Help! Phone stolen - £780 later

Silk

im-lost wrote: »

I also have a £500 handset, that holds its value well, the cost over the 24 months to me is £240 and includes 500 minutes, unlimited texts and unlimited Internet, of which I use about 150gb a month as my sole broadband connection,

So for £10 a month you get a £500 phone and unlim texts and internet no fair useage and 500mins ...so who is that from then and what phone is it ???

powerful_Rogue

Silk wrote: »

So for £10 a month you get a £500 phone and unlim texts and internet no fair useage and 500mins ...so who is that from then and what phone is it ???

I think hes including the resale vale of the phone at the end of the 24 months.

Buzby

NFH wrote: »

You are liable only for the loss to Orange, i.e. the cost price of the calls to Dubai, incurred by your negligence. You are not liable for the full retail price of these calls which probably has a mark-up of several hundred percent. It's the same if you damage goods in a shop; you are liable only for the cost price of replacing the goods, not the full retail price.

You are liable for what the network says you are - the hapless consumer has no right of set-off against their (Networks) possible commercial roaming arrangements which, these days, are increasingly through intermediaries. As a token of goodwill, networks will usually (if they are satisfied at the customers conduct) may offer a 30% discount to take account of the profit element which will be waived.

There is no 'right' to demand any discount - indeed, the fact the user recklessly left the handset unlocked is more than contributory negligence - it goes to the crux that the consumer's carelessness was not isolated.

Next year, there will be changes where there will be stipulations that £50* will be the maximum that can be charged to these poor dears that are incapable of looking after their affairs, but that's to come - for now, the full amount is due and payable unless reduced during the negotiation phase. Those unable or refusing to pay will have their credit files marked accordingly.

* this amount is flexible - especially if the network believes that the user is attempting to scam them. Not a one size fits all solution by any means.

Herongull

The post is contradictory and confusing but there is no way he could get a £500 phone on a £10 per month contract.

So you may be right - after all the hassle, risk and stress, he still has to sell the phone to get part of the large amount of money he's shelled out over 2 years.

And even after netting off the resale value of the phone, he is still £240 out of pocket...

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

...- the hapless consumer has no right of set-off against their (Networks) possible commercial roaming arrangements ...

Roaming
In wireless telecommunications, roaming is a general term referring to the extension of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered.

The stolen phone has never left UK and has never been used in a location different from the home location.

NFH

Buzby wrote: »

You are liable for what the network says you are

Not true. In law, the consumer is liable only for the trader's losses as a result of the consumer's negligence, and not for any additional profit for the trader above this.

Silk

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I think hes including the resale vale of the phone at the end of the 24 months.

He claims enough profit to buy a Moto G and be left 60 quid in front???

Techhead_2

NFH wrote: »

Not true. In law, the consumer is liable only for the trader's losses as a result of the consumer's negligence, and not for any additional profit for the trader above this.

I don't completely agree with that. It's not the same as breakage in a shop etc. Perhaps it's your wording, however if the mobile service provider can show that :

The contract has been breached (is the requirement to secure your handset and to notify loss in a certain time, a significant breach?)
The consequences of those actions could be foreseen by a reasonable person (if you lose an insecure phone then someone might use it)
The mobile service provider could not reasonably have known the use was "unauthorised" BEFORE allowing the service. (Does the account have an international calling bar? did the provider's systems detect unusual use in a reasonable time and take measures to limit loss - arguable either way without more information)

Then a case for loss of profit can be argued in court. Of course, it's unlikely any provider would do this unless they feel the customer has gained an advantage.

NFH

Techhead wrote: »

Then a case for loss of profit can be argued in court.

The network has no right to add a profit margin on services that have been stolen. The negligent party is liable only for the loss incurred. Loss of profit doesn't come into it.

powerful_Rogue

Silk wrote: »

He claims enough profit to buy a Moto G and be left 60 quid in front???

Cant see why this isnt possible. Depends which high end smartphone he has. He also mentions a cashback deal.