Unauthorised Mobile Phone Usage

NFH

wantmemoney wrote: »

who decides on what is 'negligence'........the Networks or the courts?

Negligence would be losing the SIM card. If a SIM card allows calls to be expensed by a third party without possession of the SIM card (of which I can think of an example), then this would not be negligence.

wantmemoney

@NFH I'll try and put it as simple as possible.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a burglary victim to hand over their TV.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the door unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a theft victim to hand over their bike.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the bike unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a fraud victim to hand over money.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the SIM unlocked.

in cases of fraud it appears the Network's T&C do not comply with UK Law.

Guys_Dad

wantmemoney wrote: »

@NFH I'll try and put it as simple as possible.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a burglary victim to hand over their TV.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the door unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a theft victim to hand over their bike.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the bike unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a fraud victim to hand over money.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the SIM unlocked.

in cases of fraud it appears the Network's T&C do not comply with UK Law.

Of course you are correct. It's a shame that all the networks employed lawyers who don't know UK law to draw up their contracts riddled with inaccuracies. Maybe they used the same firm?

Thankfully we have well informed contributors on here with greater knowledge of English law to compensate.

NFH

wantmemoney wrote: »

@NFH I'll try and put it as simple as possible.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a burglary victim to hand over their TV.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the door unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a theft victim to hand over their bike.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the bike unlocked.

Under UK Law nobody (including the Mobile Networks) can force a fraud victim to hand over money.....even if they were 'negligent' in leaving the SIM unlocked.

in cases of fraud it appears the Network's T&C do not comply with UK Law.

You've missed the point. The negligence I'm referring to is the loss of the SIM card. This is not the fault of the network, and they can't be held accountable for this negligence.

MikeWhite

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Of course you are correct. It's a shame that all the networks employed lawyers who don't know UK law to draw up their contracts riddled with inaccuracies. Maybe they used the same firm?

Thankfully we have well informed contributors on here with greater knowledge of English law to compensate.

Barrack-room Lawyers, you mean?

Mike

zagfles

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Of course you are correct. It's a shame that all the networks employed lawyers who don't know UK law to draw up their contracts riddled with inaccuracies. Maybe they used the same firm?

Thankfully we have well informed contributors on here with greater knowledge of English law to compensate.

Companies often have T&Cs which don't comply with the law, or rather are overriden by the law. Eg look at any credit card T&Cs and it'll probably say you're liable for all losses if you're negligent. But the CCA overrides this - see the FOS link I posted earlier.

zagfles

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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.

Like I said before, try asking 10 random people (friends, relatives, work colleagues etc) with contract phones and see how many of them have a SIM lock and a phone lock which they always set after using it.

I think most people understand that big bills can be run up by eg foreign roaming, but thieves running up massive bills in a short time isn't so well known. Hence most people (IME) don't secure their phones properly.

Herongull

MikeWhite wrote: »

Barrack-room Lawyers, you mean?

Mike

GuysDad was being ironic...

Herongull

zagfles wrote: »

Like I said before, try asking 10 random people (friends, relatives, work colleagues etc) with contract phones and see how many of them have a SIM lock and a phone lock which they always set after using it.

I think most people understand that big bills can be run up by eg foreign roaming, but thieves running up massive bills in a short time isn't so well known. Hence most people (IME) don't secure their phones properly.

By agreeing the mobile contract (including all the T&Cs), you agree to be responsible for all calls (including premium rate and calls abroad) made by the sim. If you are not happy with the T&Cs, do not agree the contract.

Get a PAYG phone - that is what I do. The last thing I want is all the stress and risk of having a contract.

It may be that at some stage in the future, these clauses get ruled to be an unfair term in the contract or that they have to be in larger print or made clear verbally to the customer at the time of getting the contract or whatever. Then they won't be binding any more. This may well happen at some time - it has happened in relation to other things in different types of consumer arrangements.

I think this is why mobile companies often agree to reduce the bill in such cases - to avoid court cases etc. With court cases there is a risk that the court may in fact rule these clauses to be unfair and then this sets a precedent and they can no longer enforce them.

AFAIK, this has not happened yet and until it does happen these clauses are binding unless the OP or someone else wants to take the phone company to court.

The trouble is that anyone taking them to court is taking a risk too. No one knows what a court might decide in these sorts of situations.

MikeWhite

Herongull wrote: »

GuysDad was being ironic...

You don't say.