Work Phone bill - £2400!!!

Smellyonion

Undervalued wrote: »

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!

Think of what you have just written. Understand the logic. It is, in fact, the opposite.


You damage a 10k car.


The owner expects you to pay 20k because they bought it for 20k and their loss was a 20k.


The car is objectively worth 10k, you are liable for 10k - the market value.


Try and sue for 20k and see how far that gets you. The same principle applies here.

Ozzuk

Smellyonion wrote: »

Think of what you have just written. Understand the logic. It is, in fact, the opposite.


You damage a 10k car.


The owner expects you to pay 20k because they bought it for 20k and their loss was a 20k.


The car is objectively worth 10k, you are liable for 10k - the market value.


Try and sue for 20k and see how far that gets you. The same principle applies here.

Undervalued said 'expensive', not made up value or purchase price. So if you write off a car valued (not purchased) at 60k you are liable for 60k. If you write of a 10k car you are liable for 10k. you don't get to neogiate your view that in your opinion the car should only be 30k, or 5k respectively. you are creating an arguement that doesn't exist.


The contract has penalties that kick in if you breach the contract. If you don't agree with the charges, don't use the service.

MEM62

Smellyonion wrote: »

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.

That argument would fail at the first hurdle. Your argument relies on the assumption that the employer has an obligation to negotiate the contract in order to negate or minimise the costs incurred by the employee. They are under no such obligation as (a) they will select the tariff that best suits the needs of the business (and cost may not be their overriding consideration in decision making.) and (b) there is no prior expectation that excess data would be used by the employee for their personal browsing.

You cannot argue that the company should take the cheapest package available in case one of it's employees uses the facility for personal use. The contract is established for the use and benefit of the company - not the employee.

Smellyonion

MEM62 wrote: »

That argument would fail at the first hurdle. Your argument relies on the assumption that the employer has an obligation to negotiate the contract in order to negate or minimise the costs incurred by the employee. They are under no such obligation as (a) they will select the tariff that best suits the needs of the business (and cost may not be their overriding consideration in decision making.) and (b) there is no prior expectation that excess data would be used by the employee for their personal browsing.

You cannot argue that the company should take the cheapest package available in case one of it's employees uses the facility for personal use. The contract is established for the use and benefit of the company - not the employee.

Disagree, like I said, if I contract £10k a GB, would the employee be liable? It is not as clear cut as you propose. The employer does have a responsibility to minimise the risk to the employee. Why wasn't data switched off? The world has changed a lot in the past 10 years, high data consumption is now almost - normal.


Had the employee known about the cost before hand, would they have been more careful or even refused the work phone? Did the employer provide this information?

Smellyonion

Ozzuk wrote: »

Undervalued said 'expensive', not made up value or purchase price. So if you write off a car valued (not purchased) at 60k you are liable for 60k. If you write of a 10k car you are liable for 10k. you don't get to neogiate your view that in your opinion the car should only be 30k, or 5k respectively. you are creating an arguement that doesn't exist.


The contract has penalties that kick in if you breach the contract. If you don't agree with the charges, don't use the service.

exactly and is 60gb valued at £2400?


The contract is not between the employee and the network. Nobody would sign up to that. Was the employee given any indication of the cost? of the contract? of the real cost? no. They were therefore not given an opportunity to not use it. You only further prove my point.

Ozzuk

Smellyonion wrote: »

exactly and is 60gb valued at £2400?


The contract is not between the employee and the network. Nobody would sign up to that. Was the employee given any indication of the cost? of the contract? of the real cost? no. They were therefore not given an opportunity to not use it. You only further prove my point.

Just becuase you think it isn't market value, doesn't make that that case. If you write off a car valued at 10k, go to court and tell the judge, "hey Judge, I reckon that car is only worth 3k" how far do you think that will get you?

The time to argue the value of a contract penalty is when taking out that contract, it becomes a moot point once you've agreed. I would agree that employees rarely consider penalties that might apply, but that doesn't absolve them of any responsibility (IMHO).

Exodi

Smellyonion wrote: »

The contract is not between the employee and the network. Nobody would sign up to that. Was the employee given any indication of the cost? of the contract? of the real cost? no. They were therefore not given an opportunity to not use it. You only further prove my point.

I am surprised that it is only you and Potbellypig in this entire thread that think the employer should pay this and you evidence this with extreme exaggeration. I'll tell you what is a ridiculous sum though - 60-80gb of data usage in a month.

*£30 per gigabyte (3 pence per mb) of off contract data is around the market rate - it's frustrating you keep saying it's not and spouting things like 'what if it was a gazillion pounds per byte, would that be OK?' - it's not.

Just like Potbellypig, you seem to be completely oblivious/ignorant to that fact that the debt would default to the employer. You have an employer, who has provided a business SIM for business usage, expected to pick up a £2800 bill for personal usage by an employee. I really don't think you appreciate the ridiculousness of this. I'd fully expect (and hope) if the OP did try to stitch up their employer with the debt that they'd be taken to court for all the costs incurred.

Smellyonion wrote:

I would contest the sheer cost and the negligence of the employer causing the extent of the bill.

The sheer irony in this is just too much for me to comment on. You can not be serious.

Smellyonion wrote:

It is likely that the courts would place responsibility on the employer

I think the courts would be rolling in their chairs in a chorus of laughter that the OP is suggesting the debt is the employers responsibility.

Smellyonion wrote:

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

As usual, it's not. And the employee had every reason to expect it did. It's no secret that going over your plan costs a fortune. And as usual they shouldn't have been using it in the first place. They chose to get a dual sim phone...

Smellyonion wrote:

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

All the places I've worked deliberately don't set a data cap because they want their employees to be able to access work information at any time. Your comments about 'entrapping employees' is frankly absurd - they don't want their employees using their phones for personal tasks!! I'm beginning to question your sincerity.

Undervalued

Smellyonion wrote: »

Disagree, like I said, if I contract £10k a GB, would the employee be liable? It is not as clear cut as you propose. The employer does have a responsibility to minimise the risk to the employee. Why wasn't data switched off? The world has changed a lot in the past 10 years, high data consumption is now almost - normal.


Had the employee known about the cost before hand, would they have been more careful or even refused the work phone? Did the employer provide this information?

Had they used the work phone, as the employer intended, just for work none of this would have happened. This only came about because the employee decided to put the work issued SIM card into their own dual SIM phone then got mixed up (apparently) over which card it was using!

So they either negligently (at best) or fraudulently (at worst) ran the employer up a huge bill for which they are now liable.

As I said earlier, providing it has genuinely cost the employer this amount then everything else is irrelevant.

MEM62

Smellyonion wrote: »

Disagree, like I said, if I contract £10k a GB, would the employee be liable?
The employee is not liable on the basis of the level of cost. The employee is liable because they used a facility that was not theirs.
It is not as clear cut as you propose.
It is precisely that clear cut.
The employer does have a responsibility to minimise the risk to the employee.
No, because the data was not purchased or intended for the employees use.
Why wasn't data switched off?
I expect because it need to be available for the use in the execution of companies business. You cannot 'switch off' a company tool because an employee has used it inappropriately.
The world has changed a lot in the past 10 years, high data consumption is now almost - normal.
Irrelevant. Whatever data usage limits were in place were set to meet the needs of the business (not misuse by the employee) and if those limits were exceeded in the course of business use the company would pick up the tab.

Had the employee known about the cost before hand, would they have been more careful or even refused the work phone? Did the employer provide this information?
Again, irrelevant because the phone was provided for work use, not personal use. The employee had a duty to be careful anyway as it was not their data to use.

You are missing the point that this is a company facility that has been misused. Why are you expecting the company to have policies in place to protect an employee that misuses it's facilities? That is an obligation that, in a case such as this, an employer simply does not have.

Smellyonion

Exodi wrote: »

I am surprised that it is only you and Potbellypig in this entire thread that think the employer should pay this and you evidence this with extreme exaggeration. I'll tell you what is a ridiculous sum though - 60-80gb of data usage in a month.

*£30 per gigabyte (3 pence per mb) of off contract data is around the market rate - it's frustrating you keep saying it's not and spouting things like 'what if it was a gazillion pounds per byte, would that be OK?' - it's not.

Just like Potbellypig, you seem to be completely oblivious/ignorant to that fact that the debt would default to the employer. You have an employer, who has provided a business SIM for business usage, expected to pick up a £2800 bill for personal usage by an employee. I really don't think you appreciate the ridiculousness of this. I'd fully expect (and hope) if the OP did try to stitch up their employer with the debt that they'd be taken to court for all the costs incurred.



The sheer irony in this is just too much for me to comment on. You can not be serious.



I think the courts would be rolling in their chairs in a chorus of laughter that the OP is suggesting the debt is the employers responsibility.



As usual, it's not. And the employee had every reason to expect it did. It's no secret that going over your plan costs a fortune. And as usual they shouldn't have been using it in the first place. They chose to get a dual sim phone...



All the places I've worked deliberately don't set a data cap because they want their employees to be able to access work information at any time. Your comments about 'entrapping employees' is frankly absurd - they don't want their employees using their phones for personal tasks!! I'm beginning to question your sincerity.

So a gazillion pounds per GB is not acceptable yet this is not?


My hunch is that the employer is on an archaic contract which they have been running since 2010, where data is extortionately charged. I firmly would not pay it and I would offer a market rate minus what would be equivalent business use.


I would clearly state that the contract is between the employer and the network. The misuse is a separate matter, chargeable at market rates not an extortionate archaic contract that the employer should be managing.


It will be a costly mistake for the employer if found to be vicariously liable.