Ex-partner taking out phone contract on 3 without consent

rebelheart15

wealdroam wrote: »

Is it fair to say that your partner has no proof about what he did or did not authorise his ex to spend on his credit card?

Please don't get annoyed, but is it possible that he has told you that he did not authorise the spend, when in actual fact he did authorise it?

I cannot see 3's fraud department, on any other fraud department making anything of it.

This strikes me as nothing more than a simple 'he said', 'she said' disagreement between two people.

The only way to resolve this is for the two people concerned to face the facts... with the help of a county court judge if necessary.

Indeed there's no proof of what's been authorised and indeed it's a case of "he said, she said" I think. Seeing as they lived together also that doesn't help either.

I don't think he's hidden anything per se - there isn't really a point, he's mentioned this phone before in passing and he genuinely believed he'd simply bought the phone, not the contract.

There's another 17 months on the contract which is why I wondered where he stood - but as I suspected, I think it might be a case of lump it, pay the bill, block the phone and learn the lesson?

It's a miracle that there's been enough money in the account at the right time for the payments to go out, so at least his credit rating hasn't been affected.

andycris3107

rebelheart15 wrote: »

Thank you all for your advice so far, very helpful.

As far as I know any communication between my partner and the ex would result in complete meltdown, apparently it's somewhat complex and the argument of "well I paid for this and you didn't pay for this" would be thrown about and it seems they're both as stubborn as each other.

The phone and contract were one and the same - my partner gave permission for his card to be used to purchase a phone outright (for £400, or whatever the phone cost) - not for his card to be used as a verification of identity for a phone contract in his name. So effectively the phone, and the airtime is in my partner's name but the phone, and airtime is being used by his ex.

I agree that surely a delivery note and a contract etc would arrive, but then in my partner's naivety, perhaps he assumed that all of the documents being in his name was alright because he had paid for the phone - but the phone and contract are definitely linked.

I wonder if it would it perhaps be best to start with ringing up to get the phone blacklisted and stop his ex from using it, then see what 3's fraud department make of it?

While I get that relationships (especially where ex's are concerned) can be volatile and complex, I still feel that there is an opportunity. A telephone number can be important - depending on the social and working status of the ex losing that number could be a real pain, and possibly something they would pay to avoid if presented in a calm and factual way.

You say that the phone was purchased outright from 3, and that the contract was taken out at the same time as an extra and without the knowledge of your partner. This is curious as 3 don't sell telephones outright and only sell contract phones on a plan. They also do not sell sim only deals for unlocked phones on 24 month contracts. This would suggest that if purchased from 3 then either he was unsuspectingly duped into paying for a subsidised phone on a 2 year contract, the phone was not actually purchased from 3 directly, or that a piece of the puzzle is missing.

If the phone was purchased outright then the contract and the phone may not be intrinsically linked - blocking the number won't necessarily make the phone unusable, just the sim card. Since the purchase of the phone itself is not in question to block the phone may cause more problems as ownership is not disputed.

Blocking the phone may be the best way forward a factual and clear indication to the ex that this is what will happen if he doesn't pay would be my first recommendation. Irrespective of the volatility I would provide the ex with the facts and the actions that will be taken if he doesn't respond.

rebelheart15

andycris3107 wrote: »

While I get that relationships (especially where ex's are concerned) can be volatile and complex, I still feel that there is an opportunity. A telephone number can be important - depending on the social and working status of the ex losing that number could be a real pain, and possibly something they would pay to avoid if presented in a calm and factual way.

You say that the phone was purchased outright from 3, and that the contract was taken out at the same time as an extra and without the knowledge of your partner. This is curious as 3 don't sell telephones outright and only sell contract phones on a plan. They also do not sell sim only deals for unlocked phones on 24 month contracts. This would suggest that if purchased from 3 then either he was unsuspectingly duped into paying for a subsidised phone on a 2 year contract, the phone was not actually purchased from 3 directly, or that a piece of the puzzle is missing.

If the phone was purchased outright then the contract and the phone may not be intrinsically linked - blocking the number won't necessarily make the phone unusable, just the sim card. Since the purchase of the phone itself is not in question to block the phone may cause more problems as ownership is not disputed.

Blocking the phone may be the best way forward a factual and clear indication to the ex that this is what will happen if he doesn't pay would be my first recommendation. Irrespective of the volatility I would provide the ex with the facts and the actions that will be taken if he doesn't respond.

I probably wasn't very clear in my original post - basically my partner gave permission for his card to be used "to buy the phone" (I don't know, infact he probably didn't know what network and certainly wouldn't know 3 didn't sell phones outright) but in turn, his ex used his card to verify a credit check to secure a contract which included the phone and the air-time - the contract covers both, so yes effectively he was duped into it.

I've suggested speaking to the ex but obviously he's not keen - though seems to think if he rings up to block the phone, the ex may make the first contact and be reasonable about it. Is it possible to block a phone and then unblock it again or is it an irreversible move once done?

andycris3107

It is possible to ask for a temporary block - such as if you believe that the phone has been mislaid.

Remember that depending on how well the ex knows your partners personal and financial details it may be possible for them to ring 3 and pose as your partner in order to undo anything you do.

unholyangel

andycris3107 wrote: »

Blocking the phone may be the best way forward a factual and clear indication to the ex that this is what will happen if he doesn't pay would be my first recommendation. Irrespective of the volatility I would provide the ex with the facts and the actions that will be taken if he doesn't respond.

I wouldnt inform the ex about the blocking etc if the ex is the vindictive type. Else whats to stop them running up a massive bill until the credit limit cuts them off? Happened to a friend of mine when she split with her ex and told him she was cancelling the tv/phone/internet package unless he wanted to put them in his name.