Unable to cap my Orange account

Emy1501

thatsean wrote: »

Would you? When you KNEW they didn't offer the service? What happened to asking questions BEFORE signing up to agreements?

With device and SIM pins this is a non issue - There's no need to complicate it with posturing about litigation after the fact.

Sim pins are are not fool proof. I read recently about someone who had 6k worth calls made on a sim blocked and phone blocked phone after it was nicked.

I only do monthly sim only and therefore i was lucky I could change to a company who are prepared to put a cap on.

The only litigated case I've seen for fraudulent activity was won by the claimant and was actually against Orange.

A lot of people do not realise the cost of international call or that they could be liable for calls until sometimes mid way through their contract.

There needs to better protection for the customer.

It's each to their own but if I found myself being charged £1000's for these sort of calls I wouldn't go down without a fight.

chanz4

hence why you have insurance, so emy your telling me if I contact hp and say if my laptop is stolen you will pay for it, and they say we dont offer insurance I will win?

wantmemoney

reclusive46 wrote:

Its not as though Orange are being unreasonable. They simply don't have the ability to do it on their post paid systems.

The Networks all have the ability to put 'credit limits' on customer accounts.
They routinely put them on new accounts in order to protect themselves from possible fraud.
These are removed after the first bills have been paid.

All they would have to do is rename credit limit to customer 'spend limit'.

The simple fact is that the Networks make many tens of millions from their customers unintentional (accidental and theft) spend.

Emy1501 wrote:

Unlikely this argument of we do not do caps would wash with a judge in a small claims court.

yes and when the judge is told that these 'international' numbers are actually 'premium rate' numbers that the Networks are knowingly passing on and sharing the victims money with then the judge may also take that into consideration.

But then again to my knowledge the Networks that apparently have the full weight of the Law on their side have strangely never tested a single case in court in order to set a legal precedent.

Emy1501

chanz4 wrote: »

hence why you have insurance, so emy your telling me if I contact hp and say if my laptop is stolen you will pay for it, and they say we dont offer insurance I will win?

It's about reasonableness. It's not reasonable to expect a seller of a laptop to protect you from it being stolen. It is reasonable though to expect a bank to measures in place to protect you against fraud.

It's the same with a phone. The reason why forums and the Internet are littered with these issues are because it reasonable for mobile providers to have simple measures to protect customers.

OFCOM are looking to force mobile providers to put simple measures in place to protect people.

The SCC is heavily geared in favour of the little person in my experience of it through my work. Most people simply do not understand how simple it is in many cases to beat a large company.

It's the reason why most large companies will rarely bother with defending anything other than class actions in these types of court.

As I say though it's each to their own and I assume you would be happy to pay £100's if the unfortunate happens to.

Personally I'm not so accommodating of rip off Britain as some are. Of course roaming charges are capped in Europe but we can't cap charges here?

Techhead_2

Emy1501 wrote: »

It's about reasonableness. It's not reasonable to expect a seller of a laptop to protect you from it being stolen. It is reasonable though to expect a bank to measures in place to protect you against fraud.

It's the same with a phone. The reason why forums and the Internet are littered with these issues are because it reasonable for mobile providers to have simple measures to protect customers.

OFCOM are looking to force mobile providers to put simple measures in place to protect people.

The SCC is heavily geared in favour of the little person in my experience of it through my work. Most people simply do not understand how simple it is in many cases to beat a large company.

It's the reason why most large companies will rarely bother with defending anything other than class actions in these types of court.

As I say though it's each to their own and I assume you would be happy to pay £100's if the unfortunate happens to.

Personally I'm not so accommodating of rip off Britain as some are. Of course roaming charges are capped in Europe but we can't cap charges here?

What you seem to be saying is that people need to be protected because they don't use the measures already in place to secure their handset? That's just nannying.

As for your assertion that saving proof that a company doesn't offer a service will, in the future, assist in a small claims complaint that they should have offered the service; that's illogical. If you know something isn't offered then you can't reasonable expect it to be offered!

Emy1501

Techhead wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that people need to be protected because they don't use the measures already in place to secure their handset? That's just nannying.

As for your assertion that saving proof that a company doesn't offer a service will, in the future, assist in a small claims complaint that they should have offered the service; that's illogical. If you know something isn't offered then you can't reasonable expect it to be offered!

I think your missing the point i'm making.

If my online banking account gets hacked its not reasonable for my bank to turn round and say its not their problem and not have anything in place to protect fraundlent behaviour.

Like I have said before sim lock, phone locking etc is not fool proof.

Its therefore my opinion that it is reasonable to argue in a small claims court that I pointed out that any activity above a certain amount was likely to be fraudlent activity and it would be reasonable for the provider to act on that information if fraud occured. I would also expect the court make me responsible for a reasonable cost of the calls probably between £50-£100.

Of course you may think differently and be happy to to pay £100's if the unfortunate occured but I'm reasonably confident that the the provider would not even turn up at court let alone have any defence.

macman

Certainly not foolproof, but a simple safety factor. Not using a SIM lock (provided on every phone) is tantamount to going out and not locking your front door. Why should the vast majority of users pay for the carelessness of a few?

Emy1501

macman wrote: »

Certainly not foolproof, but a simple safety factor. Not using a SIM lock (provided on every phone) is tantamount to going out and not locking your front door. Why should the vast majority of users pay for the carelessness of a few?

Many people especially older people wont even know or understand about sim locking. I agree people need to protect themselves but there is no reason for mobile provider not to have an obligation to put in simple measures to protect the customer also or make it clear that the phone should be sim locked and explain how to do it.

They could also charge wholesales costs where it is accepted that the calls were fraudlent activity therefore not costing the vast majority anything.

I highly doubt that these calls are costing the provider £1-£2 a minute.

macman

Because making SIM locks compulsory would result in thousands of people forgetting theirs every day, and each network having to employ extra staff to police the necessary security system to reset them.

Emy1501

macman wrote: »

Because making SIM locks compulsory would result in thousands of people forgetting theirs every day, and each network having to employ extra staff to police the necessary security system to reset them.

Not suggesting sim locks should be compulsory. I believe it should be compulsory for mobile phone provider to use simple software to monitor activity which is likely to detect fraud.

Its pretty obvious that if someone who have never rung say China is unlikely all of a sudden going to ring the country for up to 10 hours at hundreds of pounds.

Its pretty obvious that after a couple of hours that the activity is fraudlant. I know Virgin do it as I know someone it happened to which limited the costs to under £150

I also do not see why providers can't do more to make the public aware of sim/phone locking.