Massive emobile internet bill now with Cmos

shadowcomplex

I have a massive emobile internet bill of 679 euros which has recently been taken over by Cmos and is now 815 euro, the reason ts so high is because I stupidly left my dongle in my laptop and alot of data was eaten from uploads.

I have refused to pay this because on their website there a section about a a data cap which is explain here

http://helpandquestions.emobile.ie/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/&/?St=407&E=0000000000000793857&K=867&Sxi=1&Case=obj(1582)

I wasnt contacted when My spend reached 75% of 250 euro nor was my account suspended

I got in contact with comreg and embile told them that this was only for mobile phone data and not for internet data, however it does not say that in the link above

What are my options here, should I just pay it, ignore it, or seek legal advice?

OU812

Don't have any legal experience, but what I would advise is to totally ignore the debt collector's letters.

You have no contract with them & they have no powers above those of a normal citizen.

If they persist, register a letter to them telling them they are harassing you for no good reason (no contract) & ask to see the contract you allegedly have with them.

After that any further contact is harassment & you could quite easily report them to the guards.

I'm open to correction on this, but I'm under the impression that if you offer to make a payment structure in writing to your creditor that you can afford and is reasonable (e.g. €20 per month) and start making payments, that it resets your Debt Clock with them.

Bepolite

Legal advice can't be sought in this forum, but a search in other forums might be fruitful. Deal with the root issue not the debt collectors.

Just becuase something is written into the T&Cs of a consumer contract doesn't make it enforceable.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Bepolite wrote: »

Legal advice can't be sought in this forum, but a search in other forums might be fruitful. Deal with the root issue not the debt collectors.

Just becuase something is written into the T&Cs of a consumer contract doesn't make it enforceable.

That's exactly what t ans cs are for. Hey could win in court but they'll never take it that far. They'll make you pay half maybe.

Bepolite

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

That's exactly what t ans cs are for. Hey could win in court but they'll never take it that far. They'll make you pay half maybe.

I suggest you look at the various pieces of legislation on the subject.

hfallada

You do know that mobile BB is really for checking a few emails and not for downloading and uploading files. But I would make sure you screenshot that emobile site in case it may change. I cant see where on their website it says this is for mobile customers and not for broadband customer. Most telephone companies treat their landland customers the same as their broaodband customers.

A lot of companies when they know they arent going to get paid sell on their debt for something like 50 cent in the €1. So I would found out from someone like MABS or NCA can they actually get this money off you.

234

On a purely factual level the link provided clearly refers to mobile customers.

"To help you manage your monthly mobile spend and give you peace of mind, we'll let you know when your bill reaches a level of €250 or more for your monthly commitment and any additional calls, texts and data."

"We'll send you an SMS when you have reached 75% of €250 and again at 95% of €250 so you can make a payment by credit card. If you don't make a payment, we will temporarily suspend your service (in most cases when you reach €250) so that you can't incur any more additional charges. However, you will still be able to receive calls and texts and make emergency calls if you need to. If you find that you are regularly going over this amount, please contact a member of our team so we can ensure you are on a plan that best suits your needs."

The bold sections clearly indicate that this applies to mobiles only.

Unless the link has been changed since you posted that is.

Patrickof

234 wrote: »

On a purely factual level the link provided clearly refers to mobile customers.

"To help you manage your monthly mobile spend and give you peace of mind, we'll let you know when your bill reaches a level of €250 or more for your monthly commitment and any additional calls, texts and data."

The bold sections clearly indicate that this applies to mobiles only.

I'm not sure that's quite so clear, isn't a dongle "mobile" - they don't explicitly say "phone or handset".

For example, a standard mobile phone SIM will work in a dongle, it just can't make calls. But it will provide data service. The contract is for the SIM and the services provided through that SIM, not specifically a handset model or type. The only inclusion of a hanset in a contract is where the user is getting it at a reduced price through a 12 or 24 month contract.

And, always remember when trying to cut a deal with the operators for a data charge, they incur little or no specific costs for the service that they are charging for. (Yes, I know they have staff/equipment/licences etc to apportion), but compared to say, making calls to Australia and then disputing the charges, the operator hasn't had any direct outlay for the services you've used (for Oz there would be per minute charges they had to pay to probably BT and an Australian telco)

listermint

Patrickof wrote: »

I'm not sure that's quite so clear, isn't a dongle "mobile" - they don't explicitly say "phone or handset".

For example, a standard mobile phone SIM will work in a dongle, it just can't make calls. But it will provide data service. The contract is for the SIM and the services provided through that SIM, not specifically a handset model or type. The only inclusion of a hanset in a contract is where the user is getting it at a reduced price through a 12 or 24 month contract.

And, always remember when trying to cut a deal with the operators for a data charge, they incur little or no specific costs for the service that they are charging for. (Yes, I know they have staff/equipment/licences etc to apportion), but compared to say, making calls to Australia and then disputing the charges, the operator hasn't had any direct outlay for the services you've used (for Oz there would be per minute charges they had to pay to probably BT and an Australian telco)

That would not be using the SIM for its primary intended purpose.

234

Patrickof wrote: »

I'm not sure that's quite so clear, isn't a dongle "mobile" - they don't explicitly say "phone or handset".

For example, a standard mobile phone SIM will work in a dongle, it just can't make calls. But it will provide data service. The contract is for the SIM and the services provided through that SIM, not specifically a handset model or type. The only inclusion of a hanset in a contract is where the user is getting it at a reduced price through a 12 or 24 month contract.

And, always remember when trying to cut a deal with the operators for a data charge, they incur little or no specific costs for the service that they are charging for. (Yes, I know they have staff/equipment/licences etc to apportion), but compared to say, making calls to Australia and then disputing the charges, the operator hasn't had any direct outlay for the services you've used (for Oz there would be per minute charges they had to pay to probably BT and an Australian telco)

You are selectively quoting, the second quote in my original post clearly indicates that this applies to mobile contracts only. The distinction is between mobile contracts and pure broadband contracts, not the particular use to which the equipment is put.

blastit

OU812 wrote: »

Don't have any legal experience, but what I would advise is to totally ignore the debt collector's letters.

You have no contract with them & they have no powers above those of a normal citizen.

If they persist, register a letter to them telling them they are harassing you for no good reason (no contract) & ask to see the contract you allegedly have with them.

After that any further contact is harassment & you could quite easily report them to the guards.

I'm open to correction on this, but I'm under the impression that if you offer to make a payment structure in writing to your creditor that you can afford and is reasonable (e.g. €20 per month) and start making payments, that it resets your Debt Clock with them.

Then on what basis do debt collector's work.

If they persist, register a letter to them telling them they are harassing you for no good reason

is his owing money not a good reason? i know it is harrassment to persist if a bill is not owed but is this bill owed?

OU812

blastit wrote: »

Then on what basis do debt collector's work.

Intimidation/fear/embarassment & assuming you know less than they do about their sector

blastit wrote: »

is his owing money not a good reason? i know it is harrassment to persist if a bill is not owed but is this bill owed?

No contract with them, no reason to deal with them. If someone sells the debt, then they're paid & you no longer have dealings with them. Someone else then assumes they can make money off the purchase o the debt. They can't plain & simple. There's no contract in place.

234

Don't be so sure.

While a lot of debt collection works on the basis that the collector is an agent for the creditor; some contracts have very flexible provisions for assignment so the creditor can sell the debt to the debt collector and they are now your creditor.

OU812

Open to correction, but as far as I know Irish law dictates that unless there is a signed by both parties contract in place, no contract exists.

Terms & conditions make no difference to this as they can't overrule the law I the land.

The contract dictates that the payment is made to the first parties & I signed a such.

If it can be changed so easily, then why go to the trouble of signing a contract in the first place?

A mobile phone company is an unsecured debt. You should make every attempt of paying it off, but both parties have to be reasonable if there's issues.

234

Here's the correction:

Irish law permits contracts that are not in writing. In some circumstances eg dispositions of interests in land you need writing, but contracts can easily be unwritten and still be perfectly valid.

In most cases where there is billing arrangement in place in respect of a mobile phone service then you will have signed some forms. These will make reference to the terms and conditions which are often in some external location eg website. This means that the terms and conditions are incorporated into the contract.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation means that if a term is particularly onerous the customer's attention needs to be drawn to it specifically but that would hardly seem to apply to an undisputed debt.

Debt collectors can be nasty people but it doesn't follow that just because you never signed anything with them that what they are doing is unlawful.

Statute of Limitations prevents court action, it doesn't prevent people pursuing you privately for a debt that seems valid. You have to look to criminal law eg harassment, to see what the permitted limits of their actions are.

A-Trak

So the debt is with CMOS?

That being the case I know that eMobiles own credit dept will have been in contact numerous times with you looking for payment before passing it to CMOS as a bad debt to chase. So you chose to ignore those comms or told them to fook off.

Call eMobile, not CMOS and explain that you were unaware of upload limits. Hold your hand up and admit an honest mistake. All service providers have processes for this, especially TelCos.

Trotting out T&C's, involving ComReg and refusing to pay etc will only piss off call center staff and encourage them to go for the easy option which is letting a collection agency chase the debt, Especially when the charges are valid.

the world wonders

They may threaten you with a black mark on your credit record if you don't pay up -- this is complete bluster as neither Eircom nor CMOS are members of the Irish Credit Bureau.

Icepick

OU812 wrote: »

Open to correction, but as far as I know Irish law dictates that unless there is a signed by both parties contract in place, no contract exists.

stupid myth

blastit

Icepick wrote: »

stupid myth

this no contract sounds a bit freeman-ish to me

234

blastit wrote: »

this no contract sounds a bit freeman-ish to me

Bic actually invented those four colour biros just to satisfy the demands of even the most anal freeman.

Icepick

blastit wrote: »

this no contract sounds a bit freeman-ish to me

Yes, and the irony is that hey claim the Irish law states that there is no contract without a written contract but claim that they don't need to follow Irish laws anyway.