Meteor: Bait and Switch

bardcom

Disgraceful false advertising ...

I went online to order bill pay HTC Legend.
I filled out all the details, opted for the €30 18month agreement.
They charged my credit card for the €149

Got a phone call next morning where they were looking for a €300 deposit. After questioning and sending an email, I finally got a letter today saying:

"The vetting of all applications for a contract phone service was made in accordance with company policy, in line with our process for credit scoring applications. The outcome of your score does not in any way imply that you have a poor credit rating your score was calculated on the information provided on your application.

No information was obtained from any Financial Institution or the ICB (Irish Credit Bureau) and our decision does not have any effect on your credit history.

We apologize ... blah blah blah ... we cannot reverse the decision on your bill pay application at this time."

I got another phone call asking if I wanted to continue with the order. I've cancelled.

But I reckon they shouldn't have charged my credit card and then demanded twice as much again as a deposit. Isn't a sale final once they've charged the card? Isn't it illegal to bait and switch like this?

Kensington

They're Meteor, owned by the Eircom group. Expect no less than what you've experienced!

Anyway, a quick search of google and both these forums and Meteor's own customer care forum will show you Android handsets and the Meteor network are to be avoided like the plague......

jesus_thats_gre

Just lie, tell them you have been with your current company for 10 years, living at your current address for 10 years and with the same bank for ten years..

Atomic Pineapple

Kensington wrote: »

Anyway, a quick search of google and both these forums and Meteor's own customer care forum will show you Android handsets and the Meteor network are to be avoided like the plague......

I get on perfectly fine with a Nexus One and the meteor network

As for the OP's actual question re-read the T&C's and if it doesn't mention anything about what happened then contact Meteor and complain.

Then go to the Commission for Communications Regulation and ask them for advice/info on the matter.

http://www.comreg.ie/contact_us/general_information.569.formgen.html

Or the consumer ombudsman might be a better person to complain to

IKnowYou

Oops I jumped the gun with this one on the HTC Desire.

Hearing as how this might turn bad, I may still return it within 7 days and cancel my contract right?

or does that only apply to returning faulty goods?

IKnowYou

IKnowYou wrote: »

Oops I jumped the gun with this one on the HTC Desire.

Hearing as how this might turn bad, I may still return it within 7 days and cancel my contract right?

or does that only apply to returning faulty goods?

There is a cooling-off period of 7 days on ALL contracts entered into in Ireland. Handset doesn't need to be faulty, you can just claim to be unsatisfied with the service in general. I'm not all too sure you even have to give one but better have some reason for the return.

Bondvillain

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Just lie, tell them you have been with your current company for 10 years, living at your current address for 10 years and with the same bank for ten years..

Quaint idea, but as a considerable amount of customers who receive credit score pre-payment requests from mobile phone companies etc. are in their early to mid-twenties, the action plan detailed above would make them appear to have been damn entrepreneurial 11 year olds.

Even a cursory electronic ping of the bank account details a customer provides during a checking process can reveal the account's age & status to the automated scoring system anyway, so if you do volunteer details of an 8 month old bank account while claiming that you've had it for 10 years, you shouldn't really be surprised if a credit company doesn't trust you, even an automated one....

As has been detailed here previously though, that's almost irrelevant. A credit scoring system is based on considerably more than just your bank account number and employment status : From experience, your address (and by extension, the graded status of previous applicants from the same locality); the documentation you provide as ID; any previous accounts with this or similar companies; and even the actual recent financial transaction history from the bank account details you've supplied can all potentially play a considerable part in any decision made regarding a request for a security payment.

I'm not defending the system (I personally think it's a poor solution), I'm just trying to clarify some common misconceptions.

bardcom

Bondvillain wrote: »

Quaint idea, but as a considerable amount of customers who receive credit score pre-payment requests from mobile phone companies etc. are in their early to mid-twenties, the action plan detailed above would make them appear to have been damn entrepreneurial 11 year olds.

Even a cursory electronic ping of the bank account details a customer provides during a checking process can reveal the account's age & status to the automated scoring system anyway, so if you do volunteer details of an 8 month old bank account while claiming that you've had it for 10 years, you shouldn't really be surprised if a credit company doesn't trust you, even an automated one....

As has been detailed here previously though, that's almost irrelevant. A credit scoring system is based on considerably more than just your bank account number and employment status : From experience, your address (and by extension, the graded status of previous applicants from the same locality); the documentation you provide as ID; any previous accounts with this or similar companies; and even the actual recent financial transaction history from the bank account details you've supplied can all potentially play a considerable part in any decision made regarding a request for a security payment.

I'm not defending the system (I personally think it's a poor solution), I'm just trying to clarify some common misconceptions.

Great, well as the OP, here's the details - go figure:
Bank A/C - over 22 years
Employment Status - Same company over 10 years, fulltime
Home Address: Owner occupied - I've owned the house for 15 years
Previous Accounts with Meteor: None
Financial Status: You tell me?

All I can say is, if a 42 yr old with own house, secure fulltime employment, and not even a mild blemish on financial history can't get a BillPay phone from the deal advertised from their online shop, I can't see anyone getting that deal.

Which for me, makes it a disgraceful misleading ad.

drunkmonkey

You should be on the other side of the fence, nothing like asking somone for a 300 deposit to bring out the fury in most people!
No point reapplying your going to get still asked!

Time to pick another phone and another network!

bardcom

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You should be on the other side of the fence, nothing like asking somone for a 300 deposit to bring out the fury in most people!
No point reapplying your going to get still asked!

Time to pick another phone and another network!

It's not about the deposit per se. If they made it clear on their website that factors such as:
- BillPay customer
- Not an existing customer
- Not porting, but getting a new number
- etc
can result in a request for a deposit, then fair enough. But they don't. They state it is a "credit score", not a "fraud risk score", etc. Asking for a €300 deposit says to me that there's something wrong with my credit.

Anyways, just to show how ridiculous it really is, I walked to Dundrum and bought the Desire, over the counter, providing the exact same details. A more expensive phone, shorter contract (12 months), and no deposit required.

jesus_thats_gre

Bondvillain wrote: »

Quaint idea, but as a considerable amount of customers who receive credit score pre-payment requests from mobile phone companies etc. are in their early to mid-twenties, the action plan detailed above would make them appear to have been damn entrepreneurial 11 year olds.

Even a cursory electronic ping of the bank account details a customer provides during a checking process can reveal the account's age & status to the automated scoring system anyway, so if you do volunteer details of an 8 month old bank account while claiming that you've had it for 10 years, you shouldn't really be surprised if a credit company doesn't trust you, even an automated one....

As has been detailed here previously though, that's almost irrelevant. A credit scoring system is based on considerably more than just your bank account number and employment status : From experience, your address (and by extension, the graded status of previous applicants from the same locality); the documentation you provide as ID; any previous accounts with this or similar companies; and even the actual recent financial transaction history from the bank account details you've supplied can all potentially play a considerable part in any decision made regarding a request for a security payment.

I'm not defending the system (I personally think it's a poor solution), I'm just trying to clarify some common misconceptions.

Good post!

bardcom

Bondvillain wrote: »

Even a cursory electronic ping of the bank account details a customer provides during a checking process can reveal the account's age & status to the automated scoring system anyway

A bank would not disclose the account's age.

Bondvillain wrote: »

and even the actual recent financial transaction history from the bank account details you've supplied

A bank would not provide financial transaction history.

Bondvillain wrote: »

I'm not defending the system (I personally think it's a poor solution), I'm just trying to clarify some common misconceptions.

Agree. A very poorly implemented system that has more to do, it seems, with their idea of fraud risk that a credit score. But you've possibly also started a few new misconceptions regarding what is disclosed when you provide bank details.

Bondvillain

bardcom wrote: »

A bank would not disclose the account's age.

A bank would not provide financial transaction history.

During an electronic verification process these details are evident to credit scoring systems without any illegal or clandestine disclosure required.

The approximate age of the account can in many cases be ascertained by analysing the digit sequencing of the account number (in conjunction with the sort code) combined with other information provided by the potential subscriber. No personal details are required from the bank to ascertain how long the account has been in existence.

Regarding 'recent financial transaction history' , this again is not information that is volunteered by a bank illicitly:

If, for instance, there is a new mobile phone subscriber using the bank account a different customer has already provided for an existing direct debit, the new subscriber would be rejected as a standalone customer - He/She would only be accepted as an addition to the existing subscriber who initially provided the bank details with their explicit signatory permission; and if a bank account has reached a point where there are already a number of existing standing orders / direct debits etc. being drawn down, many banks , if they sense potential risk, will issue a deterrence warning to the credit scoring system to prevent any new ones being submitted.

All of this is done without any of the customers personal details being compromised.

bardcom

Bondvillain wrote: »

During an electronic verification process these details are evident to credit scoring systems without any illegal or clandestine disclosure required.

The approximate age of the account can in many cases be ascertained by analysing the digit sequencing of the account number (in conjunction with the sort code) combined with other information provided by the potential subscriber. No personal details are required from the bank to ascertain how long the account has been in existence.

Regarding 'recent financial transaction history' , this again is not information that is volunteered by a bank illicitly:

If, for instance, there is a new mobile phone subscriber using the bank account a different customer has already provided for an existing direct debit, the new subscriber would be rejected as a standalone customer - He/She would only be accepted as an addition to the existing subscriber who initially provided the bank details with their explicit signatory permission; and if a bank account has reached a point where there are already a number of existing standing orders / direct debits etc. being drawn down, many banks , if they sense potential risk, will issue a deterrence warning to the credit scoring system to prevent any new ones being submitted.

All of this is done without any of the customers personal details being compromised.

I hadn't thought about the fact that banks probably use sequential numbering of some sort for bank A/C numbers. Makes sense. But the question asks about how long you've been with your bank, not how long the account has been opened. It wouldn't be unusual to open a new deposit or current account.

None of which would have been brought into play on my application. The account is 25 or 30 years old, and the bank A/C hasn't been used for direct debit with Meteor before.

I appreciate that you're trying to explain what "credit scoring" actually means within most mobile operators, and to help me understand some of the potential reasons why I was asked for a €300 deposit.

But the reality is that none of the usual reasons apply in this case. Which leads me to stand by my initial comment that this is a classic Bait and Switch. I would bet that nobody can get a HTC handset from Meteor where it's:
- A new customer (new number required)
- BillPay
without being asked to fork out an additional €300. The deposit request had absolutely *nothing* to do with a "credit score". At best, it was something to do with "fraud risk", and as I've said already, if a 42 yr old like me with my circumstances doesn't qualify, I'd say nobody does and they shouldn't be allowed to advertise in this way.

IKnowYou

got my phone returned and pending my deposit refund.

anyway I don't think meteor is the only one doing this? all the other networks do this as well.

oh well, I guess to them its better to annoy people + lose potential customers + get extra cash flow than risk having some non-bill payers running off with their new phone.

dloob

I switched from another operator and was never with Meteor before and I wasn't asked for any deposit.
I wonder what criteria they use.
I did keep my number, I wonder if that makes a difference.

A couple of tips when applying, not guaranteed to, but it may help in your 'fraud assessment':

Have a Passport/Driving Licence,
Use a Bank/Credit Card Statement or ESB Bill,
Pay by Direct Debit!! < It breaks my heart when people want to pay cash...
Bring a number with you < Porting in any number but particularly a Bill-pay one helps a lot more than you imagine.

With more registered phones in Ireland than there are people, getting a new number has become a suspicious activity, hence the reason for that last part being so important.
The reason a bill-pay ranks above prepay is that when you port you give your billing account number to the new network - this shows you've passed a check before.
Giving a prepay number gets you a bit more points because it shows you have some relationship with another network, particularly if registered.

New number can often spell doom for your application unless you're signing with the same network for a new product, i.e, you have broadband and getting a bill-pay.

I'm not saying it's a good/bad system, it's just what I've deduced over the past few years.

peejay01

christs chin wrote: »

A couple of tips when applying, not guaranteed to, but it may help in your 'fraud assessment':

Have a Passport/Driving Licence,
Use a Bank/Credit Card Statement or ESB Bill,
Pay by Direct Debit!! < It breaks my heart when people want to pay cash...
Bring a number with you < Porting in any number but particularly a Bill-pay one helps a lot more than you imagine.

With more registered phones in Ireland than there are people, getting a new number has become a suspicious activity, hence the reason for that last part being so important.
The reason a bill-pay ranks above prepay is that when you port you give your billing account number to the new network - this shows you've passed a check before.
Giving a prepay number gets you a bit more points because it shows you have some relationship with another network, particularly if registered.

New number can often spell doom for your application unless you're signing with the same network for a new product, i.e, you have broadband and getting a bill-pay.

I'm not saying it's a good/bad system, it's just what I've deduced over the past few years.

Met all but one of the above critera:

Brought my driving licence, credit card statement and wanted to pay by direct debit.

The only difference was that I have a meteor pre-pay number.

I have been a meteor customer for over 8 years now and have been spending more that the proposed €30/month plan that I was going to sign up for.

I am disgusted that they think I am a "fraud risk" and want me to pay a €300 deposit.

I was planning on making a complaint. Does anyone think they will ever overturn or change your fraud assesment?

partyatmygaff

peejay01 wrote: »

Met all but one of the above critera:

Brought my driving licence, credit card statement and wanted to pay by direct debit.

The only difference was that I have a meteor pre-pay number.

I have been a meteor customer for over 8 years now and have been spending more that the proposed €30/month plan that I was going to sign up for.

I am disgusted that they think I am a "fraud risk" and want me to pay a €300 deposit.

I was planning on making a complaint. Does anyone think they will ever overturn or change your fraud assesment?

Apparently sending a letter to Head office outlining why you would not be a fraud risk works in getting the deposit waived.

peejay01

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Apparently sending a letter to Head office outlining why you would not be a fraud risk works in getting the deposit waived.

Thanks. I have sent them an e-mail and got a reply saying that they will respond in 48 hours. If I do not get a reply I will write a letter to the head office or I may just pop in as its not too far away from me.

Will let ye know if I have any success.

cojomo2

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Apparently sending a letter to Head office outlining why you would not be a fraud risk works in getting the deposit waived.

I can confirm this. I was a 3 bill pay customer moving to meteor bill pay lite..asked for a 50 euro deposit which I refused to pay..rang up customer care , explained how pissed off I was, they told me to put it in writing, so I scanned a letter and emailed it to them, took about 1-2 weeks before I was told to go to the store and the deposit would be waived...

Went to the store, explained the situation, the guy rang accounts, got through to the head account person who said she didn't have a clue what I was on about..I asked to speak to her, she was a rude cow, said ''if you had sent in a letter 2 weeks ago it would be on my desk, and it's not''..which got me even more angry, so she asked me to put her back on to the store person...5 mins later, store guy tell me '' problem solved, I'll waive the deposit now'', I asked what she said and he told me ''she found it on her desk there a second ago, she received it last week but forgot about it''..the store guy was very apologetic but the credit control manager woman was extremely rude, and I didn't even get an apology from her after she found my letter..I was very close to walking out only the guy I was dealing with was sympathetic and very apologetic , apologising on behalf of his inefficient/unorganised/rude credit control manager. ..

I hope your experience will be better than mine..:cool: