phones4u selling contracts to minors. (and Orange)

grumbler

There are many ways. If there is no any credit file or electoral roll record to check the name (+ address) against, then a birth certificate combined with the debit card can easily do the job.
IMO, it's just blatant unwillingness of P4U to make any efforts for checking this.

d123

grumbler wrote: »

There are many ways. If there is no any credit file or electoral roll record to check the name (+ address) against, than a birth certificate combined with the debit card can easily do the job.
IMO, it's just blatant unwillingness of P4U to make any efforts for checking this.

You are now making up new rules, the networks don't require that (and believe it or not, not everyone has a copy of their BC) so the retailer won't ask for it.

The current rules in place are proof of ID and proof of address. P4U (or any retailer) doesn't have a further obligation than asking the customer for their age and DOB, if the customer gives false answers it's the customer being dishonest.

You would have to campaign for a change to the acceptable level of proof if you wanted that changed.

grumbler

There is no point in campaigning as ultimately it's the network or/and P4U that make the the loss, not the customers giving the false answers.

d123

grumbler wrote: »

There is no point in campaigning as ultimately its the network or/and P4U that make the the loss, not the customers giving the false answers.

True, P4U will be the loser (EE Orange will clawback any commission or payment for the handset).

Anoneemoose

grumbler wrote: »

Are you saying that it's OK to refuse contracts to people with rubbish credit history while routinely selling void contracts to under-aged people with no credit history at all?

No credit history can be better than bad credit history in some cases. And as there was obviously enough information cross referenced on the credit check, they passed.

Also, we're assumming this was all done in store, where ID would be verified. If done over the internet then no ID is required. And it's not just mobile networks who do things that way. I joined a mobile bingo site and didn't have to prove my age.

Buzby

The response will be a nice big CIFAS 3 or CIFAS 6 flag on her Credit Reference file. Irrespective of the outcome of this issue, she'll certainly be unable to perform it again unless she moves onto Identity Fraud.

grumbler

Anoneemoose wrote: »

And as there was obviously enough information cross referenced on the credit check, they passed.

What information? It was u18 person that couldn't have any credit file. If there was some credit file it should have had the information on the age.

Also, we're assumming this was all done in store, where ID would be verified.

I am not.

If done over the internet then no ID is required.

Define 'required'. It's P4U that make the rules.

And it's not just mobile networks who do things that way. I joined a mobile bingo site and didn't have to prove my age.

I have accounts with dozens of bookies. Most are very strict with proofs of ID and age, but are unscrupulous and prefer postponing this until you request a withdrawal. Most UK bookies can use CRAs and electoral roll for checking ID.

In this case the sister was 16+. Either she was registered on the electoral roll and P4U failed to check it or she wasn't registered and P4U could have requested extra proofs but preferred not to.

Buzby

You are making give common mistake that a 'credit' file requires the data subject to have credit. It does not. It is a repository of any linked information the CRA can cobble together.

She will have already have been listed (having a bank account) and this contract default will have been added to it, with the CIFAS flag following shortly when the network note it.

Anoneemoose

grumbler wrote: »

What information? Electoral roll, bank account details, not necessarily from a credit lending point of view . Most credit checking systems allow for a margin of error. Typos of names for e.g.

It was u18 person that couldn't have any credit file. She hasn't for the purpose of taking out credit but there will be something there that the cras are able to cross reference.

If there was some credit file it should have had the information on the age. Obviously not.

I am not.
Define 'required'. It's P4U that make the rules. If they pass a credit check via an automated system then p4u will deem that to be sufficient (rightly or wrongly).

I have accounts with dozens of bookies. Most are very strict with proofs of ID and age are unscrupulous and prefer postponing this until you request a withdrawal. Most UK bookies can use CRAs and electoral roll for checking ID. Cool! What I said about the bingo site is still true.

In this case the sister was 16+. Either she was registered on the electoral roll and P4U failed to check it or she wasn't registered and P4U could have requested extra proofs but preferred not to.

Like I keep saying - if done over the internet, the credit check is deed to be enough proof, in most cases.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be stricter checks in general but at the moment, there aren't and that means the networks and retailers are reliant on the applicant not being a fraud! They obviously have contingencies in place for these circs else they would have pushed to do something.

Regardless of which way you look at it, a 16 yr old has fraudulently applied for a credit facility and this is where the blame lies.

grumbler

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Like I keep saying - if done over the internet, the credit check is deed to be enough proof, in most cases.

Credit check can be done only if the credit file exists. If it does, the inconsistency could have easily been spotted.
I see only two possibilities:

• the credit file didn't exist at the time of application,
• P4U failed to do a credit check.

Buzby wrote: »

You are making give common mistake that a 'credit' file requires the data subject to have credit. It does not. It is a repository of any linked information the CRA can cobble together.

What mistake?
It is a repository of the information reported by companies, not collected by the CRA. Many (most?) basic accounts without credit facilities are not reported. If her account was reported by the bank, P4U could have easily spotted the incorrect age.