Any Advice in a Desperate Situation

amcg100

It is impossible for any of us to be exact without studying the entire contract, and any appropriate legislation, so with that in mind ' I am certain' would be better said as ' I am of opinion '
If legal action was to be taken by Orange, It would be a matter for them which branch of the law the chose, but my main point is that it is also a matter for the defendant to choose how they defended themselves. There may be legislation which protects consumers from this type of incident. If there is ( and I dont know because I dont read legislation) then such legislation would override anything written in a contract.. A second form of defense would be an action for negligence and a third would be an action for malice. over 5 thousand pounds in as many days is ridiculous, and should have been picked up on by Orange. Probably negligence, but if they were aware and sought profit then malice is also a possibility.

As regards investigations, a crime has been committed and the police should investigate.

oopsadaisydoddle

amcg100 wrote: »

It is impossible for any of us to be exact without studying the entire contract, and any appropriate legislation, so with that in mind ' I am certain' would be better said as ' I am of opinion '
If legal action was to be taken by Orange, It would be a matter for them which branch of the law the chose, but my main point is that it is also a matter for the defendant to choose how they defended themselves. There may be legislation which protects consumers from this type of incident. If there is ( and I dont know because I dont read legislation) then such legislation would override anything written in a contract.. A second form of defense would be an action for negligence and a third would be an action for malice. over 5 thousand pounds in as many days is ridiculous, and should have been picked up on by Orange. Probably negligence, but if they were aware and sought profit then malice is also a possibility.

As regards investigations, a crime has been committed and the police should investigate.

Like I said previously, IF Orange systems flag unusual activity it is done so at random and tends to be done more on accounts with little or no history. It is not to be used as a safeguard for what really is negligence on OP's son's behalf.

AFAIK, there is no legislation that would allow customers to 'get away with this'.

ETA - I'd be interested to know if the police would take any interest in this, although I think not!

oopsadaisydoddle

Credit Limits
3.20 We may set monthly credit limits for Charges. We may (but do not have to) Suspend some or all of our Services if you go over a credit limit. Charges are not capped or limited by any credit limit we set as some Charges, for example international and Roaming call charges, may not be recorded against your Account immediately, and the Charges incurred could therefore exceed your credit limit before your Account is Suspended.

6.1.1 you will be responsible for paying all Charges on your Account, whether or not they have been accrued by you personally. You will also be responsible for any extraordinary costs incurred in administering your Account, including collecting any payments. If your Service has been Disconnected, either at your request or ours, you will remain responsible for paying any outstanding Charges

6.1.3 If the SIM Card or your Device is lost, stolen or damaged you will be responsible for any Charges incurred until you have informed us of the loss.

OP will have agreed to these terms when taking the contract. And as far as I'm aware they could not be classed as 'unfair' and be challenged as so in a court.

oopsadaisydoddle

And also, as I said before, Orange wouldn't take it to court. They would pass it to debt collectors who would then kill OP's credit file.

amcg100

If you dont think the British police are interested in mobile phone fraud read this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11012685

wantmemoney

6.1.3 If the SIM Card or your Device is lost, stolen or damaged you will be responsible for any Charges incurred until you have informed us of the loss.

it's possible a Court may decide that Orange also bear some responsibility for the charges incurred.

for example

they may ask why despite the Industry being aware of the problem for nearly two decades Orange still doesn't appear to monitor the call traffic to known high risk number blocks that the crooks use.

they may want to know why Orange doesn't appear to have some kind of billing delay for the revenue for these high risk numbers in order to withhold clearly suspicious revenue.

oopsadaisydoddle

amcg100 wrote: »

If you dont think the British police are interested in mobile phone fraud read this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11012685

I think this is a completely different situation - these people took out contracts fraudulently and then ran up the bills from what I can read.

Different from some chancer happening to pick up a lost phone and using it to call his friends/family overseas.

amcg100

A recent watchdog programme on a similar case produced a response from orange as follows -
An Orange spokesperson says,
“At Orange we have robust systems in place to protect our customers from fraud and our dedicated team will in many cases identify stolen handsets before the customer notifies us. We of course advise customers to treat their phones as they would their wallets and notify us immediately if they have been the victim of theft. We also urge customers to make full use of the security PIN on their handset to protect their personal information and help prevent unauthorised use. We sympathise with Mr Weetman’s situation and have offered a resolution.”


Now, if Orange are claiming to have ' Robust ' systems in place to protect their customers from fraud, they must surely be prepared to shoulder some responsibility. In any case, since the boy went and reported the theft to the orange shop and was turned away, Orange are on very shaky ground. If the OP is certain her son is telling the truth, then there is no need to pay this bill, Orange will have to back down in the end if enough pressure is applied.

oopsadaisydoddle

wantmemoney wrote: »

it's possible a Court may decide that Orange also bear some responsibility for the charges incurred.

for example

they may ask why despite the Industry being aware of the problem for nearly two decades Orange still doesn't appear to monitor the call traffic to known high risk number blocks that the crooks use.

they may want to know why Orange doesn't appear to have some kind of billing delay for the revenue for these high risk numbers in order to withhold clearly suspicious revenue.

You may be right and I don't necessarily disagree with the points you raise. However, in order for these things to actually mean something, Orange would have to be taken to court. As I said in a PP, this would be a costly business for OP and there is no guarantee of winning.

Guys_Dad

wantmemoney wrote: »

it's possible a Court may decide that Orange also bear some responsibility for the charges incurred.

for example

they may ask why despite the Industry being aware of the problem for nearly two decades Orange still doesn't appear to monitor the call traffic to known high risk number blocks that the crooks use.

they may want to know why Orange doesn't appear to have some kind of billing delay for the revenue for these high risk numbers in order to withhold clearly suspicious revenue.

It is also possible that UKIP will be the majority party at the next election. In fact more chance of that than the courts doing what you say if this went before them.

The fact that Orange have offered to cut the bill substantially would be sufficient to offset any liability they had.

But putting all the various recent posts behind, if OP doesn't reach an agreement with Orange, the credit record is shot. End of.