Why do mobiles get blocked?

blondmark

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Because you are not the registered owner. The original owner bought the phone on contract so the phone will always be registered under his name. So he or the network can block it/unblock it at any time if it's stolen.

Not quite sure what is meant by the term 'registered owner'. I am the legal owner of the hardware irrespective of who it was registered to before it was sold to me. On what basis can a network destroy the use I enjoyed in my property? It's like Volkswagen popping round with a sledge hammer and wrecking my Beetle because I'm not the original purchaser from new.

grumbler

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Because you are not the registered owner. The original owner bought the phone on contract so the phone will always be registered under his name. So he or the network can block it/unblock it at any time if it's stolen.

Come on....
Contract has nothing to do with this. PAYG and sim-free phones get blocked similarly on owner's or insurer's request.

An 'owner' 'registered' with a network is meaningless status from a legal point of view.

ZhugeEX

It's not like a car sale where you've gone to the DVLA to register the license under your name. According to T-Mobile they sold the phone to the "original/registered owner" and according to them it's still under the original owners name.

Yes you legally own it because you bought it on ebay from him (if it was him that originally owned the phone) but t-mobile won't recognise that the owner has changed as it's still technically under his contract/name.

I know vodafone allow you to register a phone under a different name, but the original owner has to ring up and transfer the details. I'm not sure if t-mobile allow this (esp on contract).

But what i'm trying to say is that t-mobile still recognise the original owner as the sole user and therefore they can block it only with his word. If the owner blocked it as stolen and claimed it on insurance then the phone now belongs to the insurance company.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

Because, as I mentioned, I am a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. As a matter of law, this gives me good title to what I bought. But this is a side issue; I'm clear on the law - I just can't get my head around how a network can unilaterally block other people's mobiles irrespective of whether they own them.

If you innocently buy something from someone who doesn't own it, you may be the victim of fraud, but it doesn't give you ownership (not under English law anyway).

If some fraudster "sells" some innocent person your car - guess who legally owns the car? Don't worry - it is still yours.;)

A fraudster cannot legally deprive the real owner of their property by conning someone into paying them for it. Duh!

This "bona fide purchaser without value without notice" relates to rare exceptions to the general rule (above), usually to do with land, trustees that sort of thing.

If the person who sold you the phone didn't own it, then you are the victim of fraud, but you don't own the phone.

If you don't understand the law, how about just using your noggin!

Herongull

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Because you are not the registered owner. The original owner bought the phone on contract so the phone will always be registered under his name. So he or the network can block it/unblock it at any time if it's stolen.

You're right that you legally own the phone. But when it comes to phone contracts the phone is not going to be under your name as the phone is sold on a contract.

I agree that blocking needs to be worked on, especially when you can sell a blocked phone overseas and it'll work.

He doesn't legally own the phone if the person who sold it to him didn't own it. Not under English law anyway.

blondmark

ZhugeEX wrote: »

It's not like a car sale where you've gone to the DVLA to register the license under your name. According to T-Mobile they sold the phone to the "original/registered owner" and according to them it's still under the original owners name.

Yes you legally own it because you bought it on ebay from him (if it was him that originally owned the phone) but t-mobile won't recognise that the owner has changed as it's still technically under his contract/name.

I know vodafone allow you to register a phone under a different name, but the original owner has to do it. I'm not sure if t-mobile allow this (esp on contract).

But what i'm trying to say is that t-mobile still recognise the original owner as the sole user and therefore they can block it only with his word. If the owner blocked it as stolen and claimed it on insurance then the phone now belongs to the insurance company.

Well DVLA registration and ownership are entirely different concepts, and we also still seem to be talking about ownership.

I completely understand how illogical it may seem that stolen property can end up being owned by its buyer, but that is the whole point about 'a bona fide purchaser for value without notice'. If you research this legal issue you'll discover that I am the new legal owner of this mobile, whether or not it was stolen.

Now given that this is the case, what difference does it make whether or not T-Mobile have a contract with its customer who sold it to me? I am not a party to this contract, and there appears to be no legal right that would entitle T-Mobile to sabotage my hardware without my consent ... unless I am missing something here ... ?

blondmark

Herongull wrote: »

He doesn't legally own the phone if the person who sold it to him didn't own it. Not under English law anyway.

Erm ... yes he does. Research 'bona fide purchaser for value without notice'.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

Not quite sure what is meant by the term 'registered owner'. I am the legal owner of the hardware irrespective of who it was registered to before it was sold to me. On what basis can a network destroy the use I enjoyed in my property? It's like Volkswagen popping round with a sledge hammer and wrecking my Beetle because I'm not the original purchaser from new.

Not if the seller didn't own the item.

If you innocently buy a stolen car, then the real owner can take it back.

If you buy a car and the seller has a loan secured on it, then the bank can take back the car if the seller stops making payments. The loan is still secured on the car even if it is subsequently sold.

Innocents should always do proper checks when buying cars.

ZhugeEX

Herongull wrote: »

He doesn't legally own the phone if the person who sold it to him didn't own it. Not under English law anyway.

Thats why i specifically said it had to be the original owner who sold it.

But OP, again you're missing the point. I'm not backing up t-mobile, i'm just saying that they don't recognise you as the Current/original/registered owner. When they log on to their system they see that the owner on the phone is the guy who sold it to you on ebay. Yes you legally own the phone. But T-Mobile don't know that and can't confirm it (no matter how many times you show them the ebay papers) unless the original owner rings up t-mobile and tells them about the sale. (but tbh i don't know if t-mobile allow this, if they don't it's stupid)

And my DVLA thing was an example that kind of relates to the situation.







Now heronguls post only makes sense if it wasn't the owner but a thief who sold you the phone on ebay. If a thief sold you the phone then you don't own it and the original owner who had the phone stolen still owns the phone and can block it.

blondmark

Herongull wrote: »

Not if the seller didn't own the item.

If you innocently buy a stolen car, then the real owner can take it back.

If you buy a car and the seller has a loan secured on it, then the bank can take back the car if the seller stops making payments. The loan is still secured on the car even if it is subsequently sold.

Innocents should always do proper checks when buying cars.

That's quite correct and, as I mentioned earlier, a car is an exception to this rule. Mobile phones are not.