Any Advice in a Desperate Situation

wantmemoney

john1 wrote:

As I understand no body can legally profit from fraud so the operator can only claim their actual loss. For this reason mobile companies will not go to court....

yes.....Networks are protected from awkward questions in the Government/Ofcom regulated market but they would not have that same protection in court.

d123

wantmemoney wrote: »

yes.....Networks are protected from awkward questions in the Government/Ofcom regulated market but they would not have that same protection in court.

But they will more than likely NOT go to court, they will simply sell or assign the debt to a DCA, and OP will find a trashed credit file, lines of red X's for late payment and a default.

The OP will then probably battle to get any credit more than a Wonga loan.

amcg100

It seems to me that the thrust of the comments on here point towards your son and his friends having a right old laugh phoning premium rate services and then abandoning the phone when they realised the depth they were in. Rather like a hit and run driver who says their car has been stolen.

Orange will have a wealth of data on their mainframe - the numbers dialed - the location where the phone calls originated from etc etc etc. A full investigation would prove whether your son was responsible for these calls, or as indeed you think, he is a victim of crime.

Should your son be responsible for the calls and is subsequently trying to get out of paying the bill through deceit, then this is a fairly serious offence for which he could go to prison.

On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.

Given the consequences, I would be having a very serious chat with your son before forcing an investigation.

macman

I'm not aware that any of the comments on here suggest that the OP's son made the calls and then 'abandoned the phone'? That's taking conspiracy theory to the extreme.
All anyone on here has said is that the OP's son has been negligent in a) not PIN or SIM locking the phone and b) not reporting it stolen for a week.

'On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.'

You clearly don't grasp that the contract holder is always 100% liable for any calls made on the phone up until the point it's reported stolen to the network. The fact that a crime has been committed is not relevant.

amcg100

macman wrote: »

I'm not aware that any of the comments on here suggest that the OP's son made the calls and then 'abandoned the phone'? That's taking conspiracy theory to the extreme.
All anyone on here has said is the the OP's son has been negligent in a) not PIN or SIM locking the phone and b) not reporting it stolen for a week.

'On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.'

.

You clearly don't grasp that the contract holder is always 100% liable for any calls made on the phone up until the point it's reported stolen to the network. The fact that a crime has been committed is not relevant.

A very simplistic view, and one devoid of rational thought: simple reference to rules of contract do not embody the wider concepts of law which provide for equity and fairness in all respects

d123

amcg100 wrote: »

It seems to me that the thrust of the comments on here point towards your son and his friends having a right old laugh phoning premium rate services and then abandoning the phone when they realised the depth they were in. Rather like a hit and run driver who says their car has been stolen.

Orange will have a wealth of data on their mainframe - the numbers dialed - the location where the phone calls originated from etc etc etc. A full investigation would prove whether your son was responsible for these calls, or as indeed you think, he is a victim of crime.

Should your son be responsible for the calls and is subsequently trying to get out of paying the bill through deceit, then this is a fairly serious offence for which he could go to prison.

Are you reading the same thread? I haven't seen anyone even insinuate that. It's generally accepted that the son just couldn't be bothered with the procedure to block the phone, and instead of phoning went into an Orange Shop where they wouldn't help (probably because they thought he wanted to replace the sim, which only the a/c holder can do).

amcg100 wrote: »

On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.

Dream on, until such time as you report the theft or loss to the network, it is your problem, no matter if its theft, loss, a con trick or you just gave the phone to a passing alien to phone home.

Unfortunately the OP owes the money, next time perhaps they will give the son a PAYG.

amcg100 wrote: »

A very simplistic view, and one devoid of rational thought: simple reference to rules of contract do not embody the wider concepts of law which provide for equity and fairness in all respects

What? The contract states when you aren't responsible and when you are. A large bill due your negligence is nothing to do with the network showing "equity and fairness". You agree to pay for use other than after reporting the phone stolen, the son couldn't be bothered, so not really the networks problem.

oopsadaisydoddle

amcg100 wrote: »

It seems to me that the thrust of the comments on here point towards your son and his friends having a right old laugh phoning premium rate services and then abandoning the phone when they realised the depth they were in. Rather like a hit and run driver who says their car has been stolen.

Orange will have a wealth of data on their mainframe - the numbers dialed - the location where the phone calls originated from etc etc etc. A full investigation would prove whether your son was responsible for these calls, or as indeed you think, he is a victim of crime.

Should your son be responsible for the calls and is subsequently trying to get out of paying the bill through deceit, then this is a fairly serious offence for which he could go to prison.

On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.

Given the consequences, I would be having a very serious chat with your son before forcing an investigation.

Orange would not and do not have to perform a full investigation. The fact is, those calls were made.

How do we know that OP's son didn't give the phone to someone to phone the expensive numbers and they gave him some money in return?!! I'm not for one minute saying I believe OP's son has done that, merely giving an example.

I believe that they don't like to be seen as profiting from such a situation so that is why they have reduced the bill. Having said that, I don't know the actual costs to Orange for the calls so I can't say whether the reduction is based on what they actually pay themselves.

Even so, the contract shows OP is responsible for anything until it is reported. I have sympathy for OP, it must be an awful situation but they (well their son) have take responsibility.

macman

amcg100 wrote: »

A very simplistic view, and one devoid of rational thought: simple reference to rules of contract do not embody the wider concepts of law which provide for equity and fairness in all respects

Try arguing that in a civil court and see how far it gets you. The contract terms are standardised, and perfectly clear regarding the liability here. Whether the amount charged is 'fair' is another argument entirely.

Guys_Dad

amcg100 wrote: »

On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am certain that you would not have to pay this money.

You say you are certain. That's very positive and unequivocal.

Have you any precedents in similar circumstances within the mobile field to support this?

Or do you mean "On the other hand, if it can be proved that he has been a victim of crime, I am of the opinion that you would not have to pay this money."?

The former applies some form of authority, the latter your view but without any proof.

I have to say I am of the opinion that you are wrong, in either case.

wantmemoney

macman wrote:

Try arguing that in a civil court and see how far it gets you. The contract terms are standardised, and perfectly clear regarding the liability here.

a small question on this 'perfectly clear' liability issue.

would the the court decide the customers liability in UK Contract Law
or UK Consumer Law?