Three refuse to block future 3rd party payments

MisterPC

We have 4 Three mobile monthly contract phones 2 of those being for our kids. When I took out the contracts I explicitly asked for no charges to be allowed over the monthly payment as the internet and free texts/minutes/etc were more than sufficient and I didn't want any nasty surprises. This cap was put on each account.

Unfortunately I've learnt today that a mobile phone is also essentially also a credit card with an unlimited balance. My son spent a relatively small account (£30) on the Xbox store (he thought the phone was linked to his bank account) which I didn't realise you could do just from a phone number. My son won't make any future payments but I don't want to leave this line of credit open. I phoned Three to try to stop future payments being made using this method but they are refusing to do this.

Surely this can't be legal? Is there anything I can do about this? I want my kids to have a phone but I don't want them to have an unlimited credit card. Three have also said that even a pay as you go phone (irregardless of the remaining contract period on our current phones) would not be a solution, as the credit balance would go negative and you would be liable for that balance.

dealer_wins

Pay as you go , if it did go into debit would not have to be repaid, as there is no credit agreement or contract signed.

pmduk

MisterPC wrote: »

I phoned Three to try to stop future payments being made using this method but they are refusing to do this.

Unfortunately, not all networks have the technology to implement this.

MisterPC wrote: »

Three have also said that even a pay as you go phone (irregardless of the remaining contract period on our current phones) would not be a solution, as the credit balance would go negative and you would be liable for that balance.

I strongly suspect this to be untrue and the sign of a poorly-trained advisor. In this situation, the transaction should fail.

Well done for recognising in advance the similarities between a SIM card and a credit card. Most people realise only too late.

MisterPC

pmduk wrote: »

Unfortunately, not all networks have the technology to implement this.

I strongly suspect this to be untrue and the sign of a poorly-trained advisor. In this situation, the transaction should fail.

If the transaction fails for pay-as-you-go then I'd imagine they're telling porkies when they say they can't block payments for contracts.

Do you know which mobile providers allow you to block all 3rd party charges? After researching this issue online the potential for "payforit" charges for texts scare me even more! At least this was something my son consciously bought. I will definitely be replacing my three contracts with a provider that guarantees only the fixed monthly contract payment. I wish you could end the contract early as I believe what they are getting away with here is scandalous.

Where's the best place to raise a formal complaint for this? I know it won't make any difference but at least I'd feel I was doing my bit raising the awareness of it.

pmduk

MisterPC wrote: »

If the transaction fails for pay-as-you-go then I'd imagine they're telling porkies when they say they can't block payments for contracts.

I'm not a software designer, but I'm certain that it's not that easy,

MisterPC wrote: »

Do you know which mobile providers allow you to block all 3rd party charges?

I believe Virgin has introduced the technology to block this, and EE requires providers to send a /PIN to your handset to prevent 'accidental' signups. I've not worked in the industry since an accident 17 months ago, so my info is third hand I'm afraid.

MisterPC wrote: »

Where's the best place to raise a formal complaint for this? I know it won't make any difference but at least I'd feel I was doing my bit raising the awareness of it.

I'd complain to your MP, the regulator Ofcom has delegated all responsibility to a body called Phone-paid Services Authority, which originated from within the industry. It's my belief a whole new perspective needs to be taken. As with any new idea, people will, and have, create ways to make illicit money from it.

Frozen_up_north

Does setting a zero overspend in the My3 app stop such charges? It certainly stops out of bundle calls being made.

paulmu

These third party charges to bill are nothing short of a scandal. The safest way to avoid them is to use pay as you go service such as GiffGaff and keep a minimal or zero account balance. If you buy packages of call time, texts and data, the scamming companies can't touch those. Also, if you have a credit balance and fall victim to one of these scams, GifGaff will refund your remaining airtime balance so that no more money can be taken. (Just to be clear, they will NOT refund money already taken).

There's a lot of info about these scams, how to deal with them and how to avoid them at http://payforitsucks.co.uk.
These scams are a disgrace to the mobile communications industry and the Phone-paid Services Authority is weak and ineffective as a regulator.

pmduk

paulmu wrote: »

[T]he Phone-paid Services Authority is weak and ineffective as a regulator.

It has evolved from the original ICSTIS which was a self-regulating body within the industry. As Ofcom takes not a lot of interest in day-to-day issues in the industry, it has been happy to delegate regulation to them.

Rather than complaining on here, people should be complaining to MPs and asking for proper regulation.

Martin50

It's far worse than a credit card. At least your bank will take an interest if there is fraudulent activity on a credit or debit card. Phone networks seem to take little or no interest in it and in fact the system just opens the way for the networks to accuse their customers of lying when they deny having subscribed to the services. And don't get me started on the stories about refunds being offered through the Post Office text system, whatever that is. What sort of payment system makes it easy to take money out of somebody's bank account but impossible to refund money back in.


As far as I can tell 3 makes a point of offering the customers the opportunity to limit or prevent additional charges. Surely if there is a category of charges that they can't prevent, and if they don't indicate this clearly on their website and elsewhere, they would be open to legal action but I'd be interested in the views of anybody more knowledgeable about consumer law about this.

pmduk

Martin50 wrote: »

At least your bank will take an interest if there is fraudulent activity on a credit or debit card.

They don't do this out of any altruism, just that legislation requires them to and ultimately they have to bear any loss. There is no such requirement on mobile networks.

paulmu

pmduk wrote: »

They don't do this out of any altruism, just that legislation requires them to and ultimately they have to bear any loss. There is no such requirement on mobile networks.

And that is exactly the problem. I see no reason why third party 'payforit' transactions should be exempt from the regulations which other payment processors are required to follow.