O2 - Refused Customer...won't say why...

higster

Strange this one. My mother went to get one of those 3G modems that you hook up to your PC though USB.

However they said they could not give her a contract.

First they said was poor credit rating. She got this checked and was clean as a whislte.

When she went back to O2 they said that "da computer says not to give it to you" and totally refused to say why (did the usual ie supervisor etc etc but no change).

I've told her to get onto comreg and failing that a solicitor...any ideas out there why this would be the case?

Thanks.

feylya

Tell her to reapply. She'll be approved. Apparently they just deny random people, like one in 13.

tbh

if they don't want her business, why bother trying to make them give it to her?

Sam Vimes

having done hundreds of o2 contracts i can tell you that the reason they didn't tell her why is that they don't know why. they put the details in the computer and it either says yes or no. (cue little britain moment)


and they don't check your credit rating. its a credit score which is a bit different. you give them details like how long you've lived at your address and if you're married etc and they score you. if you don't get a high enough score you don't get accepted. they don't check anything externally

there is some random element in there where they refuse perfectly legitimate people for no apparent reason such as happened here but i'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. you can try calling o2 customer care on 1909 and asking to speak to a manager but i don't know how far it'll get you

ScouseMouse

You could always use the data protection act to get any information they have on your application. This allows you to see any info that someone holds on you which is held on computer. That may give you some idea.

Doctor DooM

superscouse wrote: »

You could always use the data protection act to get any information they have on your application. This allows you to see any info that someone holds on you which is held on computer. That may give you some idea.

Believe me, the only info they will have is what you have just given.

From my experience, this is likely because your mother didnt offer direct debit, prob in conjunction with something else. Is she retired?

If you ring O2 and ask to speak to a manager, they may be able to get it overturned. I did once or twice.

Can I just point out to the "get comreg" people that its in no way illegal for a company to refuse anyone business?

wirelessdude

just get a voda or 3 one instead

Access

She might be on the ICB List... www.icb.ie

You can end up on the list even if you miss one mortgage payment! :mad:

Archeron

I agree, if thats the way they treat potential customers, then go elsewhere. My own experience is that when you do become a customer with them, you'll get the same level of service, ie, none.

jhegarty

Access wrote: »

She might be on the ICB List... www.icb.ie

You can end up on the list even if you miss one mortgage payment! :mad:

Only the banks on the list can access it... (plus the person its about).....

antoinolachtnai

You could take this up with comreg. Be very specific. Say that you believe that o2 are in breach of their obligations under the licence because they are not providing a service to the public in general, and that you have been refused service for no good reason that you know of.

The radio spectrum which O2 uses is not a private resource. It's a public resource which has been leased to 02for a particular purpose (a public telecoms service).

Your mother could also take the first steps of a claim under equality legislation. There is a simple form to fill in and supply to o2. (Basically this will allow her to make the case that she believes she was not given the service because of her sex, age or where she lives, or a few other causes). They will have to give a reason under this legislation.

Sam Vimes

that is the worst advice i have ever seen. Firstly, o2 is a private company. They are not obliged to accept anyone. The only telecoms provider that is required to provide a connection to everyone is eircom.

secondly, you're advising her to start a fraudulant law suit against a company that has thousands of customers her age, hundreds of thousands of her sex, hundreds in her area etc. She would lose and rightly be left with a massive legal bill

you seem to forget that she was probably the tenth person to be refused that day in that shop alone. Do you think o2 have never prepared for the possibility of a law suit?

antoinolachtnai

Are you certain of what you are saying?

It's not fraudulent. She doesn't know why she was refused service. She is entitled to know.

There would be no legal bill involved in the initial step. If she took the next step, it would go to Tribunal, not Court. The legal fees would be low or nil. She could not have costs awarded against her.

From the information that was supplied, it appears that the OP's mother was credit scored. The credit score may take into account factors such as family circumstances, gender and age. Such scoring systems may well be (though are not necessarily) discriminatory if they take these factors into account in any way. This particular system appears to be wholly arbitrary in nature. Similar arbitrary criteria have been found to be discriminatory in the past.

O2 certainly do have obligations to provide service, for example under section 2.1 of their licence from 2000, and possible under statute and other agreements as well.

board om

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You could take this up with comreg. Be very specific. Say that you believe that o2 are in breach of their obligations under the licence because they are not providing a service to the public in general, and that you have been refused service for no good reason that you know of.

The radio spectrum which O2 uses is not a private resource. It's a public resource which has been leased to 02for a particular purpose (a public telecoms service).

Your mother could also take the first steps of a claim under equality legislation. There is a simple form to fill in and supply to o2. (Basically this will allow her to make the case that she believes she was not given the service because of her sex, age or where she lives, or a few other causes). They will have to give a reason under this legislation.

there is absolutley no need for her to do any of that. she has no case what so ever and it is absolutely nothing to do with comreg.

as sam vines said in his post every customer is put through a credit scoring system. they dont use any information other than what your mother would have given them so there is no ICB list involved in the process. it just awards + and - points for the various answers you give to questions and in the end you are given a score. then based on this score they either approve you as a customer without condidtion, or approve you but with €100 deposit, or deny you altogether. the more information you give the more + points you get.

so if you are a professional, your a home owner, living at address over 3 years, you give home telephone number and mobile number, the phone bill is in your name, etc you will get approved with no deposits or conditions.

if you are a student, renting accomodation, living at address for 3 months, with only one contact number, etc they will require a deposit.

simple as that. it could be something like your mother only moving house recently or not giving a contact number that would have given her negative points.

bottom line is if you want to always pass the credit scoring systems, you are always a professional, you are always 3+ years at address, you are always a home owner, and you give all the contact details i.e. phone, email, etc they ask for. then it is +++ all the way.

jahalpin

They are not refusing her a service, they are only refusing to give her a credit account. That are not stopping her from buying a pre-pay phone.

No company, even Eircom, has to allow everyone the privilege of a credit facility. Under the telecom licences they only have to provide people access to the telecom service, which can be made avaliable using pre-pay accounts.

Companies are not required to disclose the reasons for not opening a credit account and therefore the woman cannot sue due to being refused credit

O2 have a responibility to their shareholders to minimize the companies exposure to bad debts.

board om

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Are you certain of what you are saying?

There would be no legal bill involved in the initial step. If she took the next step, it would go to Tribunal, not Court. The legal fees would be low or nil. She could not have costs awarded against her.

it would not go to tribunal. and if she took them to court she would need legal repesenttion so there WOULD be fees involved for that. no solicitor is going to do it for free. and if she lost then she would be stuck with the cost of her own fees and she would also have to pay the their legal fees.

Gillo

feylya wrote: »

Tell her to reapply. She'll be approved. Apparently they just deny random people, like one in 13.

It's a hell of a lot more technical than that. Faceman gave an excellent explanation, or how and why come people may be refused, I'll try and find it and post a link to it.

Gillo

Here's the post I was thing off, it explains what happens very well. As for the ICB, AFAIK O2 don't have any dealing with them since O2 are not a financial institution.

(It's post number 16)

stepbar

Access wrote: »

She might be on the ICB List... www.icb.ie

You can end up on the list even if you miss one mortgage payment! :mad:

Wrong. 3 missed payments and a loan is deemed to be in arrears. The Financial Institution can then notify the ICB.

Gillo wrote: »

Here's the post I was thing off, it explains what happens very well. As for the ICB, AFAIK O2 don't have any dealing with them since O2 are not a financial institution.

(It's post number 16)

If O2 provide any sort of credit facility to the customer they are entitled to run a credit check with the customers concent.

jahalpin wrote: »

They are not refusing her a service, they are only refusing to give her a credit account. That are not stopping her from buying a pre-pay phone.

No company, even Eircom, has to allow everyone the privilege of a credit facility. Under the telecom licences they only have to provide people access to the telecom service, which can be made avaliable using pre-pay accounts.

Companies are not required to disclose the reasons for not opening a credit account and therefore the woman cannot sue due to being refused credit

O2 have a responibility to their shareholders to minimize the companies exposure to bad debts.

Correct. And they don't even have to give a reason. Tough luck as they say.

Gillo

stepbar wrote: »

If O2 provide any sort of credit facility to the customer they are entitled to run a credit check with the customers concent.

I'll check the exact T&C's next time I'm in work, but since I'm not in my normal branch all this week and part of next week it may take a few days to get back, we should get a definite answer than.
Point of note; I work for O2, but don't post on behalf of O2, anything I post on Boards is my opinion and definitely not meant as the opinion of my employer

antoinolachtnai

The OP said that she was refused completely as a customer. I don't think the particular offer she was interested in is available from that provider on a pre-pay basis. In any case prepay fees are almost always higher than postpay fees.

The OP said that she was not a credit risk.

The impression is being given that o2 are entitled to make arbitrary decisions about creditworthiness. They are not.

The impression is being given that O2's computer-based decisions cannot be opened to scrutiny. They can.

it would not go to tribunal. and if she took them to court she would need legal repesenttion so there WOULD be fees involved for that. no solicitor is going to do it for free. and if she lost then she would be stuck with the cost of her own fees and she would also have to pay the their legal fees.

When did mobile phone companies become exempt from equality tribunal proceedings?

Sam Vimes

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Are you certain of what you are saying?

i'm basing what i'm saying on having done many many o2 contracts

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's not fraudulent. She doesn't know why she was refused service. She is entitled to know.

but surely if she doesn't know why she was refused service and she starts a law suit claiming she was refused because of her age/sex/(insert random reason here because she doesn't know), it has to be fraudulent?

and who says she's entitled to know? can you point to the relevant legislation or are you assuming she has a right that she may not have?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There would be no legal bill involved in the initial step. If she took the next step, it would go to Tribunal, not Court. The legal fees would be low or nil. She could not have costs awarded against her.

you're making two incorrect assumptions there. the first is that solicitors work for free. the second is that a judge won't award costs against a plaintiff who has started a nuisance lawsuit slandering o2. two parents who were trying to get proper schooling for their autistic child now have a bill in the millions after losing. why would this be any different?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

From the information that was supplied, it appears that the OP's mother was credit scored. The credit score may take into account factors such as family circumstances, gender and age. Such scoring systems may well be (though are not necessarily) discriminatory if they take these factors into account in any way. This particular system appears to be wholly arbitrary in nature. Similar arbitrary criteria have been found to be discriminatory in the past.

the credit scoring system is automated. o2 can show a judge the software used to score people and prove in seconds that it is not discriminatory. do you think o2 would buy or produce software that breaks the law every time it's used?

also, the words arbitrary and discriminatory have completely opposite meanings. discriminatory means making decisions based on pre defined criteria and arbitrary means making decisions randomly, with no criteria. you might as well be saying that left has been found to be right

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

O2 certainly do have obligations to provide service, for example under section 2.1 of their licence from 2000, and possible under statute and other agreements as well.

what are these obligation specifically? are you 100% sure that o2 are required to give a contract to anyone who asks for one? (i'll give you a hint: they're not)

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The OP said that she was refused completely as a customer. I don't think the particular offer she was interested in is available from that provider on a pre-pay basis. In any case prepay fees are almost always higher than postpay fees.

no one is refused, they are "recommended speakeasy". i'd really like a link to the legislation that says they have to accept everyone on a contract who asks for it. i think o2 would like to know that too. the process would be a whole lot faster because they could just throw out their credit scoring software

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The impression is being given that o2 are entitled to make arbitrary decisions about creditworthiness. They are not.

who says they're not? where does it say that? did you ever see a sign in a shop that says "management reserve the right to refuse admission"? they don't even have to let her into the shop, much less trust her with a credit agreement

Gillo

Based on the information the customer gave she was refused (we'll assume she supplied truthful information).

A similar example is car insurance, I'm a 29 year old male, five years ago when I first started looking for cover, I was been charged way more than my then 57 year old father. Was it age discrimination? I'd say no it wasn't, statistically I was viewed a a greater risk to the insurance companies, so much so that some completely refused to insure me.

antoinolachtnai

Re Gillo's case, on age discrimination, the insurer needs to be able to depend on actuarial evidence to justify this. It's in the Act.

This thing about my advice giving rise to fraudulent claims is baseless and really insulting. The OP's mother does not know why she was refused service. She is entitled to consider and investigate the possibility that she has been discriminated against on one of the nine grounds. There is nothing 'fraudulent' about that.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 essentially requires service providers to give reasons for refusal to provide service. They may decline to respond, but if they do not respond, the Equality Tribunal is entitled to draw a negative inference later on the basis of this.

Credit offered in the course of business is like any other service. You cannot discriminate on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the Act. In practice this means that you must give a reason.

The OP said that the person was refused flat with no alternative offered.

I never said that everyone was entitled to a contract without reservation. You just put those words in my mouth. The person was entitled to be treated fairly and given the reasons for any decision. On the face of it, given the details we have (i.e., her credit is good) and that there are no other special circumstances, she is entitled to use the service under standard contract terms.

In general a shop is not entitled to refuse admission on the basis of the nine grounds in the equality legislation. In practice this means that they have to give a reason for a refusal.

If you don't know the terms of the MOs' licences and you consider yourself authoritative on what MO's can and can't do in the marketplace, you really should go to the trouble of actually reading the section of the licence that I've mentioned before. I don't see any point in discussing it further until you've done at least that.

If 02 can show the judge the software that they used to make their decision, then why don't they just show it to the OP's mother? All she wants to know is why she was refused.

Automated decisionmaking in important matters such as creditworthiness is forbidden by the Data Protection Acts without the explicit consent of the subject. O2 should not do this and I would be surprised if they do. If they do this, they should stop.

This stuff about solicitors being needed is rubbish. Who said anything about a 'law suit'? Why are you talking about going to court? This is nothing remotely like the claim of the parents of the autistic child. You are drawing a completely false analogy and you must know this. You do not need a solicitor to initiate an equality claim and you do not need to go to court. This idea that you need a solicitor to do anything to vindicate your rights is just wrong, as is the idea that big companies can do what they like to consumers with impunity.

I can see that someone might want to put forward the position of the big company in this case, but it is unfair to present this view as neutral advice and then to follow up with comments and arguments which O2 must know hold no water.

Sam Vimes

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This thing about my advice giving rise to fraudulent claims is baseless and really insulting. The OP's mother does not know why she was refused service. She is entitled to consider and investigate the possibility that she has been discriminated against on one of the nine grounds. There is nothing 'fraudulent' about that.

this is what you said:

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Your mother could also take the first steps of a claim under equality legislation. There is a simple form to fill in and supply to o2. (Basically this will allow her to make the case that she believes she was not given the service because of her sex, age or where she lives, or a few other causes)

you said she should fill in a form saying she believes that she was refused on one of those grounds. you did not say she should investigate whether she was, you said she should CLAIM she was.

if you're going to change your story, you should edit your previous posts.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 essentially requires service providers to give reasons for refusal to provide service. They may decline to respond, but if they do not respond, the Equality Tribunal is entitled to draw a negative inference later on the basis of this.

this is the relevant part of the act:
A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director.

so it doesn't say they have to give a reason, it says that if a person believes the reason was one of the nine grounds, they may seek redress. so to start legal proceedings she would have to claim o2 broke equality legislation. but since she has no reason to believe they did, she would have to lie.


of the nine reasons, the only ones asked for on the form are age, marital status and i think sex so she's going to have to randomly pick one of those. i advise she doesn't use sex since they have hundreds of thousands of customers of both sexes. the idea that they're discriminating against middle aged people is just laughable so that's out. that just leaves martial status. do o2 refuse married people do you think?



let's make this totally clear. i can guarantee you with 100% certainty that o2 did not break equality legislation in refusing her. now there's no need for any legal proceedings

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Credit offered in the course of business is like any other service. You cannot discriminate on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the Act. In practice this means that you must give a reason.

no, apparently in practice this means that people can start nuisance legal proceedings that are guaranteed to be thrown out in order to try to make you give a reason

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The OP said that the person was refused flat with no alternative offered.

no one is refused a pre pay phone because there is no credit score involved. maybe they didn't offer her a pre pay phone because she came in for broadband. regardless, there was an alternative

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I never said that everyone was entitled to a contract without reservation. You just put those words in my mouth.

this is what you said:

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Say that you believe that o2 are in breach of their obligations under the licence because they are not providing a service to the public in general
<snip>
The radio spectrum which O2 uses is not a private resource. It's a public resource which has been leased to 02for a particular purpose (a public telecoms service).

you said that o2 have some sort of obligation to provide a service to the general public, similar to eircom's obligation to provide a landline to every house in the country. they have no such obligation. they are a business that can refuse to take someone's money if they so choose as long as they don't refuse based on one of the nine reasons, which as i already explained, they didn't. also, they are not preventing her from using the resource. she could have bought a pre pay phone with absolutely no hassle

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The person was entitled to be treated fairly and given the reasons for any decision. On the face of it, given the details we have (i.e., her credit is good) and that there are no other special circumstances, she is entitled to use the service under standard contract terms.

did you not even read the thread? several people have already said that o2 don't check her credit history so having good credit is completely irrelevant. the only information that is used in the credit score is what is filled in on the form. things such as how long you've lived at your address and whether you're employed full time are taken into account.

i've seen solicitors with 100,000 in the bank refused because they didn't score well on some part of the form. (they don't ask for your income or bank balance. i know he had 100,000 because he used his bank statement as proof of address and the balance was on it)

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you don't know the terms of the MOs' licences and you consider yourself authoritative on what MO's can and can't do in the marketplace, you really should go to the trouble of actually reading the section of the licence that I've mentioned before. I don't see any point in discussing it further until you've done at least that.

maybe you should look up the terms of the MO's licence since you think that o2 have a legal obligation provide broadband modems to people.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If 02 can show the judge the software that they used to make their decision, then why don't they just show it to the OP's mother? All she wants to know is why she was refused.

well first of all, the staff don't have access to the source code for the program and secondly, even if they did, the customer would not understand it. just looking at the program's interface isn't enough to understand it. i don't know how it works and i used it for years

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Automated decisionmaking in important matters such as creditworthiness is forbidden by the Data Protection Acts without the explicit consent of the subject. O2 should not do this and I would be surprised if they do. If they do this, they should stop.

well if its not automated they must have some sort of super human team doing the checking. i would click send on the form and have a decision 3-5 seconds later, depending on the speed of the internet at the time.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This stuff about solicitors being needed is rubbish. Who said anything about a 'law suit'? Why are you talking about going to court?

fair enough. solicitors probably wouldn't be needed, mostly because the complaint would not be upheld.

however, she may need a solicitor when they find out she lied on a government document.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is nothing remotely like the claim of the parents of the autistic child. You are drawing a completely false analogy and you must know this.

i know the cases are different. i was making the point that people are left with huge legal bills when they lose cases

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You do not need a solicitor to initiate an equality claim and you do not need to go to court. This idea that you need a solicitor to do anything to vindicate your rights is just wrong, as is the idea that big companies can do what they like to consumers with impunity.

no, she doesn't need a solicitor to initiate proceedings but what about after that? are you suggesting that she does it in the hopes that it doesn't get past the initial stages? what if it does? are solicitors ever needed in such cases?

and no one said big companies can do whatever they want with impunity.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I can see that someone might want to put forward the position of the big company in this case, but it is unfair to present this view as neutral advice and then to follow up with comments and arguments which O2 must know hold no water.

i don't work for o2 and never have. i used to work for a shop that sold several of the network's products. the views i am expressing are not to be taken as the views of o2

antoinolachtnai

Sam Vimes wrote: »

this is what you said:

you said she should fill in a form saying she believes that she was refused on one of those grounds. you did not say she should investigate whether she was, you said she should CLAIM she was.

if you're going to change your story, you should edit your previous posts.

You don't know what the first steps of an equality tribunal claim are and have no interest in finding out.

this is the relevant part of the act:
A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director.

so it doesn't say they have to give a reason, it says that if a person believes the reason was one of the nine grounds, they may seek redress. so to start legal proceedings she would have to claim o2 broke equality legislation. but since she has no reason to believe they did, she would have to lie.

You really should read the whole act, not just one paragraph of it.

of the nine reasons, the only ones asked for on the form are age, marital status and i think sex so she's going to have to randomly pick one of those. i advise she doesn't use sex since they have hundreds of thousands of customers of both sexes. the idea that they're discriminating against middle aged people is just laughable so that's out. that just leaves martial status. do o2 refuse married people do you think?

let's make this totally clear. i can guarantee you with 100% certainty that o2 did not break equality legislation in refusing her. now there's no need for any legal proceedings

Are you familiar with the concept of 'indirect discrimination'?

How can you guarantee this? I thought you worked in a mobile phone shop. You must also know a lot about o2's internal procedures and about European equality law.

no, apparently in practice this means that people can start nuisance legal proceedings that are guaranteed to be thrown out in order to try to make you give a reason

No it doesn't. That's just something you dreamed up.

no one is refused a pre pay phone because there is no credit score involved. maybe they didn't offer her a pre pay phone because she came in for broadband. regardless, there was an alternative

What alternative is there for mobile broadband?

this is what you said:

you said that o2 have some sort of obligation to provide a service to the general public, similar to eircom's obligation to provide a landline to every house in the country. they have no such obligation. they are a business that can refuse to take someone's money if they so choose as long as they don't refuse based on one of the nine reasons, which as i already explained, they didn't. also, they are not preventing her from using the resource. she could have bought a pre pay phone with absolutely no hassle

You obviously haven't bothered to read the licence. They do in fact have such an obligation.

You seem to know with absolute certainty that in this particular case, there was no discrimination involved. I cannot understand how you can have this certainty without having specific inside information, On the other hand, you claim not to be in a position to have this information.

did you not even read the thread? several people have already said that o2 don't check her credit history so having good credit is completely irrelevant. the only information that is used in the credit score is what is filled in on the form. things such as how long you've lived at your address and whether you're employed full time are taken into account.

If you pass the test, you are considered creditworthy and if you don't you don't, you aren't. If you pass you have good credit, if you don't, you don't.

i've seen solicitors with 100,000 in the bank refused because they didn't score well on some part of the form. (they don't ask for your income or bank balance. i know he had 100,000 because he used his bank statement as proof of address and the balance was on it)

That's just a cash position. It doesn't mean anything much. The money might not have belonged to them.

maybe you should look up the terms of the MO's licence since you think that o2 have a legal obligation provide broadband modems to people.

Discussed above.

well first of all, the staff don't have access to the source code for the program and secondly, even if they did, the customer would not understand it. just looking at the program's interface isn't enough to understand it. i don't know how it works and i used it for years

O2 has to be able to explain to customers how this works, under the DP legislation. I am sure they would be happy to do this on request.

well if its not automated they must have some sort of super human team doing the checking. i would click send on the form and have a decision 3-5 seconds later, depending on the speed of the internet at the time.

So you are saying they are in breach?

however, she may need a solicitor when they find out she lied on a government document.

Who is saying anything about telling lies? You don't know anything about the equality tribunal procedure.

i know the cases are different. i was making the point that people are left with huge legal bills when they lose cases

You claimed and are claiming that this is a true analogy. Yet you must know that it is a false analogy.

no, she doesn't need a solicitor to initiate proceedings but what about after that? are you suggesting that she does it in the hopes that it doesn't get past the initial stages? what if it does? are solicitors ever needed in such cases?

I will take your questions in order.

1. See what happens. 2. Everyone likes to resolve difficulties as early as possible. 3. If it does then you proceed to the next stage. 4. No, not really, but you could have one if you wanted one (though you wouldn't get your costs if you won).

Sam Vimes

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You don't know what the first steps of an equality tribunal claim are and have no interest in finding out.

it says right there on the page what the first steps are and what's your point anyway? i know that to start an equality tribunal claim you have to believe you were discriminated against illegally. this did not happen here. end of story

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You really should read the whole act, not just one paragraph of it.

just because i posted one paragraph of it doesn't mean i only read one paragraph of it

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Are you familiar with the concept of 'indirect discrimination'?

i wasn't but i am now. what's your point? that has not happened here either.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How can you guarantee this? I thought you worked in a mobile phone shop. You must also know a lot about o2's internal procedures and about European equality law.

why do i have to know a lot about european law? all i have to know is that o2 did not purchase software that violates the law every time it's used. and if they did, then it must be the most retarded law breaking software in the country since its been programmed to discriminate against middle aged women.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No it doesn't. That's just something you dreamed up.

well i'm basing that on how you intend to use the legislation

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What alternative is there for mobile broadband?

i never said there was an alternative for mobile broadband. you said o2 have an obligation to let people use the network and so i said she was not being prevented from using the network because she could have brought a pre pay phone. we're back again to you thinking o2 are legally required to provide people with mobile broadband

also, the 3 network now offers pre pay mobile broadband

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You obviously haven't bothered to read the licence. They do in fact have such an obligation.

any proof of that? and remember that she wasn't being prevented from using the network, just from starting a credit agreement

also, i'm sure you've read every page of the licence. i bet its a great read

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You seem to know with absolute certainty that in this particular case, there was no discrimination involved. I cannot understand how you can have this certainty without having specific inside information, On the other hand, you claim not to be in a position to have this information.

i know that because the idea that o2 are discriminating against middle aged women is absolutely ridiculous and you have to know it is

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you pass the test, you are considered creditworthy and if you don't you don't, you aren't. If you pass you have good credit, if you don't, you don't.

you said that she has good credit and therefore should have been accepted. i said that o2 don't check her credit. you keep changing your story

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That's just a cash position. It doesn't mean anything much. The money might not have belonged to them.

right, its just resting in his account

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

O2 has to be able to explain to customers how this works, under the DP legislation. I am sure they would be happy to do this on request.

if you're sure they'd be happy to explain it, why are you suggesting the OP start legal proceedings claiming they broke the law in order to force them to explain it?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

So you are saying they are in breach?

well they must be. of course you have simply stated that they can't do it automatically and have offered no proof. i'd be fairly certain that o2 and all of the other networks (who use a similar system) checked with someone that it was legal for them to it before implementing the software nationwide.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Who is saying anything about telling lies? You don't know anything about the equality tribunal procedure.

you are saying something about telling lies. and you seem to know even less. it says right there in the first paragraph of section 21 that someone should start proceedings if they believe they have been discriminated against illegally. there is nothing to suggest that in this case so no proceedings should be started

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You claimed and are claiming that this is a true analogy. Yet you must know that it is a false analogy.

all i am saying is that when people lose cases they can be left with large legal bills and gave an example of it. i am not making an analogy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I will take your questions in order.

1. See what happens. 2. Everyone likes to resolve difficulties as early as possible. 3. If it does then you proceed to the next stage. 4. No, not really, but you could have one if you wanted one (though you wouldn't get your costs if you won).

1. well that's what i'm asking you. what will happen?

2. that's a dangerous assumption to make, especially when she's accusing them of discriminating against her. they might just want to publicly clear their name

3. well no sh!t. they're hardly going to proceed to the previous stage. i'm asking you what happens at that stage. basically i'm wondering at what point does it start costing money.

4. but what about when she loses? and she will definitely lose. is there any chance she would have to pay o2's costs?

jahalpin

As many people have said before, only Eircom has a Universal Service Obligation. O2 has no such obligation.

If the woman was looking for a mobile phone and was refused a credit contract, the fact that the shop is full of pre-pay phones on display would imply to any reasonable thinking person that an alternative was avaliable, the sales assistant should not really have the state the obvious, that pre-pay phones are avalibale to everyone without the need for a credit check etc.

As for broadband, O2 don't yet offer the mobile broadband service to pay as you go customers. This is their choice and they are perfectly entitled to this. They are nor required to offer an alternative service.

As for the credit scoring being a violation of the data protection act, the form that you fill out to apply for the credit account, explicetely states that O2 are entitled to use the information for the purposes of a credit check and any other steps required to open a credit account.

If the woman was so upset, there are other mobile operators such as Vodafone and 3 who supply the same service.

O2 and the other networks have legal teams who would have been consulted on the legality etc of their policies. These legal teams would be highly qualified legal professionals who would know the law inside out and not somebody who has just flicked through the legislation!!!

Sam Vimes

jahalpin wrote: »

As for the credit scoring being a violation of the data protection act

while i agree with everything else you said, he was claiming it was a violation of the equality act, not the data protection act

board om

a simple solution to this would be for the OP's mother to go to a vodafone store and request the same service and give the same details she gave O2. Vodafone use a similiar credit scoring system so if she is offered the service by vodafone then it will be obvious that there was a mistake made by the original sales assistant in O2. if she is refused the service by vodafone as well then she isnt meeting the requirements needed to obtain credit.

as i said in my other post, it is a points sytem so it could be something as simple as her only living at her address 6 months or something simple like that. i know that O2 and vodafone definitly use the same scoring system and BT used to use it for their phone line. i think meteor use it as well. god only knows what 3 use to score their customers. probably being able to sign you own name is enough to get credit with them. in fact being able to sign an X would probably be enough for them.

axer

Gillo wrote: »

A similar example is car insurance, I'm a 29 year old male, five years ago when I first started looking for cover, I was been charged way more than my then 57 year old father. Was it age discrimination? I'd say no it wasn't, statistically I was viewed a a greater risk to the insurance companies, so much so that some completely refused to insure me.

Bad example as car insurance companies were (at least - not sure about now) charging more than the risk associated with young male drivers. I was being charged 4 or 5+ times the average premium even though I was only 2.5 times more likely to have an accident when I was 17.

OP: Talk to comreg as they should be able to give you an answer one way or another as to the legal obligations of O2.

Slice

I think the best option for her would be to write to O2 explaining that all she wants is to get a broadband modem and to advise that she is considering requesting the terms under which she was refused a connection through the Data Protect Act. Such companies are generally very reluctant to divulge the means by which they credit score potential customers and they might just choose to reconsider their decision instead.

Sam Vimes

Slice wrote: »

I think the best option for her would be to write to O2 explaining that all she wants is to get a broadband modem and to advise that she is considering requesting the terms under which she was refused a connection through the Data Protect Act. Such companies are generally very reluctant to divulge the means by which they credit score potential customers and they might just choose to reconsider their decision instead.

the people in the store don't make the decision and they don't have the power to change the decision. its all automated

and the credit score is done before any tariff details are entered so it doesn't matter that she's only getting a modem


she'd be better off calling customer care directly

Doctor DooM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the people in the store don't make the decision and they don't have the power to change the decision. its all automated

and the credit score is done before any tariff details are entered so it doesn't matter that she's only getting a modem


she'd be better off calling customer care directly

This threads gone full circle... First thing I said. And I seriously think it would end up in a happy resolution or the OP, team leads have over turned erronious credit scores for me before.

Pythia

stepbar wrote: »

Wrong. 3 missed payments and a loan is deemed to be in arrears. The Financial Institution can then notify the ICB.

No, you're confusing arrears and defaults. 3 missed payments in a row and the loan is in default. Arrears is any missed payment.