Unauthorised Mobile Phone Usage

wantmemoney

Tony5101 wrote:

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

what a ridiculous blinkered view of the problem. Do you actually know what IRSN's are?

don't you think the crook who stole the phone and made the 'international' calls share some of the fault?

what about the customer who didn't pin lock the SIM?

NFH wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
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.

International numbers are not real Premium Rate Numbers. They are ordinary international numbers and billed like ordinary international numbers.

This is how they are used.

The Network bills the customer for a call to Tuvalu (for example).

The Carrier bills the Network to transmit the call to Tuvalu but instead diverts it to be terminated in London (for example).
This is called 'short stopping'.

The money saved from actually carrying the call all the way to Tuvalu is shared between the International 'premium rate' company and their client (very often the crook who stole the phone and made the calls).

Tony5101

wantmemoney wrote: »

what a ridiculous blinkered view of the problem. Do you actually know what IRSN's are?

don't you think the crook who stole the phone and made the 'international' calls share some of the fault?

what about the customer who didn't pin lock the SIM?

Give yourself a shake mate. Obviously irony is lost on you too!
Your posts seem to be a complete reversal of opinion.
Apart from in this thread - every other time you've posted on similar matters - it's always the network's fault for allowing a debt to be run up - yet in this thread it's entirely down to the OP.
It's your ridiculously blinkered view in just about every other thread that you've contributed to, that I was commenting on

The_Real_Stig

grumbler wrote: »

To explain what? That she pays more if she exceeds the allowances?
I think this is pretty obvious and hardly needs any explanation.
It's a capped contract that might need some explanation actually.

She didn't exceed the allowances and had no intention of exceeding them! It may be obvious to you, but a young girl won't necessarily think about the massive bill she could be liable for if the phone is stolen. I certainly wouldn't have imagined that £500 could be racked up in such a short space of time. That is my point.

NFH

Networks should by default impose:

• A PIN on SIM cards
• A bar on outgoing calls with a high cost price, e.g. UK premium rate numbers and international destinations with a high termination rate.

If consumers want to opt out of a PIN or the outgoing call bar, then they should be able to do so, but the above should be the default.

wantmemoney

Tony5101 wrote:

Apart from in this thread - every other time you've posted on similar matters - it's always the network's fault for allow a debt to be run up

well it would be very easy to link to three or four!

the advice that's given on this forum of 'it's your fault so pay the bill' is the type of thing I would expect to hear in a school playground.

if you bothered to read and understand my posts on this topic you would realise that I merely try to point out that the Networks also (in my opinion) have a responsibility for these fraudulent ludicrous bills.

I also try to point out that only a court can actually decide who is liable in UK Law for these fraudulent bills.

grumbler

wantmemoney wrote: »

...I also try to point out that only a court can actually decide who is liable in UK Law for these fraudulent bills.

Does it have to be a court in all cases or sometimes T&C can suffice if there is not anything unlawful in them?

wantmemoney

grumbler wrote:

Originally Posted by wantmemoney
...I also try to point out that only a court can actually decide who is liable in UK Law for these fraudulent bills.

Does it have to be a court in all cases or sometimes T&C can suffice if there is not anything unlawful in them?

good point grumbler, but I don't think the problem lies so much with the Terms and Conditions as the way the Networks are allowed to interpret them.

The part where it says we are liable for all calls made up to the time the phone is reported lost or stolen.

If the phone wasn't stolen and a premium rate crook sent us unsolicited chargeable premium rate sms's would we be liable for the charges under UK Law.......probably no.

but
if the phone is stolen the Networks are claiming we are liable for fraudulent charges.

NFH

wantmemoney wrote: »

If the phone wasn't stolen and a premium rate crook sent us unsolicited chargeable premium rate sms's would we be liable for the charges under UK Law.......probably no.

In this scenario, the customer hasn't acted negligently. It's similar to card-not-present fraud on a credit card. It is also easier to charge back the disputed amount to the errant party.

wantmemoney wrote: »

but
if the phone is stolen the Networks are claiming we are liable for fraudulent charges.

In this scenario, the customer has acted negligently and so is liable for any losses. Failing to set a PIN on a SIM card and then losing it is similar to writing your PIN on the back of your credit card.

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

In this scenario, the customer hasn't acted negligently. It's similar to card-not-present fraud on a credit card. It is also easier to charge back the disputed amount to the errant party.


In this scenario, the customer has acted negligently and so is liable for any losses. Failing to set a PIN on a SIM card and then losing it is similar to writing your PIN on the back of your credit card.

But the network has arguably acted negligently too by issuing a SIM without a PIN. Bit like applying for a credit card and it coming with no PIN!

mobilejunkie

zagfles wrote: »

But the network has arguably acted negligently too by issuing a SIM without a PIN. Bit like applying for a credit card and it coming with no PIN!

They don't. Sims all have a default pin which customers don't bother to use. I tell all the people I order for to immediately change and set not only the sim pin but also the phone pin. The networks have no liability for the age or naivity of its customers.