Orange U24 - Ageist?

buscape

lilgreenmomo wrote: »

I'm not so PC, just after a fair deal, for everyone, and big companies treating their (loyal) customers badly really is the thin end of the wedge

Why do you think loyalty matters to Orange or any big company? They're interested in money and nothing else.

If getting a fair deal is really your concern, you should be working out your usage (minutes/data/texts) and looking at which network will cover your usage for the least money ready for when your contract's up next month.

Pursuing Orange over a marketing campaign to attract more under 24's to the network isn't the way forward.

Guys_Dad

lilgreenmomo wrote: »

I'm not so PC, just after a fair deal, for everyone, and big companies treating their (loyal) customers badly really is the thin end of the wedge, I'm not sure about your personal circumstances but perhaps it might be wise for you to think that at least there are people around like me with the time and inclination to fight over an issue. no matter how trivial you think it. Maybe next time it might be something a little less trivial that affects both of us and I protect your rights.

Ah! I wondered when the word "rights" would appear!

Just what "rights" are you referring to? "a person U24 may spend exactly the same (or less) money than me on contract or PAYG airtime and gain an additional benefit purely on the basis of age"

As I said, according to current legislation, then that may be construed as ageist. So what?

Maybe you object to Insurance companies having age based policies for young car drivers - do you want to pay the same as them?

Cheaper tickets for children on public transport or cinemas? Club 18-30 offering cheap holidays for young people?

Just suppose you and other succeeded in getting this declared illegal under ageism laws. Do you think for one minute that Orange would open this up for everyone? No. They would close it for youngsters and what would you gain?

Your own words condemn you to conducting the politics of envy. I quote " I fail to see why should spend my hard earned cash on a contract only to find that someone on the same contract is getting more just because they happen to be younger than me.."

I am all for taking a stance on some issues, but as you wrote yourself, this one is trivial and there are many more important things to worry about.

spiro

keg788 wrote: »

i am also having a battle with orange regarding their Under 24 plan

I have 2 kids on my business plan, we all pay more than £15 per month and i took passports into the shop, they copied them and said it would all be set up in a few days.

the next bill arrived and my son had used more than his 500 mb of data ( because he thought he had 1.5gb as per U24 plan) and a charge of an extra £150

now orange are saying that business plans are not included, but all their adverts and their T&C state "any plan over £15 per mth"

perhaps Martin could get involved in this one because I am sure i am not the only one with this problem

before setting up the plan I rang orange customer service and was told the contract we have was fine for the U24 plan,

i contacted the guy in the orange shop who took the details originally and he said he would sort it , however today, i went into the shop and he got a right rollocking from the customer service guy on the orange phone helpline

nobody seems to know what they are doing.

anybody else had this problem ?????????

Martin, please help .........

See here http://help.orange.co.uk/orangeuk/support/personal/711413/3

It says they have to be named on the account but make NO mention of the tariff being a business one or not. I would go back to the store show them this page and demand they honour their offer, if they refuse report them to TSA and/or ASA.

NFH

The relevant legislation is Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 which states:

1. A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
2. If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the question is whether this is a "legitimate aim".