A Cautionary Tale

Silk

katejo wrote: »

OK, I have a more basic phone on contract but always assumed that part of my monthly payment was to pay off the actual cost of the phone. So OP could have legally sold the phones on provided that the monthly payments were being made but I can't see any point in selling the phone in that way.

It's not unusual for someone to renew a contract to get a new phone and sell it on whilst carrying on using their old phone which they are quite happy with ...they carry on paying the new contract and have made a few quid along the way

Guys_Dad

katejo wrote: »

OK, I have a more basic phone on contract but always assumed that part of my monthly payment was to pay off the actual cost of the phone. So OP could have legally sold the phones on provided that the monthly payments were being made but I can't see any point in selling the phone in that way.

(a) With cashbacks, you can get a contract plus handset for virtually no monthly cost. You can then sell on the handset for a profit.

(b) 2 years ago, it was cheaper for me to have a contract with Vodafone with a pretty basic Nokia than a sim-only deal. I could have sold the Nokia for £40.

(c) Some contracts give decent minutes and handsets at cheaper than buying them PAYG when you look at the bundle you get. If you are happy with your handset, you can sell on the expensive Android/Iphone.

macman

katejo wrote: »

OK, I have a more basic phone on contract but always assumed that part of my monthly payment was to pay off the actual cost of the phone. So OP could have legally sold the phones on provided that the monthly payments were being made but I can't see any point in selling the phone in that way.

It is partly to pay off the handset cost, but the handset is still your property from day one, whether you pay the monthly contract fees or not.
The OP defaulted on the contract, which is a civil matter.
Theft does not arise.

Silk

macman wrote: »

The OP defaulted on the contract, which is a civil matter.
Theft does not arise.

I'd disagree with that

If no payment at all is received the contract would be cancelled and all goods returned putting both parties back to square one leaving the airtime contract default open as a civil matter

The goods have not been returned which would make it Theft By Deception

DavidF

OMG. so where do I sign to get this free money then ? Oh look Free Money I blame the government ......they must be to blame for op loosing their job and for the education system in this country failing the OP and her hapless friend.
To be honest I hope op doesn't get time for this. That would solve nothing a better thing to happen here would be some sort of community service and a compensation payment to all of her victims which is the 2 buyers and the phone company. That way nobody looses op learns a harsh lesson and everyone gets their money back. Prison would just put op in contact with similar people to those who advised her already, possibly teach her how not to get caught so easily and also cost the state (US) even more money. I do hope you learn from this op.

samizdat

Not sure if the OP is a wind-up, but anyway ...

I would try to get some free legal advice from somewhere - Citizens Advice Bureau?

It strikes me that if all this happened quite recently (Everything Everywhere has only existed for a few weeks), you might be able to go into reverse:

1. Obtain some money legitimately, e.g. from family, friends, or by working
2. Refund ebay buyers.
3. Obtain blocked phones from ebay buyers.
4. Talk to the network (carefully, without admitting anything tantamount to fraud). Maybe offer to return the phones or pay off the contracts early (possibly a payment plan). Suggest you have been in emotional difficulties and have been neglecting bills and so on, but are now ready to make amends. If you pay off the networks without returning the phones, you should get them to agree to unblock your phones so you can sell them for a better price.
5. When you have settled your contractual disputes, you can then have a go at removing the CIFAS 6 registration, pointing to the fact that nobody has lost out.

A long shot, perhaps, but if you make everybody whole in terms of your contractual obligations, you will be in a stronger position both morally and legally.

Sorry you are feeling so desperate - you have behaved badly, but you are not the only person in this World who has done so.

Herongull

macman wrote: »

It is partly to pay off the handset cost, but the handset is still your property from day one, whether you pay the monthly contract fees or not.
The OP defaulted on the contract, which is a civil matter.
Theft does not arise.

Based on the OP's confession on this post, the offence would be fraud rather than theft. Morally there may not be much difference, but there are legal differences. Fraud is still a significant crime if it is for significant amounts.

Based on my layperson's understanding, IMHO it looks like fraud because the OP got the phones from the phone company without ever intending to make payments on contract ("easy money") as opposed to a person who intended to pay and subsequently running into financial difficulties, which would be purely civil.

The person's intention is a consideration in deciding whether or not an act is a crime. For example, if you take someone's property by mistake (eg a mixup in Left Luggage) this is not theft, but if you did it on purpose it is. A jury would have to decide on intention based on the facts, but in this case the OP has confessed on this forum.

She also sold on defaulted phones (which are always blocked) as good working phones on ebay . She has essentially argued that she was too stupid to know these would blocked, but whether or not the law or jury would see it like this, I don't know.

Herongull

Silk wrote: »

I'd disagree with that

If no payment at all is received the contract would be cancelled and all goods returned putting both parties back to square one leaving the airtime contract default open as a civil matter

The goods have not been returned which would make it Theft By Deception

I know what you mean by "Theft by Deception". The legal term for this is fraud.

lavandergirl_2

Fraud Act 2006

could it be this? Fraud by false representation
- When the application was filled in- what did the OP put in the employment section or source of income

Silk

Herongull wrote: »

I know what you mean by "Theft by Deception". The legal term for this is fraud.

I think it's covered in the Theft Act 1968 and pretty sure it was ammended to cover obtaining services by deception too

Ahh found it ........
Obtaining property by deception...
This offence was created by section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Sections 15(1) and (2) of the that Act read:
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with intent to permanently depriving the other of it shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.(2) For the purposes of this section a person is to be treated as obtaining property if he obtains ownership, possession or control of it and 'obtain' includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain or to retain.(3) the s6 definition of intention to permanently deprive applies to the s15 offence.

1978 covered by
Deception Offences - Theft Act 1978

Obtaining Services by Deception – s.1