Any Advice in a Desperate Situation

amcg100

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

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.[/QU

Criminal gangs steal mobile phones from members of the public then use them to call overseas premium rate numbers from which they or their associates obtain revenue. The police investigate these gangs all the time and would certainly be interested in this case. Some posters on this site are unreal - A valuable piece of electronic equipment is stolen and you say the police would not be interested - what absolute codswallop.

oopsadaisydoddle

amcg100 wrote: »

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.

The relevant point in this post is "in many cases (not ALL)". And hey could argue they have 'shouldered some responsibility' by reducing the bill by half.

There is also no proof OP's son went into the store and that they specifically refused to help. Again, I am not saying I believe they are lying, but as many have pointed out, Orange will not refuse to place a bar on the account for anyone usually.

Also, as I have pointed out before, if OP does not pay the bill then their credit file will be trashed. I appreciate you are trying to help OP but what you are saying isn'y going to help unless OP can afford to take Orange to court and (possibly) lose.

oopsadaisydoddle

amcg100 wrote: »

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

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.[/QU

Criminal gangs steal mobile phones from members of the public then use them to call overseas premium rate numbers from which they or their associates obtain revenue. The police investigate these gangs all the time and would certainly be interested in this case. Some posters on this site are unreal - A valuable piece of electronic equipment is stolen and you say the police would not be interested - what absolute codswallop.

Not codswallop - truth. Indiviually the police have hardly any (i won't say none) interest. Do you know how i know? Because i used to work for Orange, in the department that dealt with lost/stolen phones. And if I had a pound for every time someone said "I've got a crime ref from the police, but that's all they can do to help", then I would be rich!!! Yes, the police are probably interested in gangs who steal but that doesn't help the unfortunate individuals (like OP) who haplen to lose or have their phone stolen.

wantmemoney

Guys_Dad wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
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.

I was referring to what may happen if Orange decided to pursue the alleged debt in court.
your silly comment clearly show you don't understand how courts work.

john1

“From the papers” a quick Google search revealed the following

"Legally, it's clear that you are liable for a phone's bill right up to the point of it being reported stolen," says a spokesperson for Which? "It's unfortunate that this leads, on occasion, to consumers being unwitting recipients of very large bills."

Telecoms watchdog Ofcom has been looking at the area for the last couple of years. Recent EU regulations mean that all mobile operators must apply a cut-off limit once a mobile internet bill reaches 50 euros – around £42 – per month, while travelling in the European Union. At present, Ofcom does not require mobile phone companies to set equivalent credit limits in the UK, but suggests they should "endeavour" to do so. It is carrying out a review and is due to publish a progress report by the end of 2012.

Alan Goode, managing director of Goode Intelligence, a research, analysis and consultancy organisation for the mobile security industry

He says that the technology available does allow mobile phone network operators' fraud detection systems to work in real time and alert them to this sort of activity – but instead their systems work respectively.

"They are not equipped or motivated to use their anti-fraud systems in the same way as banks," he says. "There should be some sort of safety net for consumers but this is going to require regulator intervention."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/19/vodafone-small-business-stolen-mobile

and here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298750/Recruitment-worker-23-left-21-000-phone-thief-uses-stolen-mobile-premium-rate-spending-spree.html

and here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/8512448/The-8200-cost-of-a-stolen-mobile-phone.html

and finally here

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2012/04/if-youre-mobile-is-stolen-youre-on-your-own-.html

Last month, following the story about Conor in South Africa, I called on all operators to step in and protect customers more when they’re on holiday because let’s face it, nobody wants a phone bill for £1,800. Four of them - T-Mobile, Vodafone, Orange and Three Mobile - tentatively agreed. (Ah ha, so the technology might be there after all?!)

Above is an extract from This is Money 05 April 2012 11:50 AM

Many, many, more but interestingly nearly each one had their alleged charges reduced considerably or written off when the press got involved – maybe not wanting to much investigative journalism

amcg100

Yes, and this refers to one of my previous posts on ' Malice' because if the Mobile operators are aware of the fraud and do nothing about it, because to do so would reduce profit, then they have serious problems. I would not put it past large corporate organisations to be actively encouraging this type of thing at their customers expense ( rather in the same way that anti - virus companies create more virus in order to boost demand for their product.)

wantmemoney

john1 wrote:

Many, many, more but interestingly nearly each one had their alleged charges reduced considerably or written off when the press got involved – maybe not wanting to much investigative journalism

yes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298750/Recruitment-worker-23-left-21-000-phone-thief-uses-stolen-mobile-premium-rate-spending-spree.html

25 March 2013

Georgia Harris racked up the huge bill after her mobile was taken and then used to make premium rate international calls.
The 23-year-old realised her phone had been taken when she arrived back in Britain after a trip to Barcelona.

A spokesman said: ‘This is a very unusual case. Normally, the customer is liable for any charges up to the point they report their phone lost or stolen.
‘However, this phone seems to have been used as part of a deliberate and organised crime which we will be investigating.
‘In this case, we will waive all of the charges raised by this fraud.

this is the 'foreign' company Vodafone(UK) shared the revenue with.
http://www.vodafone.es/particulares/es/

ooh look another 'unusual case'.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4866247/Phone-thieves-dial-bolical-crime-nets-2k.html

Mar 30 2013

THIEVES raked in £2,000 in just 24 hours

Stuart was in Barcelona when he was targeted by the crooks outside a hotel. He has now been cut off by mobile network Orange and ordered to pay half the massive bill.

this is the 'foreign' company Orange(UK) shared the revenue with.
http://www.orange.es/

Guys_Dad

wantmemoney wrote: »

I was referring to what may happen if Orange decided to pursue the alleged debt in court.
your silly comment clearly show you don't understand how courts work.

I understood what you wrote.

I understood that it applied if Orange actually did take OP to court.

I also understand that courts deal with contracts, law as it stands, not as one might like it.

Courts are not primarily concerned with why an industry does or does not do something. It deals with what they have contracted to do and what they are required to do.

Enquiries, Regulators and campaigning journalists ask these questions, not small claims courts.

amcg100

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I understood what you wrote.

I understood that it applied if Orange actually did take OP to court.

I also understand that courts deal with contracts, law as it stands, not as one might like it.

Courts are not primarily concerned with why an industry does or does not do something. It deals with what they have contracted to do and what they are required to do.

Enquiries, Regulators and campaigning journalists ask these questions, not small claims courts.

When it comes to different branches of the law, contract is at the bottom of the pecking order, particularly when consumers are involved. Why do you think the banks are being forced to write off Billions in credit card debt - because the contracts are unenforceable. Guys Dad needs to read a bit more about the rudiments of law and stay away from studying contracts for a bit.

macman

amcg100 wrote: »

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

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.[/QU

Criminal gangs steal mobile phones from members of the public then use them to call overseas premium rate numbers from which they or their associates obtain revenue. The police investigate these gangs all the time and would certainly be interested in this case. Some posters on this site are unreal - A valuable piece of electronic equipment is stolen and you say the police would not be interested - what absolute codswallop.

Get real. Recent Met stats for mobile phone thefts in London are 314 per day: that's over 114,00 per year. Scale that up nationally and you are looking at well over a million thefts per year (and those are just the ones reported). Do you seriously think that the police can investigate even a fraction of those? They'll certainly investigate where violence or weapons have been used or threatened, or where a number of thefts have occurred at the same time in the same area, but the average victim who just has their iPhone snatched by a kid on a bike while they're waving it around at the bus stop, can expect little support other than a crime number and a sympathetic pat on the back.