Problem with EE

d123

Anoneemoose wrote: »

How can the fault be theirs?

What I suspect has happened is that they have realised the account is fraudulent and have 'sorted' that bit out, by cancelling the account.

The connection cannot possibly be their fault - there may have been an error after the connection was activated which they may have been liable to resolve but there is no way they have processed this without fraudulent details being put in in the first place.

They may not be the best, but I know how their systems work.

Edited to add - the charges in the OP were probably Orange's fault if that is what you are referring to - but not that fact that your friend's daughter commited fraud.

I agree, the daughter (or whoever completed the online application) gave fraudulent details to process the application. It is no one but that person at fault.

Kim_13

Perhaps the daughter thought she was applying for a bundle to be added to her account. Such bundles are available to under 18's on pay as you go tariffs and can be paid for via card and supplied on a recurring basis.

These bundles have become widespread in recent years.

Anoneemoose

Kim_13 wrote: »

Perhaps the daughter thought she was applying for a bundle to be added to her account. Such bundles are available to under 18's on pay as you go tariffs and can be paid for via card and supplied on a recurring basis.

These bundles have become widespread in recent years.

Practically impossible seeing that when you order online, all sorts of t&cs pop up! And the bit about performing a credit check - and the bit where it says you have to be over 18!

ljwilson_2

So how did she pass the credit check??? EE did not cancel the account she did and it was at this point it became obvious that she should never have had the account. If she had applied using misinformation then it would have been picked up at the credit checking stage. Hence, EE were at fault and corrected the final bill

Silk

ljwilson wrote: »

So how did she pass the credit check??? EE did not cancel the account she did and it was at this point it became obvious that she should never have had the account. If she had applied using misinformation then it would have been picked up at the credit checking stage. Hence, EE were at fault and corrected the final bill

Who's to know without seeing what she put in the online application form.
Saying that, as it was a sim only contract I would imagine the credit check is going to be less stringent than if she was applying for a contract with a phone thrown in.

macman

I don't see why-the cost of a handset is far less than the potential airtime bill that can be run up if the SIM is used fraudulently.
The OP has gone very quiet (not really surprisingly), so I doubt we'll ever find out. My guess is that she used mum's identity and DOB online and this was not picked up later in-store.

Silk

macman wrote: »

I don't see why-the cost of a handset is far less than the potential airtime bill that can be run up if the SIM is used fraudulently.
The OP has gone very quiet (not really surprisingly), so I doubt we'll ever find out. My guess is that she used mum's identity and DOB online and this was not picked up later in-store.

My thought is that sending out a sim can be blocked before it's even used added to the fact airtime could be debated as what it's actual cost to the network is.
Whereas sending out a £600 mobile phone to a potential blagger would carry an immediate substantial physical loss.

Anoneemoose

ljwilson wrote: »

So how did she pass the credit check??? EE did not cancel the account she did and it was at this point it became obvious that she should never have had the account. If she had applied using misinformation then it would have been picked up at the credit checking stage. Hence, EE were at fault and corrected the final bill

I believe I have already answered this. There is always the potential for the margin of error with the credit check so I repeat, EE was not at fault - your friend and/or her daughter were when they entered 'incorrect' details in the first place.

If the fraudulent details were not entered to start with, there would never have been an issue would there?!!

Oh and if she was now over 18 and had made a payment/acknowledged the account since her 18th birthday, EE could have held her fully liable.

ljwilson_2

macman wrote: »

I don't see why-the cost of a handset is far less than the potential airtime bill that can be run up if the SIM is used fraudulently.
The OP has gone very quiet (not really surprisingly), so I doubt we'll ever find out. My guess is that she used mum's identity and DOB online and this was not picked up later in-store.

I have gone quiet because EE resolved the issue! EE DID NOT cancel the contract Alice did and it was only then it became apparent to EE that she is underage. I am leaving now but will let you lot carry on!

GraceCourt

Going quiet is probably a good idea, ljwilson, but thanks for posting and don't be dissuaded from posting again.

Too many of the people who responded to your post "hoisted their own petards" by rambling on in respect of the legalities when clearly they have no legal training and, quite frankly, little knowledge about what they are professing to debate.

Dishonesty is an essential element of fraud, and nothing that I have read on this thread makes be believe that any dishonesty could be demonstrated by any of the parties involved.

EE's billing and administrative systems are horribly broken and a lot of the data that they contain is plain wrong. It seems, for example, that some of the historical systems that they have tried to subsume (e.g. those from old Orange accounts) couldn't store a customer's middle initial, so quite often data for one customer was applied to someone else's account, even when the account numbers were quite different.

I myself had issues when they continued, despite numerous requests, to send letters to me and to my son addressed identically, as we have the same first name but differing middle names. In the end they had to pay out our claims for damages under S.13 Data Protection Act 1998 because the statutory Data Protection Principles (Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act) require adequacy (Principle 3) and accuracy (Principle 4) and clearly EE can't ensure either of these.

I'm glad that you were able to resolve your problem but this matter would never have reached either the County Court - to deal with the alleged "debt" - or a Magistrates' Court in respect of the non-existent "fraud" that so many posters here prattled on about.