Work Phone bill - £2400!!!

Smellyonion

Exodi wrote: »

I wouldn't usually debate opinions such as yours but I feel such delusion may prove dangerous to the OP.

I'd be interested to know, in the presence of a contract, why you think it would not be enforceable?

I'd also like to confirm what you are talking about with regards to having 'data switched off at account level' - it's pretty obvious data is needed for work purposes.

We must remind ourselves that there would have been charges if the SIM had been used as agreed. We're also not talking about accidentally opening Facebook on work data, we're talking about 80 freaking gigabytes. That's about the amount of data I've used on my personal phone in the last 4 years and I'm always on my phone (though I connect to WiFi at home...). The OP will have likely been streaming films off mobile data for a few weeks.

If your sole point of contention is the extortionate cost of data - I've compared against GiffGaff (the network I'm on) and from https://www.giffgaff.com/pricing non-contract data is priced at 5p per MB. OP has used around 80,000MB of data which equates to roughly £4,000 (should count himself lucky he's not with GiffGaff).

I'd certainly say it's not extortionate, and again, this detracts from the point that he shouldn't be using his work SIM for personal use anyway!!

To be fair, you provide some evidence that it is a reasonable cost although 5p a mb is very very expensive in 2019.


I use roughly 30-80gb a month and yes it is mostly streaming. I pay £20 a month, up to a fair use of 1000 gb a month.


The OP should visit CAB.


But I would challenged based on the high cost and the employee did not expect the misuse to result in such a high cost - outside of market value and offer to pay a fair market price.

shortcrust

Smellyonion wrote: »

I wouldn't pay it. I think that that kind of money for data is overly extortionate. The contract to pay the bill is between your employer and the phone network. You wouldn't have entered into a contract that charges £30 per GB, so why should you be expected to pay for the error?


Legally, the company cannot make deductions that takes you below minimum wage.

It’s obviously a voice/text plan with a low data allowance so of course the data is extortionately expensive. That’s presumably because the OP has no requirement to use a lot of data for work purposes. Why on earth would an employer pay extra for a plan that their employee shouldn’t need to use?

You have read the post properly and understand that the OP ran the bill up using the work plan for personal stuff?

Carrot007

Smellyonion wrote: »

The OP should visit CAB.

I remind you that the C in CAB is consumer not commercial.


As such any terms are whatever the company signs up for and deemed fair as a company is deemed to know what they are doing.


Only hope the OP has is their own employment terms. Which is obviosuly none.

Potbellypig

Smellyonion wrote: »

I don't care if you understand business phone contracts, I still wouldn't pay it and I doubt it would be enforceable.

Setting up a contract like that without having data switched off (at the account) level is negligence.

Was the employee given an indication of the extent of the cost of data? I could set up a contract which is £10,000 per Gb then charge the employee £250,000.

The cost of the data is so grossly extortionate and out of line with market prices, I wouldn't pay it.

I'm with you on this.

Exodi

Smellyonion wrote: »

To be fair, you provide some evidence that it is a reasonable cost although 5p a mb is very very expensive in 2019.


I use roughly 30-80gb a month and yes it is mostly streaming. I pay £20 a month, up to a fair use of 1000 gb a month.

I feel you've completely missed the issue here and do not understand how mobile phone plans work. What you're describing is a 'plan'/'goody bag'/'pack'/'contract'/'allowance' (whatever the carrier wants to call it it) where you pay £XX a month and get XXX calls, XXX texts and XXX data.

The pricing I linked and is relevant to the OP's situation is for off-contract usage; for when you don't have a plan in place or you go over the defined limit.

The employer would have had an allowance in place, likely very low (as it should have only been used for work).

Smellyonion wrote: »

The cost of the data is so grossly extortionate and out of line with market prices, I wouldn't pay it.

Smellyonion wrote: »

But I would challenged based on the high cost and the employee did not expect the misuse to result in such a high cost - outside of market value and offer to pay a fair market price.

As I said before, the mountain of misinformation you're circulating is dangerous to the OP. The off-contract pricing IS (despite you saying it's not a couple of times now) in line with market prices. I have even evidenced this in this very thread.

Potbellypig wrote: »

I'm with you on this.

And this is exactly what misinformation causes.

So, in both of your opinions; should the employer, who offered a business handset with a business SIM for business use to his employee be made to pay this bill for personal use?

Exodi

shortcrust wrote: »

It’s obviously a voice/text plan with a low data allowance so of course the data is extortionately expensive. That’s presumably because the OP has no requirement to use a lot of data for work purposes. Why on earth would an employer pay extra for a plan that their employee shouldn’t need to use?

You have read the post properly and understand that the OP ran the bill up using the work plan for personal stuff?

Indeed, I'm starting to ponder whether they've even read the OP or whether this is just an outlet for a 'screw the corporations!' type vent...

NeilCr

Carrot007 wrote: »

I remind you that the C in CAB is consumer not commercial.


.

For clarity - it's actually Citizens.

;)

cauldron

Can’t you phone the mobile carriers and negotiate with them? It’s a lot of money for what you’ve used. There are stories in the paper of people having large bills because of data and they have successfully had money knocked off or in some cases it’s been completely wiped out. It’s worth a try.

CakeCrusader

cauldron wrote: »

Can’t you phone the mobile carriers and negotiate with them? It’s a lot of money for what you’ve used. There are stories in the paper of people having large bills because of data and they have successfully had money knocked off or in some cases it’s been completely wiped out. It’s worth a try.

It's highly unlikely that the OP has a contract with the mobile phone network, hence the bill from their employer. Chance of negotiating with the phone company - 0 as they are a third party. It's the equivalent of your mum calling o2 on your behalf and asking if you can have a discount.



Phones usually have a set data allowance, go over that and they will charge you a lot. It's not the same as a pay as you go allowance or a normal contract that cuts out once you use your data. The OP needs to check their employment contract as it probably doesn't allow the use of company property (mobile phone) for personal use, it's the OP's fault here for using their own SIM card in what's technically company property. The employer is fully entitled to get the cash back.

Undervalued

CakeCrusader wrote: »

It's highly unlikely that the OP has a contract with the mobile phone network, hence the bill from their employer. Chance of negotiating with the phone company - 0 as they are a third party. It's the equivalent of your mum calling o2 on your behalf and asking if you can have a discount.



Phones usually have a set data allowance, go over that and they will charge you a lot. It's not the same as a pay as you go allowance or a normal contract that cuts out once you use your data. The OP needs to check their employment contract as it probably doesn't allow the use of company property (mobile phone) for personal use, it's the OP's fault here for using their own SIM card in what's technically company property. The employer is fully entitled to get the cash back.

Quite!

Some of the keyboard warrior stuff in a few of the previous posts is absolute nonsense.

Assuming the company is actually out of pocket by the amount they are claiming then it is hard to see the OP has a leg to stand on. He disobeyed the rules, had he not done so there would be no debt. Whether the firm was or wasn't on the best deal is irrelevant. Suggesting that they should have been on a "better" deal just so that it wouldn't cost rule breaking employees quite as much is farcical!

It is a bit like saying that if you write off my expensive car you will only pay for a cheap car because you think that is what I should have bought!