Orange-horror itemised phone bill from Canada

lulubelle41

hieveryone wrote: »

OP, I just wanted to say I hope you get this sorted, I really do.

I love how posters give it things like 'oh you used it therefore pay it' - I bet that wouldn't be the case if it was their bill that exceeded £30k!!

Anyone who is using that amount of data should be blocked by their mobile operator, it's as simple as that. No credit card company would allow you to go and spend that much on a card without any contact from them - are we saying that mobile contracts are unlimited credit accounts??!! Absolutely ridiculous...!

iPhones are so bl00dy tricky to figure out, they really are. One little option not turned off can result in something like this. They have so many menus that it can be totally overwhelming.

P.S I used to work for a mobile phone company and I helped a customer get a bill of roughly £27k credited back in full.


I really hope you get this sorted out..

Thank you for this. It is the most pleasant thing anyone has said to me so far.

So thank you

And all the best to you too.

NFH

lulubelle41 wrote: »

Agreed - but it was quoted in 15/6 .... and it was suggested by NFH that I read it. So I did.

No, you quoted Article 15(3)&(5). I referred to Article 15(6), which states clearly:

This Article, with the exception of paragraph 5, and subject to the second and third subparagraph of this paragraph, shall also apply to data roaming services used by roaming customers travelling outside the Union and provided by a roaming provider.

Where the customer opts for the facility referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, the requirements provided in paragraph 3 shall not apply if the visited network operator in the visited country outside the Union does not allow the roaming provider to monitor its customers’ usage on a real-time basis.

In such a case the customer shall be notified by an SMS message when entering such a country, without undue delay and free of charge, that information on accumulated consumption and the guarantee not to exceed a specified financial limit are not available.

Silk

NFH wrote: »

No, you quoted Article 15(3)&(5). I referred to Article 15(6), which states clearly:

This Article, with the exception of paragraph 5, and subject to the second and third subparagraph of this paragraph, shall also apply to data roaming services used by roaming customers travelling outside the Union and provided by a roaming provider.

Where the customer opts for the facility referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, the requirements provided in paragraph 3 shall not apply if the visited network operator in the visited country outside the Union does not allow the roaming provider to monitor its customers’ usage on a real-time basis.

In such a case the customer shall be notified by an SMS message when entering such a country, without undue delay and free of charge, that information on accumulated consumption and the guarantee not to exceed a specified financial limit are not available.

She did quote that one though in post #146 :rotfl:

Anyway enough for me ........I'm out

lulubelle41

I'm out too.

Round and round the roundabout. It would appear that NFH was busy looking up his own suggestion of rule 15/6 and forgot to read what was already posted - which was rule 15/6 incorporating sub para 3 (with exception of para 5) - which of course we already knew.

Hey ho.

thegirlintheattic

hieveryone wrote: »

OP, I just wanted to say I hope you get this sorted, I really do.

I love how posters give it things like 'oh you used it therefore pay it' - I bet that wouldn't be the case if it was their bill that exceeded £30k!!

Anyone who is using that amount of data should be blocked by their mobile operator, it's as simple as that. No credit card company would allow you to go and spend that much on a card without any contact from them - are we saying that mobile contracts are unlimited credit accounts??!! Absolutely ridiculous...!

iPhones are so bl00dy tricky to figure out, they really are. One little option not turned off can result in something like this. They have so many menus that it can be totally overwhelming.

P.S I used to work for a mobile phone company and I helped a customer get a bill of roughly £27k credited back in full.


I really hope you get this sorted out..

The OP has said that she contacted the operator and asked them to reinstate the service after they blocked it. Therefore the bolded bit doesn't apply here.

NFH

Silk wrote: »

She did quote that one though in post #146 :rotfl:

Indeed she did; my mistake. However, paragraph 3 is not excluded from the provisions of paragraph 6; only paragraph 5 is. Paragraph 3 gives a long list of safeguards which do not appear to have been provided to the OP, as you helpfully drew to our attention in post 123.

NFH

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

The OP has said that she contacted the operator and asked them to reinstate the service after they blocked it. Therefore the bolded bit doesn't apply here.

It does apply. The suggestion was that they should have blocked it at a much earlier stage, perhaps after the first £200 or £500 was incurred, rather than waiting until £30k.

hieveryone

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

The OP has said that she contacted the operator and asked them to reinstate the service after they blocked it. Therefore the bolded bit doesn't apply here.

Did I read somewhere she asked it to be reinstated after Orange confirmed that the balance was £34??

Regardless, I highly doubt ANY normal functioning person would be told over the phone 'your balance is £25k, would you like to reinstate the mobile data?' Errmmm no, so clearly the OP ONLY agreed to reinstate the service thinking it was a relatively modest, affordable amount.

WTFH

hieveryone wrote: »

Did I read somewhere she asked it to be reinstated after Orange confirmed that the balance was £34??

Regardless, I highly doubt ANY normal functioning person would be told over the phone 'your balance is £25k, would you like to reinstate the mobile data?' Errmmm no, so clearly the OP ONLY agreed to reinstate the service thinking it was a relatively modest, affordable amount.

Except the OP has still been unable to find out what actually used up all the data. She's been asked several times, but it seems getting certain facts out is not to impossible. Getting opinions is easy, as is jumping from one bit of legalese to another.

NFH

WTFH wrote: »

Except the OP has still been unable to find out what actually used up all the data. She's been asked several times, but it seems getting certain facts out is not to impossible.

It seems to be the OP's daughter who is reluctant to give the information; she ought to be more cooperative in view of the large amount involved. Perhaps she doesn't want to admit to wasting almost 4GB on using an app like YouTube.