Help! Being charged for 2 contracts!!

bambigirl

I recently got a new phone which I ordered from mobileshop.com. Phone arrived no problem with a new o2 pay monthly sim, set up the phone and had my number from my old o2 pay and go phone transferred no problem. However I received 2 welcome letters from o2 with 2 separate account numbers, so I spoke to an o2 guru on their website and he assured me that the second account had to link to me whatsoever, to ignore the second letter and assured me I wouldn't be charged for both, well I check my bank statement yesterday and see I have been charged twice!!! for 2 contracts!!! So again back to the o2 gurus and he tells me its a fault with the company I ordered from and that I have to get them to cancel the contract. Surely my contract is with o2 and not the company I ordered from. I'm worried that o2 wont let me cancel the contract even though they can clearly see that it's not even been activated in a phone or in use.
Please can someone tell me where I stand if neither company with take responsibility and cancel this 2nd contract and whether I can get my money back for the 1st direct debit they have already taken.

Fifer

It is O2 who are claiming to have two contracts with you and O2 who are charging you twice, so it is O2 who need to sort this out. However, it might be worth contacting mobileshop.com to make them aware of the issue, in case they can help to resolve the issue quickly.

But I'd also be asking O2 what authority they believe they have (by way of contract agreements) which entitles them to charge you for two contracts.

Guys_Dad

bambigirl wrote: »

I recently got a new phone which I ordered from mobileshop.com. Phone arrived no problem with a new o2 pay monthly sim, set up the phone and had my number from my old o2 pay and go phone transferred no problem.

Can you walk us through EXACTLY what happened to transfer your old number, who you arranged it with and the exact sequence of events?

That will help diagnose the problem.

Buzby

O2 already have the authority to charge the OP what they want when they want. The number of contracts is irrelevant. Welcome to the world of Direct Debits, where it looks as though it was the dealership that did the duplication, and I'd check with them as the source of the problem.

Fifer

Buzby wrote: »

O2 already have the authority to charge the OP what they want when they want. The number of contracts is irrelevant. Welcome to the world of Direct Debits, where it looks as though it was the dealership that did the duplication, and I'd check with them as the source of the problem.

No, unless specifically authorised by the account holder (by signing two DD mandates), O2 do not have authority to debit twice. They are by definition, unauthorised debits.

Buzby

Fifer wrote: »

No, unless specifically authorised by the account holder (by signing two DD mandates), O2 do not have authority to debit twice. They are by definition, unauthorised debits.

Disagree away, but the mandate does not make the distinction you believe it does. I had 3 contracts with Orange at one time - only had 1 DD, and there were 3 different contracts. Following your suggestion all the others were somehow 'unauthorised' ?

Any challenge would have to be on an indemnity basis, which is not by definition any acceptance that the debit was unauthorised, simply that the contract holder has an issue.

Just read the mandate that is used to take the funds - you'll see it is so wide-ranging, can be used to take any money they claim is owed.

SJshah

Seems like mobileshop.com have set you up with two contracts with o2, they get more commission by setting up another contract for you.

If there are two direct debits, figure out which is the account you are using and then cancel the diect debit for the one which you shouldn't be paying.

I would contact mobileshop.com as soon as possible and ask whats going on. You only agreed to one contract. They are responsible for sorting out the problem and getting your money refunded. If they are of no help, try o2's customer services and explain your situation to see what they can do.

Curr946

Fifer wrote: »

It is O2 who are claiming to have two contracts with you and O2 who are charging you twice, so it is O2 who need to sort this out..

WRONG WRONG WRONG...

02 have been asked by mobileshop.com to set up two accounts, and probably paid two sets of commissions as a result.

The services were bought from mobileshop.com and supplied by o2 meaning any problems with the set up need to be referred to mobileshop.com

Fifer

Curr946 wrote: »

WRONG WRONG WRONG...

02 have been asked by mobileshop.com to set up two accounts, and probably paid two sets of commissions as a result.

The services were bought from mobileshop.com and supplied by o2 meaning any problems with the set up need to be referred to mobileshop.com

Do you believe that the OP has not entered into a contract with O2, but has a contract with mobileshop.com which they have subcontracted to O2? Do you think O2 believe they have a contract with the OP?

Fifer

Buzby wrote: »

Disagree away, but the mandate does not make the distinction you believe it does. I had 3 contracts with Orange at one time - only had 1 DD, and there were 3 different contracts. Following your suggestion all the others were somehow 'unauthorised' ?

Not if you agreed to the charges, which I suspect you did. The OP has not. The second amount debited is unauthorised (and must be returned to his/her bank account if they so request under the DD guarantee scheme).

Buzby

Fifer - your speculation is incorrect on a number of levels. I did not disagree with the charges, but the question was could they do it - the answer being yes. The OP provided a DD to allow funds to be taken in payment, there is no link to any explicit contract required, and it is this error I am pointing out.

As for the amount being 'unauthorised' by whom? O2 were given a mandate to take payments, so the authorisation is complete. If what you meant is that the OP didn't authorise it explicitly, certainly - but irrelevant, the DDM was for unspecified amounts on unspecified dates, so all was above board.

The laughable guarantee scheme would not apply here - only an indemnity in favour of the bank will permit a reversal, and then the credit file destruction begins.