£1300 vodafone bill in one month!!

grumbler

NiftyDigits wrote: »

Many offer substantial reductions. Applying bundles retrospectively. ....

To be fair, all networks that offer reductions do this as an exclusion rather than a rule. They never do this easily or by default.

Guys_Dad

NiftyDigits wrote: »

Many offer substantial reductions. Applying bundles retrospectively. Perhaps you should peruse the forum, instead of looking for an argument.

Have done - for a long time and, yes, most networks have offered reductions to some people in the past for similar situations - including Vodafone.

I don't think Vodafone rep is actually correct, although she is quoting official company policy. Decisions to make any reduction would most likely be above her pay grade - unless, of course, Vodafone have toughened up their policy recently.

Personally, Voda offer me a great sim-only deal and if they are able to continue to do this because they don't roll over by default when someone goes over and spends money at the per minute rate, keep on, Voda, I say! But, as I wrote a couple of posts ago, I am completely with anyone who asks for a goodwill reduction. I am against those who seek to blame anyone else but themselves and their family for their lack of control.

So, again, which network would you recommend after your perusal of the forum?

System

wantmemoney wrote: »

this whole thread is yet another example of why customers should be allowed to set a spend cap on their account.

I see it more as an example of another customer believing that somebody else should cover the cost of their failure to control things.

easy

NiftyDigits wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Vodafone's business model is based on the mistakes of it's users?

That the shareholder's dividend is based on a teenager's over exuberance?

No, their business model is based on "we have clearly defined terms in our contract, which you have agreed to", and their shareholder's dividends are based on the company not falling for sob-stories when a customer finds some excuse for not paying their bill.

NiftyDigits wrote: »

No one admires the 'I'm alright Jack' mentality. You'll just have a few people wishing that it would happen to you.

This kind of business decision will leave a nasty taste in the mouth of many.

But it is the way that most large businesses work. Yes of course a company may help out sometimes if a long-term user makes a mistake.

When I accidentally failed to terminate a call from my O2 phone (my fault, I know), they agreed to cut 50% from the extra amount due and I was happy with this.

but I'm guessing the additional charge was rather less than £1300, and it was a one-off error. This girl must have been on for a number of long sessions to run up that bill.


There is a further point here. Can you imagine what would happen if any mobile company was seen to reduce a large bill for one teenager who goes over her balance?
Everybody tries it. Umpteen families call up with similar sob-stories, some will even do it on purpose. If the company then starts to refuse to reduce the charges for some, they get involved in further complaints, difficult stories in local papers etc etc. because Mr & Mrs Bloggs got their bill reduced, but they won't do it for meeeee boo hoo!

This business decision is about more than the OP, it's about real-life policies in the real world.

Kernel_Sanders

!!!!!! wrote: »

No different to
Orange 35ppm £21ph
O2 35ppm £21ph
T-Mobile 40ppm £24ph

Indeed. These companies are part of a price-fixing ring which artificially hikes prices to each other so that they can pass on the inflated charges to customers. In reality, the true cost of connecting a call to a 'rival' network is comparable to connections between their own customers.

Vodafone_company_representative wrote: »

we wouldn't be able to waiver them.

The verb is waive.

System

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Indeed. These companies are part of a price-fixing ring which artificially hikes prices to each other so that they can pass on the inflated charges to customers. In reality, the true cost of connecting a call to a 'rival' network is comparable to connecting one to their own.

Do you have proof that will stand up in court?
Maybe it is more a way to ensure people either stay within their contract or adjust it to meet their usage.

Kernel_Sanders

easy wrote: »

but I'm guessing ..... it was a one-off error. This girl must have been on for a number of long sessions to run up that bill.

That contradiction is breathtaking!

AppleMatt

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Indeed. These companies are part of a price-fixing ring which artificially hikes prices to each other so that they can pass on the inflated charges to customers. In reality, the true cost of connecting a call to a 'rival' network is comparable to connections between their own customers.

Well, yes. But they have other overheads to cover than just connection fees. Things like employing 1000s of members of staff, marketing, infrastructure investment, etc.

Just not taxes, it seems :D

Kernel_Sanders

!!!!!! wrote: »

Do you have proof that will stand up in court?
Maybe it is more a way to ensure people either stay within their contract or adjust it to meet their usage.

I don't need proof; there's no way they would invite the scrutiny of the media that would be involved in suing me.
Your second sentence makes no sense; was it an answer to somebody else's point?

grumbler

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Indeed. These companies are part of a price-fixing ring which artificially hikes prices to each other so that they can pass on the inflated charges to customers.

It's just the same business model reflecting the mentality of British society (demand for 'free' mobiles on inflated contracts). The contracts by itself make no profit or even make loss. All profits come from out-of-allowance services.