We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Unauthorised Mobile Phone Usage

123468

Comments

  • zagfles wrote: »
    If a credit card was stolen and used in a similar "out of character" way to the OP's phone, the credit card company would almost certainly detect suspected fraudulent use and block the card/contact the OP.

    And the difference here is, of course, the fact that the phone company will make extra revenue, so it is in their interest not to control phone usage!
  • grumbler wrote: »
    Because their job is to sell and to answer questions, not to lecture you. Do car dealers have to lecture you how dangerous and costly speeding can be? Do Tesco have to warn you about unhealthy eating?
    I think you wrongly presume that a 'daughter' is always a 'child'.

    Not necessary for a car dealer to lecture you as to drive you will have already been required to pass your driving test.
    And Tesco do have to warn you about unhealthy eating. Have you not seen the food labelling these days?
  • Herongull
    Herongull Posts: 1,356 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Yes that is the real difference:

    Credit card companies have a strong incentive to detect and prevent unauthorised use, because they mainly bear the consequences.

    Phone companies have no such incentive - in fact with contract phones, unauthorised use results in more income for them.

    Yes it would be nice if they warned people of the risks, but if they are not required to do so, they won't. The mobile phone business is a competitive market-place and it isn't in a company's interest to warn people of the risks of phone contracts.
  • mobilejunkie
    mobilejunkie Posts: 8,460 Forumite
    It's called personal responsibility. Something many people in this country seem to have regretably discarded years ago. It's been replaced by the blame culture where it's everyone else's fault and not ours.
  • wantmemoney
    wantmemoney Posts: 836 Forumite
    ok, so if a 'premium rate' crook steals our phone and calls £500 or £5,0000 of his 'premium rate' services we are liable (under UK Law) for the bill and have to pay the bill.
    Just a couple of questions.

    1/ If the same crook also ordered £500 of pizzas would we also be liable for them?

    2/ If the Mobile Network had contracted with the pizza supply chain to bill for the pizzas through the phone bill would that mean we were liable for them?
  • Herongull
    Herongull Posts: 1,356 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    The problem with mobile phone contracts is that AFAIK by signing the contract you are agreeing to be responsible for all calls made the phone until you report it lost or stolen - presumably there are clauses to that effect in the T&C.

    This means that you are contractually liable for calls made by thieves (until you report the lost/stolen phone).

    AFAIK, the phone contract does not make you liable for paying for all pizzas ordered by talking on the phone. If it isn't in your contract - and I doubt if it is - you don't have to pay for the said pizzas.

    If the mobile phone company had an arrangement with the pizza company to bill you using the phone bill? Well again would depend on what it said in the contract - it is possible to use mobile phones to pay for some things via the bill, so it would depend on what the contract said.

    The real issue here is that although it seems very unfair if you have to pay for calls made by thieves, if you sign a contract agreeing to pay for all calls (other than those made after phone is reported lost/stolen), then this is what you've agreed to.

    If you don't want to pay for these sorts of calls, don't sign these sorts of contracts.
  • NFH
    NFH Posts: 4,413 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    1/ If the same crook also ordered £500 of pizzas would we also be liable for them?
    No, because you haven't been negligent.
    2/ If the Mobile Network had contracted with the pizza supply chain to bill for the pizzas through the phone bill would that mean we were liable for them?
    Only if this was facilitated by the crook being in possession of the phone as a result of your negligence.
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    And the difference here is, of course, the fact that the phone company will make extra revenue, so it is in their interest not to control phone usage!

    Just a couple of questions.

    1. How long have you personally had a mobile phone and I am assuming that you haven't bothered with any pin protection?

    2. Have you, personally, never read about mobile phones being stolen and big bills arising? If you say "No", then, frankly, I would find it hard to believe you.

    I can not believe that in this day and age people do not consider the possible implications of their possessions and the risks involved.
  • wantmemoney
    wantmemoney Posts: 836 Forumite
    edited 24 May 2013 at 8:22PM
    Herongull wrote:
    The problem with mobile phone contracts is that AFAIK by signing the contract you are agreeing to be responsible for all calls made the phone until you report it lost or stolen - presumably there are clauses to that effect in the T&C.
    from memory the T&C simply state you are liable for all calls made up to reporting the phone stolen.
    that is a very vague and sweeping statement.

    that is not the same as agreeing you accept liability from what is in effect theft from your bank account.
    Herongull wrote:
    This means that you are contractually liable for calls made by thieves (until you report the lost/stolen phone).
    a company's T&C's must comply with UK Law. I very much doubt it's even legal for an individual or company to force another to hand over money to criminals.
    NFH wrote:
    Originally Posted by wantmemoney
    1/ If the same crook also ordered £500 of pizzas would we also be liable for them?

    No, because you haven't been negligent.
    but the SIM is unlocked....
    NFH wrote:
    Originally Posted by wantmemoney
    2/ If the Mobile Network had contracted with the pizza supply chain to bill for the pizzas through the phone bill would that mean we were liable for them?

    Only if this was facilitated by the crook being in possession of the phone as a result of your negligence.
    who decides on what is 'negligence'........the Networks or the courts?
    I can't find any mention of 'negligence' or not having the PIN locked in the T&C's

    do you know where these Laws are that allow the Network to hold a customer responsible for goods and services fraudulently bought on the phone.
  • simax
    simax Posts: 1,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    To be fair, I've had first hand experience of when the company I work for has barred calls due to high unbilled activity or breach of credit limit etc. The grief we get is unbeleiveable!!!!

    The networks can't win.
    I spent 25 years in the mobile industry, from 1994 to 2019. Worked for indies as well as the big networks, in their stores also in contact centres. I also hold a degree in telecoms engineering so I like to think I know what I’m talking about 😂
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.