Problem with EE

Anoneemoose

GraceCourt wrote: »

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.

I would like to say, I do KNOW what I am talking about. Legally trained or not. I worked for Orange for a lot of years, dealing directly with one of the heads of the fraud team. I appreciate that Orange and EE in general may be somewhat lacking but you can't argue with the facts.

And whether you or OP like it or not, there was fraud committed. IF the agreement was taken out in the daughter's name from the off, then there MUST HAVE been incorrect (fraudulent) information entered in to the website in order for it to have been processed at all. So you are saying the daughter didn't know she put the wrong DOB in?!!

Quite often in cases like this, the fraud is not detected if the bills are being paid. It is irrelevant that it was the daughter/parent that cancelled the agreement and not Orange/EE. It still happened in the first place. Not sure what about this you don't 'get'.

I can't remember anyone mentioning court, and in fact most have agreed that this cannot be enforced, in court or otherwise. What EE could do though is legitimitely stick a big, fat fraud flag on the daughter's credit file.

I dealt with a very similar case which involved me liaising with the head of fraud. A 17 yr old boy took out an agreement and his parents kicked off at Orange for allowing it to happen (no mention of the fact their son should have known better than to lie on an application). Anyway, as he had made a payment after his 18th birthday, he became liable for the whole agreement - and we made him pay. He also had a fraud marker on his credit file.

I am actually glad OP's friend and daughter got it resolved and hopefully she won't have a CIFAS mark against her name, but to blindly ignore that this was indeed fraud (whether by malicious intent or just ignorance of the potential consequences), is somewhat silly IMO.

macman

EE would have voided the contract anyway as soon as they realised it was obtained fraudulently.

Anoneemoose

macman wrote: »

EE would have voided the contract anyway as soon as they realised it was obtained fraudulently.

Only if the account holder was still under 18

grumbler

Sure?
Is it not that the whole contract is unenforceable if 'signed' by u18?

Anoneemoose

grumbler wrote: »

Sure?
Is it not that the whole contract is unenforceable if 'signed' by u18?

Well, I am not legally trained so can only go on experience (of which I had quite a lot) - I worked there for a number of years in various depts.

As I said in my example above, if the account holder made a payment after their 18th birthday, they used to be held responsible - because they were acknowledging the contract whilst over the age of 18, if that makes sense?!

I did see it a couple of times where there were agreements cancelled if they were still under 18 and also if they were over 18 but hadn't made a payment..because they hadn't acknowledged it.

As I say, I am not legally trained but used to liaise with the head of fraud in cases like this. And am pretty sure they were aware of the legalities, if not because they were legally trained themselves, because they had direct support from the legal team.

macman

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Only if the account holder was still under 18

Yes. But she is 15-see first post by OP.

Anoneemoose

macman wrote: »

Yes. But she is 15-see first post by OP.

Ah I see what you mean!

I was 'speaking' generally! And yes you're right.

In this case they would have. It is just coincidence that the friend/daughter 'got there first' so to speak.

ljwilson_2

Anoneemoose wrote: »

I would like to say, I do KNOW what I am talking about. Legally trained or not. I worked for Orange for a lot of years, dealing directly with one of the heads of the fraud team. I appreciate that Orange and EE in general may be somewhat lacking but you can't argue with the facts.

And whether you or OP like it or not, there was fraud committed. IF the agreement was taken out in the daughter's name from the off, then there MUST HAVE been incorrect (fraudulent) information entered in to the website in order for it to have been processed at all. So you are saying the daughter didn't know she put the wrong DOB in?!!

Quite often in cases like this, the fraud is not detected if the bills are being paid. It is irrelevant that it was the daughter/parent that cancelled the agreement and not Orange/EE. It still happened in the first place. Not sure what about this you don't 'get'.

I can't remember anyone mentioning court, and in fact most have agreed that this cannot be enforced, in court or otherwise. What EE could do though is legitimitely stick a big, fat fraud flag on the daughter's credit file.

I dealt with a very similar case which involved me liaising with the head of fraud. A 17 yr old boy took out an agreement and his parents kicked off at Orange for allowing it to happen (no mention of the fact their son should have known better than to lie on an application). Anyway, as he had made a payment after his 18th birthday, he became liable for the whole agreement - and we made him pay. He also had a fraud marker on his credit file.

I am actually glad OP's friend and daughter got it resolved and hopefully she won't have a CIFAS mark against her name, but to blindly ignore that this was indeed fraud (whether by malicious intent or just ignorance of the potential consequences), is somewhat silly IMO.

So how did it pass the credit check?????????

d123

ljwilson wrote: »

So how did it pass the credit check?????????

Probably because the person in the OP lied and put in fraudulent details to pass...

ljwilson_2

d123 wrote: »

Probably because the person in the OP lied and put in fraudulent details to pass...

I am the OP!! How can you pass a credit check if you have lied????
First thing they check is the Electrol Roll, and Alice at 15 has no credit file

Lorna