Help with bill of £2,300

imagine123

Old_Gold wrote: »

Please keep us updated. I am sure we are all interested to know how he could have incurred such a high bill so quickly.

The majority of it is for data...hardly any calls or texts... As someone previously stated this does not incur a large cost to supplier so hopefully this will be taken into account... when son took out contract through a third party supplier he informed them that his main use of phone would be internet... now they may have assumed he meant purely using his phone to connect, not as modem which was what he intended...

Old_Gold

I suppose the question then is did he know he was incurring those sorts of costs? What costs did he think he was incurring and did he know how it would be worked out? Does the retailer have any responsibility to the purchaser to explain the possible charges they could incur?
I only use the phone for calls or texts and the thought of incurring such costs would frighten the life out of me.
I have just thought. Has anyone had similar usage to your son and if so what charges are they incurring? Maybe some fellow posters could let us know.

SomethingWitty_2

If your son informed the third party which sold him the contract that his main use was to be the internet, then surely they are liable as they have mis-sold him a contract, whatever they may have assumed. A contract which was clearly unsuitable for someone who intended to use it for modem or data purposes strikes me as mis sold... I am curious why they did not sell him the mobile broadband package instead for example.

I don't really know, but things like the Sale of Goods act... would they apply in this case?? E.g. if i was to buy a PC and said to the seller i wanted to do graphics work, and it was woefully underpowered or even if it had a number of dead pixels (i.e. it was unsuitable for me, even if it was in good working order) then the Sale of Goods Act would protect me.

I know this is a contract not a "product" but the same theory must apply or be enshrined in law somewhere!

I wish you the very best of luck,

SW

imagine123

I am waiting for Vodafone's response before I start with retailer.... I get the impression that they believe he has not been given the correct advice.... if we come to a reasonable agreement with vodafone will leave well alone... just count lucky stars and see as lesson hard learned!! Have said in previous post that son is computer literate... not sure how this translates into understanding Mobile technology.. My husband works in the IT industry but does not have much knowledge of the mobile phone industry....son swears he had no knowledge of the usage and cost and reiterates the point that he expected a text or some form of message to advise that limit reached... or exceeded.

I personally come from the generation who remember the time when electric typewriters were wonderous things and calculators cost £100's rather than £1's... as long as the technology works I do not think too much about how or why:o

artnoble

has there been an update with this, would be interested to find out.

real1314

I've just seen this thread and found it a real eye-opener.

My view is with the people who belive that the consumer credit act could be a real issue here.
Although Stacy21 has said that phone service roviders "are not baby sitters", I think that someone in that position, whilst maybe trying to help, must remember that their persepctive is coloured by their experience and position.

Unless someone can explain why the CCA does not apply to allowing £2300 of credit, I think this maybe the route to go down.
After all, banks are not baby sitters either, but they have a responsibility to use their funds reasonably.

Also, it may be fuitful; to pursue the mis-selling angle, if the OPs son said he was gonna d/l loads, was this the phone for him or the one that had the best commission (inevitably under the circumstances?)

Any update OP?

espresso

I can't believe how some people think that they can hide behind the consumer credit act, miss-selling by the store etc. etc. When you agree to the terms of a contract, that is exactly what you have done and it is your responsibility to understand the costs incurred when using it.

agent_orange_2

everyone should have a mum like 'imagine123'

corbyboy

real1314 wrote: »

Also, it may be fuitful; to pursue the mis-selling angle, if the OPs son said he was gonna d/l loads, was this the phone for him or the one that had the best commission (inevitably under the circumstances?)

But he didn't say anything about telling the salesperson he wanted to download lots of data. Are you suggesting he lies and gets the salesperson in trouble for something he didn't do?

SomethingWitty_2

espresso wrote: »

I can't believe how some people think that they can hide behind the consumer credit act, miss-selling by the store etc. etc. When you agree to the terms of a contract, that is exactly what you have done and it is your responsibility to understand the costs incurred when using it.

I don't think anyone is trying to "Hide behind" anything. There is no way anyone would expect to run up a bill of this size and from what i can tell he was misinformed, rather than ignorant as you seem to suggest.

corbyboy wrote: »

But he didn't say anything about telling the salesperson he wanted to download lots of data. Are you suggesting he lies and gets the salesperson in trouble for something he didn't do?

From what i can tell he did say to the sales person that he would be downloading lots of data:

imagine123 wrote: »

when son took out contract through a third party supplier he informed them that his main use of phone would be internet...

Using the internet on a phone, espescially as a modem (though he would need to have said this- it sounds like he did though) as I'm sure the salesperson wouldve been aware, involves downloading lots of data. Its entirely possible there was a misunderstanding but contracts are often discussed for a while in a shop so i'm doubtful. If he made it clear he was to use it as a modem then it strikes me his package was missold, as the mobile broadband package is the one that should have been offered! Or at least Web n Walk or somesuch even if the main usage was just assumed to be internet ^on^ the phone rather than on a compter ^through^ the phone.