"Sorry, it's company policy"

slimjimmc wrote: »

They can probably go as far as they want so long as they're compliant with their legal and contractual obligations.

Do you have a specific consumer issue that you need help with?

OK, I'll give the specific instance. It's for a prepaid mobile phone number. The operator requires a top up of credit on a regular basis. If the customer does not top up within a certain period then the number is made inactive until the customer adds credit to the account. Seems simple enough until you discover that the operator can shorten the period in which to top up and also the period in which it is possible to reactive the account and claim the frozen credit, and this without prior notice.
In my case a payment was made to reactivate the account thru an ATM but the account was not reactivated until I complained. Then it appeared that the payment from the ATM had been lost because, according to company 'policy', ATM payments made while inactive are not applied to the account. The net result was that the operator effectively kept the money without any notification of this. To me that seemed like theft.

It took some phone calls and a few concessions in the name of 'goodwill' but no acknowledgement that their policy actually allows them to silently <SNIP> customers' money.

Part of this is their abysmal technical support but they seem to allow for this with vague and outdated Ts+Cs which they can change 'from time to time' without notification. Written confirmation of anything verbally agreed is 'against company policy'.

My question is, how far can a company go with vague Ts+Cs and invoking 'policy' in refusing reasonable requests. In some countries merchants have little or no leeway in such matters and in this case would have to immediately revert the change to the account and refund the ATM payment because none of their actions was explicitly detailed in their T's+C's, policy be damned. I wonder if it's the same in Ireland.

slimjimmc wrote: »

If it's not stated in the T&C's then it is not an agreed term and therefore is most likely outside the terms of the contract. In that case I fully expect you would entitled to a refund, however I'm not aware of any obligation that this be done automatically. Mobile phone networks are regulated by Comreg, if you are unhappy with how a particular provider is operating you can register a complaint with them. http://www.askcomreg.ie/about_us/contact_us.26.LE.asp

Thanks for the responses.

The Terms and Conditions I'm dealing with are http://www.vodafone.ie/terms/prepay/.

To me they seem so general as to be intentionally an excuse for obtuseness. Wherever there is a specific term mentioned (as in 8 months vaidity for prepaid numbers) it is overriden by the provision that it can change at any time. In my experience this has usually been in favour of the company. Also, I have never ever received an email or SMS informing me of a change to the T's+C's. When I ask on the phone for relevant conditions in writing I'm told that this is against company policy.

The end result is that you can pay them money in good faith and they keep the money without providing the expected service. They confirm this in a post on their support forum here on boards but I can not tie them down with the vague T's+C's.

My question is, is there some straightforward law that I can use to force them to refund money for a service they did not provide.

In other countries that I am more familiar with there is no need for a contract for a service like this because the consumer's rights are clearer and better protected by default and no contract can attempt to override them. In this case the operator would never be able to claim that they can change conditions 'from time to time' and certainly never without prior notification.

I've looked at comreg but it appears everything is assessed on a case by case basis so I have to pursue this with the operator first which gives them an opportunity to quote whatever terms and conditions and policies suit their case.

D3PO wrote: »

Im not sure of the legal position here but I can understand why they would have this kind of policy on prepaid phones. If they are not being topped up its just a resource drain on the company and costing them money and they are getting no revenue in return.

Many companies charge for their utilities even if they are not being used.

Electricity - standing charge even if you use 0 watts
Banks - many have quarterly account charges even if no transactions are being made.

I dont think what Vodafone are doing is unreasonable which it appears you do, perhaps they should state in their T&C's that there is a charge to reactivate the number and in that way it is then very clear as opposed to the way the process works.

I think you miss my point. I don't expect anything for free; Vodafone prices their overhead into the per-minute charges for their service so if you top up a certain amount you pay for all of this in advance. If you don't use the service and, after a reminder, they terminate the service and keep unused credit then that is OK if, and only if, this is made crystal clear in their Terms and Conditions. What Vodafone has done is deactivated an account earlier than specificied and simply <SNIP> the payment made to reactivate it.

Maybe you're used to this level of service; I certainly am not. But what I'm after is the legal basis for ending an agreed and paid for service early and then taking a further payment and simply keeping it, all without a single notification or advice.

D3PO wrote: »

its actually not a paid for service. The clue is in the name pay as you go.

They can call it whatever they like, Pay Before and Regardless Of Whether You Go would be more accurate. The name of a service does not constitute a legal contract and override one's statutory rights.

But I'm not arguing about having to pay for something. I'm trying to find out how a company can legally breach its own terms and conditions and then simply keep a further good faith payment from a customer which was made in accordance with their terms and conditions.

D3PO wrote: »

Id liken it to a voucher. You havent paid for the service until you consume it. Said vouchers likely have an expiry date (now the legal basis of these are a whole diff discussion ! ) but if you dont use it you lose it as it were.

similar premise here.

But if you went to cash in a voucher and were told that they had brought forward the expiry date without telling you then you'd have what I'm facing.

And if they then said that if you buy another voucher that they will reinstate the old voucher until its published expiry date you could say that that was reasonable.

But if you pay money for the second voucher and then simply take your money and walk away leaving you with no vouchers you'd have my situation.

And then you spend hours on the phone and, as a goodwill gesture, they give you a new voucher without telling you how long it is valid then you'd have my situation.

Is this legal in Ireland?

D3PO wrote: »

And the OP got notice in the form of a text ........

so wheres the breach ?

I didn't get any notice of a change in T's+C's in a text, or in an email which would be more suitable to something like this.

Where did I say I was notified of a change in T's+C's?

Orion wrote: »

Right here.

Whew! I'm glad someone believes me.

slimjimmc wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, at least we can see what your complaint is and it seems you certainly do have grounds.
Your best approach is to send a written a complaint to Vodafone by registered post. In your letter be factual and concise, outline the above, state what you want and request a resolution within 10 working days. You should first confirm with your bank that the ATM transaction was successfully completed and money transferred to Vodafone. If you continue to get an unsatisfactory response you have the necessary records to go to Comreg. Yes they deal on a case by case basis (which is important to you) but if they find systemic issues they can deal with those too.

Thanks for the reply. I don't live in Ireland and I am maintaining this prepaid number for an elderly disabled relative. It will be a few weeks before I can get my hands on the original of the ATM receipt and the bank statement but I think I will go straight to Comreg just because it's easier to do online.

Vodafone do try to help to a certain extent on the phone but it is a lot of trouble to pursue such a simple matter. When they rectify a problem they caused themselves they do so as a 'goodwill gesture'. Part of this is company culture, I assume, but I suspect it's just a combination of slipshod business and massive laziness on the part of the management. Clearly the CEO is more interested in things other than making sure that someone is dotting i's and crossing t's on the business side of things.

In my case I've just lost a lot of time and very little money. It's a systemic issue that I find is common in Ireland and these things won't start to get fixed unless people complain. Where I live people may not be as nice or friendly as in Ireland but one thing is for sure no major company would ever get away with doing business like this.

D3PO wrote: »

ok maybe i read it wrong. Then again notice of expiry would that also constitute notice of a change in the t&c's i dunno its unlikely Im just playing devils advocate here.

Mr Advocate for the Devil, just please tell me which Irish phone provider you use because I'm going to switch to them ASAP!

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The expiry after 8 months is one thing, although Vodafone handle this badly. The acceptance of the money from the ATM, but providing nothing in return is surely more serious. If you paid something towards a product or service, where the service provider decided not to provide that service, then surely the shop would have to refund your money.

Yes, you're right. This is the thing I want to get them on. I just don't know how far I can go with this in Ireland.
Where I am you only have to mention the F-word: Fraud. Once you show that you paid for something you didn't get, no matter how little, then you're in the right. Works every time. If you have the time.

ash23 wrote: »

I think the issue though is that because it's pre-pay, it's not a contract.
If you were bill pay, you would have signed or agreed to a contract with Vodafone and they would not be able to change the terms and conditions without notifying you in that instance.

However, because it's pre-pay, you're using a service and agreeing to the terms and conditions of the company providing that service. Much like if your local salon puts up their prices, or your dentist brings in a cancellation fee for appointments.
They are entitled to make changes to the t&c of their service and they probably made the changes to their published t&c online. They also notified the user of the service of the imminent discontinuation of the service by SMS.

I don't think you have a contract OP. Therefore I don't think you have to be notified about changes.

I'm open to correction as I'm no legal eagle. Just going by my own work.

We have contracts and terms and conditions but they are two separate things. The terms and conditions are basically what we offer and the circumstances we offer them in. We can change these whenever we want.

However, when someone agrees to a 12 month contract with us, they agree the contract based on the terms and conditions at the time they enter the contract. We can only change the t&c for them when their contract expires, even if the t&c have changed in the meantime.

As it's prepay I don't think you have much hope in terms of arguing that they should have notified you of the change of t&c. I'd imagine that somewhere in the t&c it says they are subject to change.

I think you'd fare better by asking them to refund the money that was paid as it was paid in good faith and explain the situation to them.

I see your point but their T's+C's online are out of date and they cancelled the service two weeks after the ATM payment. They have never ever once informed my any changes to the T's+C's. I would also think that there is an implied contract based on the T's+C's in force at the moment of payment but the question here is how much can a company imply with such vague, variable terms, and how much can a company invoke 'policy'.

For instance I have a very advantageous phone subscription in Holland. It was such a good deal that the company stopped selling it during the crisis. However, it was grandfathered for all existing subscribers so I keep the same deal, on a month to month basis, probably because there was something in the nature of the subscription that made it difficult for them to cancel. If I try to change the subscription I immediately move to a worse deal. I didn't even think I had anything after the initial contract expired so I am a happy camper. just wish I could get a mortgage like that...