Work Phone bill - £2400!!!

Potbellypig

Exodi wrote: »

Thanks for the warm welcome to the internet. I think your stance is somewhat confused though as I think most posters would prefer if forum advice was information-led and not emotion-led, but I appreciate we're in a time of 'f*** experts'. As I said before, if the crux of your argument is that the cost of data is unreasonable compared to the market, and that the employer should have taken steps to ensure they had a good deal, the off-contract rates are about normal.

And as I warned before about misinformation (generally breeding more misinformation), you now are stating that the OP's employer shouldn't pay but that the matter should go to court.... who do you think will be taking the OP to court as you're implying the OP, in lack of better terms, should shaft the employer with the bill?! 'I think the OP could has a good case in getting that bill down', frankly laughable to suggest doing this in court and I hope the OP doesn't humour the idea of following this through; it would be a proverbial slaughter being that they have no defence whatsoever.

The best the OP could hope for would be pleading with the employer to negotiate the bill with the agent - this is less of an option if the OP shafts them with the bill and requires being taken to court for it...

Which is a complete contradiction to the rest of your post, or indeed any of your posts on this thread.

Potbellypig

Undervalued wrote: »

Even if you were right (and I am firmly convinced you are not) can you imagine the relationship this would cause with the employer?

The OP says he intends to leave shortly. I hope if he follows your advice he doesn't need a reference!

Ultimately, had the OP stuck to the rules none of this would have happened and any debate about whether the employer is obtaining good value with their mobile contracts would be irrelevant.

As another poster has mentioned, there is certainly the potential here for the employer to take disciplinary action in addition to seeking repayment of their losses.

Totally agree. The relationship with their employer is going to be completely broken now whatever the outcome.

Exodi

Potbellypig wrote: »

Which is a complete contradiction to the rest of your post, or indeed any of your posts on this thread.

I have posted in this thread to clear up any confusion between contract and off-contract pricing and to debunk the repeated claims that the pricing was out of the ordinary for the market. Though I can appreciate you felt obligated to respond with something, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (a recurring theme of your posts in this thread it seems).

Potbellypig wrote: »

Totally agree. The relationship with their employer is going to be completely broken now whatever the outcome.

On the topic of contradictions though, you're aware the post you've quoted that you 'totally agree' with is disagreeing with your earlier comment right?

There is a way to not 'completely break' the relationship with the employer by the way;

Not following your advice of robbing the employer and being taken to court.

He could just work out a payment plan with them (they clearly haven't dismissed him as it stands now) and he could ask they negotiate the amount with the agent.

And this is the view of 90% of the posters on this thread, I can't fathom how you can responsibly advice someone to get taken to court over this.

MEM62

I am not sure on what basis you are assuming that your employer should pay for your error. The fact that the data is expensive on their plan is irrelevant. They will choose that contract/plan that is most beneficial to the company overall.

Your employer is entitled to recover the costs for the data that you misused. If you resign then they will take the money from you final salary payment and, if that does not cover the full amount they are likely to chase for the rest if the outstanding amount is worth the trouble.

Ozzuk

Problem is a number of users on here are comparing personal contracts with business contracts - and you can't. What may be reasonable for personal doesn't apply to business and I can confrim it is sadly easy to generate huge bills on business contracts (though actually you can on personal ones as well, often easier to challenge).

Another poster said the company was negligent for not putting a contract limit - sure, that is possible, but it doesn't change the liability. We cannot limit our contracts per handset, only for the whole contract (30-40 users) so we do not limit data. Our reasonning is it could impact someone travelling so we manage the risk of overspend by education and policy. The OPs company could be doing the same - i.e. clear guidlelines if you use (or mis-use) the company asset for personal usage then you are liable.

Potbellypig

Exodi wrote: »

I have posted in this thread to clear up any confusion between contract and off-contract pricing and to debunk the repeated claims that the pricing was out of the ordinary for the market. Though I can appreciate you felt obligated to respond with something, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (a recurring theme of your posts in this thread it seems).

Data costs the same to 'produce' regardless of whether it's contract or off-contract. It's just priced different. I would argue that paying £1,000,000 for 1GB of data is extortionate and could be defended via court. My logic applies to the same in this instance.

Exodi wrote: »

On the topic of contradictions though, you're aware the post you've quoted that you 'totally agree' with is disagreeing with your earlier comment right?

There is a way to not 'completely break' the relationship with the employer by the way;

Not following your advice of robbing the employer and being taken to court.

He could just work out a payment plan with them (they clearly haven't dismissed him as it stands now) and he could ask they negotiate the amount with the agent.

And this is the view of 90% of the posters on this thread, I can't fathom how you can responsibly advice someone to get taken to court over this.

The trust between employee and employer is very much damaged regardless of whether they pay or it is resolved by other means. You're getting all emotional over this and reading something that isn't there. Get yourself a brew and calm down.

Exodi

Potbellypig wrote: »

Data costs the same to 'produce' regardless of whether it's contract or off-contract. It's just priced different. I would argue that paying £1,000,000 for 1GB of data is extortionate and could be defended via court. My logic applies to the same in this instance.

The trust between employee and employer is very much damaged regardless of whether they pay or it is resolved by other means. You're getting all emotional over this and reading something that isn't there. Get yourself a brew and calm down.

I can buy a 12 pack of Heinz baked beans from Tesco for £5 yet they'll charge me 85 pence to buy them individually. The beans costs the same to 'produce' regardless of whether it's bulk or not bulk. It's just priced different. I would argue that paying 85 pence for one tin of beans is extortionate and could be defended via court. My logic applies to the same in this instance.

But let's still remind ourselves that there's no responsibility of the employer to negotiate the cost of data for personal use for a business SIM, why would there be.

You keep saying the trust between employee and employer is already damaged, yet the OP is still very much employed and it's certainly within his control to keep it that way.

I do ask you to think about this pragmatically though - no-one is denying that £2800 is a large amount of money to charge for 80gb of data. If the OP however says 'that's too much, I'm not paying it' the debt by default would have to be paid by his employer. It would then be his employer who takes him to court for their costs incurred, the argument that it is too much is entirely superfluous to his ownership of the debt - the default position you avoid recognising is that the employer has to absorb this if he doesn't.

It's not so much emotion, it's more an awareness that there are real people behind the posts on these forums, and whilst one can make themselves feel better by giving knee-jerk advice like 'it's too much, just don't pay it and hope it disappears', it will likely prove devastating to the OP when he is awarded a CCJ and their court costs.

ACG

I love the arrogance of "politely telling them to sod off"

You used a work phone for personal use - they are no doubt accepting it was a mistake, but it is your mistake.

If this goes to court, I dont think you have a leg to stand on. This is your mistake 100%. I can completely understand you not wanting to pay for it, but they never told you to use it or held a gun to your head. One way or another you will either end up paying it back, a CCJ or both and you could find they also make the decision they no longer want you working for the company.

Savvy_Sue

As someone who has entered into correspondence with the company mobile provider on the odd occasion that there have been unexpected charges in the billing area, this isn't an argument I'd expect to win.



I'd expect the response to be "yeah, that's a lot, why don't we change your contract going forward to avoid this sort of charge?"


To be fair, we haven't been talking about amounts of this size, more like £20, so we haven't felt inclined to argue that hard, but the ONLY time I felt we succeeded was when we reported a phone stolen by phone and failed to follow up with an email, and continued to bill us for rental for three months which we didn't notice. And I thought we were lucky that time that they agreed to refund those three months' rental, and they were very clear that all phone reports of that nature had to be followed up by email.



Now, if I were dealing with this at the OP's company, I might be able to argue that £x was their 'normal' data use, BUT I doubt my manager would want me to spend a lot of time chasing this when it is so clearly the OP's actions which have led to this bill. Because my time costs money, and spending my time sorting out the OP's error isn't necessarily the best use of my time.

Smellyonion

Exodi wrote: »

I can buy a 12 pack of Heinz baked beans from Tesco for £5 yet they'll charge me 85 pence to buy them individually. The beans costs the same to 'produce' regardless of whether it's bulk or not bulk. It's just priced different. I would argue that paying 85 pence for one tin of beans is extortionate and could be defended via court. My logic applies to the same in this instance.

But let's still remind ourselves that there's no responsibility of the employer to negotiate the cost of data for personal use for a business SIM, why would there be.

You keep saying the trust between employee and employer is already damaged, yet the OP is still very much employed and it's certainly within his control to keep it that way.

I do ask you to think about this pragmatically though - no-one is denying that £2800 is a large amount of money to charge for 80gb of data. If the OP however says 'that's too much, I'm not paying it' the debt by default would have to be paid by his employer. It would then be his employer who takes him to court for their costs incurred, the argument that it is too much is entirely superfluous to his ownership of the debt - the default position you avoid recognising is that the employer has to absorb this if he doesn't.

It's not so much emotion, it's more an awareness that there are real people behind the posts on these forums, and whilst one can make themselves feel better by giving knee-jerk advice like 'it's too much, just don't pay it and hope it disappears', it will likely prove devastating to the OP when he is awarded a CCJ and their court costs.

I don't think you are comparing apple and oranges. You are comparing a minor price difference. Here we are talking about 100x the comparative market product.


If they charge 1p for a multipack of 5 vs £1 for a single, would there not be uproar?


Like I said, what if the company signed a contract for £10,000 per GB over the allowance? Would the employee be expected to pay?


Data is data and is available on the market for a variety of price, if this went to court, I would not contest the fact that it didn't happen. I would contest the sheer cost and the negligence of the employer causing the extent of the bill.


It is likely that the courts would place responsibility on the employer for the excessive cost, the employee did not create such contract.


a) data is far above market value and the employee had every reason to believe it would not cost the amount it did.


b) Employers negligence that they didn't switch data off on such a high cost contract- effectively entrapping employees should they exceed the allowance.


c) Employer did not make the data cost known, any reasonable individual would not expect to pay £30 a gb.