Were Orange illegal to let my son guarantee his under 18 mate?

spacey2012

Things like these are part of lifes learning curves.
Some listen to parents, some have to taste the bitter water for themselves.
Eventually the lesson that Friends and Money are a recipe for trouble is found out by baking the cake.

Silk

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

Orane do not and have never offered guarantor agreements. It seems to me that your son agreed to the contract in his own right and then passed it to his friend. Who told him he was being guarantor? His friend or Orange?

I did wonder that myself, although it seems they do in other countries etc.
For example heres a pdf of an agreement for Orange ...
http://www.orange.mu/mobile/iphone/pdfs/provision-of-guarantee.pdf

I'm tempted to think the contract itself is in the Son's name though.
I think an urgent credit check is the way to go to see if there are defaults against it

oopsadaisydoddle

Also meant to add, Orange systems allow for an account address AND a mailing address...in the case of the reminder letters, they would have been sent to the mailing address.

Now I know it could be argued that they should sent anything like this to the account holder's address however, by authorising someone access to the account, you are allowing them to change those details. The system will only send letters to the mailing address.

Also, re: default notice - I am not 100%, but I don't believe telecoms companies are regulated by the CCA, so not sure they have to send one. I could be wrong though.

macman

All speculation really unless the OP clarifies-and she hasn't been back since the initial post.

oopsadaisydoddle

Silk wrote: »

I did wonder that myself, although it seems they do in other countries etc.
For example heres a pdf of an agreement for Orange ...
http://www.orange.mu/mobile/iphone/pdfs/provision-of-guarantee.pdf

I'm tempted to think the contract itself is in the Son's name though.
I think an urgent credit check is the way to go to see if there are defaults against it

I heard that they do abroad. Over here though, the account can only be in one person's name, no joint/several liability.

IIRC, I think that is even the case on most business accounts.

Silk

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

Also, re: default notice - I am not 100%, but I don't believe telecoms companies are regulated by the CCA, so not sure they have to send one. I could be wrong though.

That's correct

It's because they are sold as service contracts rather than credit agreements.

Although they do seem to rob quite a lot of terms from the CCA.

When you take out the contract you agree to allow them to pass details to the various agencies if you default on a contract etc

oopsadaisydoddle

Silk wrote: »

That's correct

It's because they are sold as service contracts rather than credit agreements.

Although they do seem to rob quite a lot of terms from the CCA.

When you take out the contract you agree to allow them to pass details to the various agencies if you default on a contract etc

Yep, I believe they do...they obviously use the bits that are good for them!! However, I suppose you do agree to those terms when you take out a contract!

ETA - I am marvelling at the fact that I made that bit in bold work!

Buzby

Definitely not a CCA arrangement as no credit is ever provided - the bill must be settled every month. The involvement of the CRA's has been engineered by them (the reference agencies) to flesh out their usefulness and profitability. It has no relevance is supporting the contention that if transactions are recorded by a CRA, then the agreement must be one of credit.

That's certainly how it all started, but has moved away from this in an effort to know everything about everyone.

Herongull

The contract was really in the son's name this changes things.

The son was incredibly lucky to only owe £300 and get a ruined credit rating.

If the "friend" lost or had the phone stolen and didn't bother reporting it the amounts could easily end up being tens of thousands of £.

Or if the "friend" used the phone when abroad or made overseas phone calls again the amounts could also end up being tens of thousands of £.

The son would be completely liable for all the phones usage. It is his phone and he would have irresponsibly allowed his friend to have unsupervised access to it for several years.:eek:

It is almost as bad as giving the friend his credit card and pin and letting him go on a spending spree.

And the friend owes nothing as it is not his phone.

Petlamb

He can't have been a "guarantor" - he will have been the name on the contract, as that is the only way this could have been done. Regardless of what may be done in other countries, in the UK Orange do not and have never allowed under 18's to have contracts, guarantor or not.

With that in mind, any dispute is not with Orange, but between the two friends, where one has failed to pay the other.

I'd suggest this is a harsh life lesson, but hopefully one well learned.