Unauthorised Mobile Phone Usage

[Deleted User]

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, on a credit card (other than the first £50)! Not that it's a good idea!

If the Bank knew that the PIN was written on it then they very definitely would NOT "take the hit"

zagfles

The_Real_Stig wrote: »

Thanks, I hear what your saying but she thought she was doing the right thing by not having an expensive smart phone, not realising how much could be racked up on a cheap phone if it was stolen!

If you were to compare it to using a credit card, the credit card companies are very quick to contact you and block a transaction if something looks abnormal.

That's because it's their loss if fraud occurs. It's worth pursuing with the mobile company, they are almost certain to at least offer you a reduction in the bill (for the reasons NFH gives).

But as others have said, with a contract phone it is essential to have a PIN lock on both the phone and the SIM. There are professional thieves who steal phones not for the phone but in order to phone premium rate numbers which they get a revenue cut of. Sounds like you were a victim of one of them.

zagfles

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If the Bank knew that the PIN was written on it then they very definitely would NOT "take the hit"

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm
See case study 46/2 at the end.

wantmemoney

all you guys comparing the use of a phone to a credit card really are not helping.

a credit card is a device used to move money from one account to another.

a phone is a device used to connect the user to the Communications Network.
the only 'money' that concerns the user is in the form of a bill for using the service.

credit cards and phones have different Regulators and are subject to completely different sets of Regulatory Laws

the issue is.....is the OP liable for the bill

NFH

wantmemoney wrote: »

a phone is a device used to connect the user to the Communications Network.
the only 'money' that concerns the user is in the form of a bill for using the service.

That's the way it should be, but it doesn't work like that in practice. Premium rate numbers allow a movement of money that is unrelated to the communication cost.

Tony5101

wantmemoney wrote: »

the issue is.....is the OP liable for the bill

Isnt it always the networks fault for allowing the bill to be run up though...?!

MisterBrico

The problem is network billing is seldom in real time, especially to international numbers, so by the time you block it the operator hasn't received the bill.

How are they supposed to block it for you before they know it happens

mattyprice4004

Tony5101 wrote: »

Isnt it always the networks fault for allowing the bill to be run up though...?!

In that case, is it my credit card providers fault for letting me run up a bill with them?

Don't be daft.

It might be their fault in dreamland.

Techhead_2

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

In that case, is it my credit card providers fault for letting me run up a bill with them?

Don't be daft.

It might be their fault in dreamland.

I think you may have missed the point of Tony5101s, rhetorical question aimed specifically at wantmemoney.

Whilst service providers can question or block accounts when suspicious / unusual activity occurs. They can only do it when they detect it, after the event.

So consumers need to protect their handsets by using a SIM PIN and a device lock/password. And we need to keep a close eye on the phone.

Tony5101

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

In that case, is it my credit card providers fault for letting me run up a bill with them?

Don't be daft.

It might be their fault in dreamland.

You've obviously missed the irony of this guy saying that its the OP's fault...
If you check his other posts, you will see almost exclusively that it is NEVER the individuals fault, and ALWAYS the fault of the network.