are out of your (and Vodaphone's) hands. Vodaphone are not mindreaders. They can't know who you've given your phone to, so it is wrong to accuse them of unethical policies on teenage users if said users are using their parents' phones with their parents' permission. The parents' policy is at fault, not Vodaphone's. Vodaphone don't know if the person making those calls is 2 or 12 or 20 or 99 years old. All that will show up on their system is that calls are being made.

They will not know who is making them - and, even if they did know the calls were being made by a teenager, if you do not report your phone as lost or stolen then they are within their full right to assume that those calls are being made with your full authorisation, and will charge you for them accordingly.

If you handed someone a credit card with no limit that was in your name and told them the PIN number and sent them off to go shopping, perhaps you would also try to argue that the credit card company should foot the bill?

Well, they shouldn't. You should. It was your own fault.

Personally I would not take out a contract phone and let someone else use it unless I trusted they were responsible and trustworthy enough not to go over the allowance.

shinydiscoballs

Good luck with getting the bill reduced, Vodafone won't budge on that!

I knew someone who left their data roaming on while outside the EU and racked up a similar sort of debt.

I think it is irresponsible of Vodafone to alllow you to go 50 times over your contract and then surprise you with a bill at the end of it. Your credit card/bank wouldn't let you do it!

Guys_Dad

JethroUK wrote: »

If you can't see a moral issue with Vodafone 'knowingly' allowing minors to spend £1300 per month (on £5 worth of facility) without confirmation then it's something only age and wisdom will teach you

That why we need judges, because some companies (and people) can not differentiate between right & wrong without guidance

Pay attention! Contract was in parent's name so how could ANY network know that the user was a minor?

My dad got my teenage daughter a mobile a year ago, but we pay the bill for it

robbies_gal

knowingly? wot are vodafone psychics now-im all for giving kids responsibility but not while they dont have to foot the bill

Kernel_Sanders

diamonds wrote: »

you still have to police non 01/02/03/07 numbers

You do have to police 07 numbers; there's a little-known sneaky 070 premium number that's used by the likes of Admag to fleece unsuspecting respondents to ads.

Kernel_Sanders

robpw2 wrote: »

£1300 talking to some teenagers for 5 hours a night? ouch
having said that vodafone charge 35p a miniute to mobile phones outside of your monthly allowance so its very easily done

That's £21 per hour; it's pure extortion. Worst thing is, Vodafone pay corporation tax on this profit in Luxembourg (at about 1%, I believe)..

albionrovers

Vodafone pay tax? I thought .....

System

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

robpw2 wrote: »

£1300 talking to some teenagers for 5 hours a night? ouch
having said that vodafone charge 35p a miniute to mobile phones outside of your monthly allowance so its very easily done

That's £21 per hour; it's pure extortion. Worst thing is, Vodafone pay corporation tax on this profit in Luxembourg (at about 1%, I believe)..

No different to

Orange 35ppm £21ph
O2 35ppm £21ph
T-Mobile 40ppm £24ph

JethroUK

gabbyevs wrote: »

knowingly? wot are vodafone psychics now-im all for giving kids responsibility but not while they dont have to foot the bill

Vodafone 'knew' the bill was $1300
just like they 'knew' when it went over 1000
just like they 'knew' when it went over 750
just like they 'knew' when it went over 500
just like they 'knew' when it went over 400
just like they 'knew' when it went over 300
just like they 'knew' when it went over 200
just like they 'knew' when it went over 100

Despite this information they "knowingly" allowed it to persist when they could have contacted the user at any point to verify this excessive use

Morality (like wisdom) is not easy to learn but don't worry because the judge will know what "knowingly" implies in court

If I was the judge I would award Vodafone 3 x normal billing (about 100) which would also serve as a boot up the rear to act sooner and responsibly