Unable to cap my Orange account

Buzby

Why should the networks be dictated as to the tariffs they can charge? If the consumer is supposedly 'king', it is their decision. Ignorance is no excuse - and as noted earlier, insurance is an option for those who worry their investment may be compromised. For those that don't care, or know - they should seek advice, NOT expect a bail out with a sob story.

As for a judge getting near a decision - why? I've only seen debts of £1500 or over pursued (limits depending network policies). This is because the first Default is to your credit file - and you have no opportunity of mitigation. Next, the network sells the debt having closed the account. They get some money from this, and the legalised harassment from a DCA will continue for up to 5 years, with different firms buying the debt for lesser amounts until it becomes uncollectable.

As for making users aware of SIM locking, I have used this since 1993, so coming up to 20 years - and it is in the instruction manuals. The onus is with the customer - their action (or inaction) remains their sole responsibility.

G8311374

Hi, I had this problem with them. I have PTSD and got addicted to phoning phone psychics, to avoid running up a bill my dad and I rang up the customer services to ask to put a call limit on my account so I couldn't run up a bill, they refused despite medical evidence as it was against my human rights. I eventually ran up a £4000 bill which I was able to clear. My dad had to contact the chief executive and threatened to go to the press as he had kept a copies of all the correspondence. The bill was luckily wiped but only after some months of wrangling. Perhaps you could write to the chief executive?

Guys_Dad

Emy1501 wrote: »

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. .

So your son gets arrested on some charge in a remote country and you need to call him and a lawyer out there etc. But you can't because someone at Orange cuts you off as you have gone over the limit. And then you try to reinstate it through their off shore call centre! Brilliant.

What I am saying is that out of normal events occur at unexpected times and no matter what the network does, it will always be wrong for someone.

We have networks that cap use, PAYG, sim and screen locks. USE THEM FIRST before bleating.

Herongull

Unless you are super-rich, just go PAYG

No hassle

Minimal risk

Flexible - can leave at anytime

You don't pay for minutes, texts, and data that you don't use

Cheap as chips

If you choose the high risk option (= contract phones), then you must be rich or not-risk adverse. You chose that option!

Emy1501

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So your son gets arrested on some charge in a remote country and you need to call him and a lawyer out there etc. But you can't because someone at Orange cuts you off as you have gone over the limit. And then you try to reinstate it through their off shore call centre! Brilliant.

What I am saying is that out of normal events occur at unexpected times and no matter what the network does, it will always be wrong for someone.

We have networks that cap use, PAYG, sim and screen locks. USE THEM FIRST before bleating.

1) chances of the above happening are less than my phone being stolen
2) If it does happen the call will be no longer than 5 minutes so £10-£15 max.
3) Even if it is longer I can use my international calling card at 8p a min( yes thats the one supplied by O2 who charge £1-2 a minute to call without).
4) who is bleating? If it happens to me I'll take my chance in the small claims court.
5) This site is in part about protecting the consumer. Bank Charges, PPI, Energy Costs, Icelandic Banks. You could argue all these people should jog on and should have read the contract.
6) You don't agree thats fine, like I say if it happens to you or you suffer from identity fraud and your bank says tough luck you can pay up without any arguement.

macman

Do you really want software to make the decision as to who gets cut off at £100 once their log shows a 'unusual' pattern of calls?
The network's lawyers would never let them contemplate such a policy, because of the potential legal issues arising when, inevitably, some legitimate customers are cut off in an emergency.

Emy1501

macman wrote: »

Do you really want software to make the decision as to who gets cut off at £100 once their log shows a 'unusual' pattern of calls?
The network's lawyers would never let them contemplate such a policy, because of the potential legal issues arising when, inevitably, some legitimate customers are cut off in an emergency.

Roaming charges in Europe are capped at something like £50.

Also mobile provider are able to cut people off if it suits them.

Vodafone do it as pointed out on a thread here. Also Virgin do it as I know someone it happened to and of course they were thankfull for it happening.

You will next be arguing against bank refusing transactions due to suspect activity. How many law suits have they had against them?

Herongull

5) This site is in part about protecting the consumer. Bank Charges, PPI, Energy Costs, Icelandic Banks. You could argue all these people should jog on and should have read the contract.
6) You don't agree thats fine, like I say if it happens to you or you suffer from identity fraud and your bank says tough luck you can pay up without any arguement.

But the consumer has freely chosen to have a (high risk) contract phone.

They know that they are liable for any calls, texts and data consumed by the phone up to and until they report the phone lost or stolen.

Identity fraud is different. Someone has stolen your identity and run up bills in your name

Bank charges can be excessive, but banks are regulated and have to sign up to a code of practice etc. AFAIK mobile operators are not regulated as strictly as banks.

PPI is different because: the insurance and banking industry is regulated and people had the wool pulled over their eyes when they took out PPI.

Not sure what you mean by energy costs?

Icelandic banks were covered by UK guarantee (at least some of them were).

Mobile phone contracts are not subject to the same high levels of regulation as banks and insurance companies. People should sign them at their peril. Beware!:eek:

Personally I wouldn't dream of having a contract phone, but other people are comfortable with high risks and high costs, so they may choose differently.

Emy1501

Herongull wrote: »

But the consumer has freely chosen to have a (high risk) contract phone.

They know that they are liable for any calls, texts and data consumed by the phone up to and until they report the phone lost or stolen.

Identity fraud is different. Someone has stolen your identity and run up bills in your name

Bank charges can be excessive, but banks are regulated and have to sign up to a code of practice etc. AFAIK mobile operators are not regulated as strictly as banks.

PPI is different because: the insurance and banking industry is regulated and people had the wool pulled over their eyes when they took out PPI.

Not sure what you mean by energy costs?

Icelandic banks were covered by UK guarantee (at least some of them were).

Mobile phone contracts are not subject to the same high levels of regulation as banks and insurance companies. People should sign them at their peril. Beware!:eek:

Personally I wouldn't dream of having a contract phone, but other people are comfortable with high risks and high costs, so they may choose differently.

I agree with you and thats why I have sim only contract with a cap.

At the same time bank charges have argued and been deemed reasonable. People took out bank accounts knowing the charges but then decided with the support of websites like here that they did not like the charges.

In fairness its no different to someone having their phone nicked having a grand of charges on it and taking the matter to court arguing the charges are excessive. It would be down to the courts to decide whether they are excessive or not.

I'd be amazed if this website would be in favour of the provider if this happened.

Anyway OFCOM are looking to force providers to offer a cap like roaming charges in europe so the consumer will soon have better protection.

With regards to icelandic banks as far as I'm aware there was no legal obligation for the government to protect people with these accounts.

As for PPI I have way more sympathy for someone who has charges run up after their phone is stolen than anyone claiming PPI or bank charges for that matter.

wantmemoney

I've never read so much twaddle since I read the previous Moneysaving thread on this topic.:rotfl: