Why do mobiles get blocked?

blondmark

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

All of the 'stuff' you have come out with regarding this situation. I say this because I believe (and it is only my opinion) that you are saying it to deliberately be provocative. The reason I believe you are being provocative is because you 'supposedly' know all of this stuff, yet are still coming on here to ask questions and show off your so called knowledge.

I have before (and will repeat again), you need to take them to court. I have answered the questions as to why the phone might be blocked, which is what you asked. You might not agree to these reasons (and neither do I necessarily), but the fact is these are the reasons mobile companies block phones.

My guess is that if the person you bought it off hasn't reported it lost or stolen, then they have requested to block it anyway, which can be done. Or that the network believes there is something fraudulent going on, in which case, they aren't obliged to tell you anything!!

Well yes, I'm comfortable with the legal aspects, but that's no good without the facts. T-Mobile do have a legal duty not to brick my £400 phone without lawful excuse, and until I know what their excuse is, it's like shooting in the dark.

blondmark

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

Who is being tight lipped?

T-Mobile and the seller, both of whom know.

john1

blondmark wrote: »

Well yes, I'm comfortable with the legal aspects, but that's no good without the facts. T-Mobile do have a legal duty not to brick my £400 phone without lawful excuse, and until I know what their excuse is, it's like shooting in the dark.

Well you could try a Norwich Pharmacal Order see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_Pharmacal_Order

May be costly though

redux

blondmark wrote: »

Not so. I am making a civil claim against T-Mobile for blocking my handset without my authority.

Then get on with it, and stop needlessly trying to pick fights with the wrong targets, on here.

nbc

Another reason why your phone is blocked, could be the phone was sold before the end of the contract/none payment of bills.

Just a thought.

Contact the C.A.B

Herongull

To summarise:

At long last OP now accepts (despite making so many posts claiming he was "a bona fide purchaser for value without notice" and this magically transferred legal ownership of any phone even a stolen one) that BFP is a red herring here.

Phew!

I put in some effort to correct this bizarre idea because it might confuse other readers who might be looking at buying second hand phones.

As the police say on National Mobile Crime Unit "If you do innocently buy a stolen phone, you can never acquire legal title".
http://www.nmpcu.police.uk/buying/

Now that this has been put to bed, we can go back to looking at why the phone was blocked.

As others have said from the start, a phone gets blocked: 1/the registered owner reports it as lost or stolen, 2/ at the request of the registered owner, and 3/ (sometimes/under certain circumstances) if the registered owner defaults on the contract.

Who is the registered owner?
As others have said, unless the registered ownership was changed at the time of sale (the registered owner would have to request this change) the original owner will remains the registered owner.

Who can request that the phone be blocked? The registered owner.

Who can requested that the phone be unblocked? The registered owner.

Is the network doing anything wrong by blocking the phone?
No, they are required to block the phone if it is reported lost or stolen by the registered owner and also (AFAIK) at the request of the registered owner. Not 100% certain of the legal situation when just contract payments are missed.

Who does the OP have a claim if the registered owner has caused the phone to be blocked?
The seller

What about the "voidable contract" exception to the Nemo Dat rule (the OP tried to argue this after accepting his original argument was flawed?)
This appears to be yet another misunderstanding of the legal situation by the OP.

Is it worth buying a second-hand phone?
According to the National Mobile Phone Crime Unit: "Buying a phone from anywhere other than a reputable outlet carries some degree of risk...Stolen phones will not work in the UK, and even if you buy one in good faith the network providers will not remove this block for anyone other than the customer who reported it stolen to them. You should consider that if the transaction goes wrong, how will you be able to recover your money ? Do you have enough information about the seller to enforce your legal rights ?"

What should the OP do now?
Take the mobile network to court for blocking his phone as he is 'bona fide purchaser for value without notice'???
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

cgk1

How do they block it on the basis that payment were not made for the contract? AFAIK, the majority of mobiles are sold separate to the network contract by the networks to exclude customers trying to get out of network contracts because of an issue with their phones, the only 'equipment' usually mentioned is the SIM card.

Herongull

I only know that there have been anecdotal reports on this forum and elsewhere indicating that sometimes/under some circumstances/some networks block a phone because of payments on the contract are missed.

This is despite the ownership of the phone transferring to the customer on day 1. This is presumably to discourage someone getting a contract phone and never making payments.

I don't know how frequently this happens (or indeed whether it still happens).

Shazaaym

Hmm, I was going to put my new phone on eBay tonight and use the money to get a 4g one, but after reading this I don't think I'll bother! Do people have the same problem when they buy from shops like cex etc?

grumbler

Herongull wrote: »

...(the registered owner would have to request this change)

How? Networks 'register' their customers only.

the original owner will remain the registered owner.

So, are you saying that the phone can be sold only to another customer of the same network - because the network arrogated the right of 'registration' that for some mysterious reason now substitutes the general mechanism of legal ownership for mobile handsets only?

No, they are required to block the phone

Required by whom? Is it some law or just some doubtful practice?