Why do mobiles get blocked?

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

OK, where does it say that they are obliged to block? And even if it is said somewhere this doesn't mean the it is legal to do this.
A correct system cannot rely on honesty of people. If all people were honest there would be no need to block phones. However, as I said earlier, blocking is pointless as it doesn't benefit anybody. It doesn't help to return lost/stolen phones to their owners and it doesn't stop thieves from stealing phones.

I didn't say that a system had to rely on the honesty of people.

If there was a system in place that allowed networks to record an official change in owner then it wouldn't need 'honesty'. Authorisation would be given by the original owner for it to be registered tk the new one and then nothing should then be done without the new owner's consent.

Like i said, I don't disagree that something like this should be in place.

grumbler

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

It doesn't specifically say that they are but if that customer then wants to claim under insurance for said phone, the insurance companies require them to be blocked.

If they 'require' this, this doesn't mean that this makes any sense. All people in Kafka's "Castle" were busy doing the work that that they believed was useful.

So in this case, blocking does benefit the person making the claim for a lost or stolen phone.

No, *blocking* by itself doesn't benefit anybody. It's just a stupid 'requirement' or insurers that doesn't make any difference to them.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

If they 'require' this, this doesn't mean that this makes any sense. All people in Kafka's "Castle" were busy doing the work that that they believed was useful.

No, *blocking* by itself doesn't benefit anybody. It's just a stupid 'requirement' or insurers that doesn't make any difference to them.

Blocking the phones obviously means there isess chance of them being sold on and used (in the UK at least), therefore, I don't think it necessarily stupid for an insurance company to request this.

No idea what you meant by your first comment.

grumbler

OK, we seem to have come to some conclusion.

So, insurers is the only party that in some degree benefits from the blocking, not customers or networks. If so, the insurers must create a lawful system for transferring and tracking the ownership of mobiles, so that any mobile transferred around this system could be lawfully blocked. Have they done anything in this direction?
Instead of creating the system, they arrogated themselves the authority to 'require' blocking thus depriving all people's right of selling/buying mobiles. Honest people have problems with selling because honest buyers have to rely on honesty of sellers while having no way of making this sure.

And why on earth do mobile providers waste their money and resources on something that benefits only some other companies? Their contracts are with customers and say nothing about blocking.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

However the equity courts decided that a contract could not be declared void if a third party's rights had intervened, provided the third party had acted in good faith and given consideration (the principle of bona fide purchaser). So in Phillips v Brooks Ltd[42] it was not possible for a jeweller that had been defrauded by a rogue to claim back a ring from the pawn shop where the ring had been sold on."

We don't have equity courts anymore - they were abolished in the 19th century! :rotfl:

Some principles of equity law do survive in land law and the law of trust.

The sale of ordinary goods like phones, bicycles, cars, TVs etc etc are governed by the Nemo Dat rule (to which there are specific exemptions, none of which apply to stolen phones or to phones that have been reported as stolen and a claim made on insurance which is probably the reason for the phone being blocked).

I've outlined these in my post of 11:39 yesterday.

Here is more detail on the rule and the specific exclusions to the Nemo Dat rule if you want to learn something (but it sounds to me like you don't!).
http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/salenemodat.htm

I think it is most unlikely that you have a law degree as it as anyone who has studied law would have some understanding of it (and not rely on wikipedia entries taken out of context).

However I would like to help readers of this thread from being mislead by your lack of understanding.


I am starting to think the best way for you to learn is:

1/ Write to T-mobile with your "understanding" of "legal ownership" and "equity law" :rotfl:

2/ Then take them to court (but not an equity court as they don't exist any more :rotfl:). Your "understanding" of English law will give everyone in the court a good laugh, I'm afraid you will look very foolish, but it may be a way for you to learn.

This will be my last post on this matter. I've got better things to do.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

OK, we seem to have come to some conclusion.

So, insurers is the only party that in some degree benefits from the blocking, not customers or networks. If so, the insurers must create a lawful system for transferring and tracking the ownership of mobiles, so that any mobile transferred around this system could be lawfully blocked. Have they done anything in this direction?
Instead of creating the system, they arrogated themselves the authority to 'require' blocking thus depriving all people's right of selling/buying mobiles. Honest people have problems with selling because honest buyers have to rely on honesty of sellers while having no way of making this sure.

And why on earth do mobile providers waste their money and resources on something that benefits only some other companies? Their contracts are with customers and say nothing about blocking.

I wouldn't say the insurance companies benefit from (apart from through premiums people pay) the blocking. They're safeguarded from potential fraudulent claims. If customer's knew they could make a claim without blocking a phone then I'm sure there would be more claims processed.

So you could say that indirectly, customers ARE benefitting because it allows them the potential to receive a replacement device winkut too much cost to themselves.

The networks also use blocking if a someone has taken out a contract fraudelently.

grumbler

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I wouldn't say the insurance companies benefit from (apart from through premiums people pay) the blocking.

Who does then?

They're safeguarded from potential fraudulent claims.

"Safeguarded" is far to strong word as this case clearly proves.

So you could say that indirectly, customers ARE benefitting because it allows them the potential to receive a replacement device winkut too much cost to themselves.

Well, firstly it's far too indirectly. Secondly, I don't understand why customers that don't insure their handsets and want to buy/sell them have to suffer because of this.

The networks also use blocking if a someone has taken out a contract fraudelently.

Firstly, this doesn't stop fraudsters.
Secondly this makes no difference to the network after the contract was already taken and the phone lost for them.
And finally, I don't understand again why normal honest people in general and honest buyers in particular have to suffer as a result of the network's negligence and failure to make proper checks.

ZhugeEX

grumbler wrote: »

Any quote from any T&C to back this? In fact all networks vigorously deny any link between the handset and the contract.
If bills are not paid, they normally block/suspend the sim, not the phone.

Not off the top of my head, but say for example the contract owner breaches the contract T&C the networks can block the phone, like if it was a fraudster who bought the phone, or if the owner never paid any bills.

grumbler

You are wrong. Even if this happens, this is extremely uncommon.
And the reason is very clear. If providers admit existence of a link between the phone and the contract, they have to admit that they have obligation to take care of all faults during the entire contract under the Supply of the Goods and Services Act.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

Who does then?
"Safeguarded" is far to strong word as this case clearly proves.

Well, firstly it's far too indirectly. Secondly, I don't understand why customers that don't insure their handsets and want to buy/sell them have to suffer because of this.

Firstly, this doesn't stop fraudsters.
Secondly this makes no difference to the network after the contract was already taken and the phone lost for them.
And finally, I don't understand again why normal honest people have to suffer as a result of the network's negligence and failures to make proper checks.

In your opinion it's far too indirectly.

No it might not stop fraudsters but it may help the networks recoup their losses if this is something they are insured against too (I don't know this but it is possible).

And if you have read all of what I have said, I have agreed that I too believe there should be something in place which allows transfer of ownership to be officially recognised. I am not arguing with you about that. I am merely answering the original question that OP asked. Why do mobiles get blocked? These are the answers (rightly or wrongly).

So to keep arguing with me is a bit pointless about it, I can't change things.

At present the only way to resolve this is for OP to get the original owner to confirm with t-mob that it doesn't need to be blocked OR for OP to take them to court (not that i know anything about that side of things).