Massive phone bill

NFH

Silk wrote: »

wow ok lets change my statement to "the phone is given free on condition you take out a contract"

No, that's still incorrect. The monthly payments are for both the cost of the service and the goods; neither is free. It is irrelevant that networks unreasonably fail to itemise the two on monthly bills.

grumbler wrote: »

For the OP it makes no difference. The fact is that they have to pay the full contract price for the 'airtime' and the price/cost of the phone is irrelevant.

True - irrelevant with the exception that the phone has a significant value, which could ultimately be recovered by the OP.

Earthworm

Ask for the phone back and use it yourself. You are likely to be further into a minimum term (guessing that you already have a contract and have had it longer than a month or 2 but correct me if I am wrong) so terminate your contract early by selling the phone, out of the 2, you would be happy to get rid of. Pay your early termination if you are actually further into your term by using a PAC to move to Three or to another network and back to Three if you are already with them. One contract only at the lowest possible termination charge with the phone you prefer of the 2.

Head on over to Poundland and pick up a pack of Maltesers for your sister and you are sorted.

DUTR

Silk wrote: »

!!!!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
The world and his mate knows full well that the phone is factored into the price of the contract ....the whole purpose if saying the phone is "free" to the OP is that it's far simpler than going into a long exhaustive explanation of phone marketing and pricing where the exact price and cost of the phone is hardly ever shown .

Whilst we all as regulars to this section know the stuation theres no need to blind the OP with science ....so for the sake of explaining to the OP lets stick to the phone is free and they owe for the contract

That's the thing though, they don't realise that it's not free, if many were more sceptic about their purchases or agreements they sign upto, there would be much less "I'm being ripped off" type posts, the OP in this case and future readers that may end up in a similar situation needs to realise it's their problem not the network's

Silk

NFH wrote: »

No, that's still incorrect. The monthly payments are for both the cost of the service and the goods; neither is free. It is irrelevant that networks unreasonably fail to itemise the two on monthly bills.

It's very relevant as it happens because retailers choose not to itemise the phone, title of ownership passes at conclusion of the contract. Hence they are "free" (pun intended) to do with it what they want.
Unlike buying a car on finance or house on mortgage when title passes on final payment etc etc

Trouble is of course networks want to have their cake and eat it hence them blocking them when they don't get paid :rotfl:

Silk

DUTR wrote: »

That's the thing though, they don't realise that it's not free, if many were more sceptic about their purchases or agreements they sign upto, there would be much less "I'm being ripped off" type posts, the OP in this case and future readers that may end up in a similar situation needs to realise it's their problem not the network's

If you read the OP's post they thought they could just pay off the cost of the phone and cancel

Hence making them aware they are liable for the contract not the phone

DUTR

Silk wrote: »

If you read the OP's post they thought they could just pay off the cost of the phone and cancel

Hence making them aware they are liable for the contract not the phone

I did read it, and my reply was not an attack on you, your reply or the OP, what the OP thought is not a defence, as had they asked around 1st they may have been wiser, only yesterday a colleague was asking about getting a phone for his wife for xmas, they are both on PAYG, but at least he has wisened up to keep the monthly bills low and stump up for the handset, perhaps the £177 is near the cost of the handset the OP had agreed to for the loooooong 24 month contract even 12 months is a long time in the mobile world now

NFH

Silk wrote: »

It's very relevant as it happens because retailers choose not to itemise the phone, title of ownership passes at conclusion of the contract.

Title of ownership is separate from payments. Although the supply of the goods ought to be subject to a formal credit agreement (with a quoted APR), it is not.

Silk

NFH wrote: »

Title of ownership is separate from payments. Although the supply of the goods ought to be subject to a formal credit agreement (with a quoted APR), it is not.

Glad you agree

StuC75

The phone is heavily discounted (subsidised) because of the contract..

Silk wrote: »

The contract is just for the airtime, the phone comes free.

The contract will still become payable for the minimum term whether you cancel or not

Silk

StuC75 wrote: »

The phone is heavily discounted (subsidised) because of the contract..

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
We all know that, try reading the thread .....The point is on paper the cost and liability shown is for the airtime contract.