Crazy Phone Bill...Cancelling Direct Debit??

Pelvis

notjustsweet wrote: »

Yes that's right.
Vodafone is a huge multinational cooporation made up of hundreds of smaller companies which include Vodafone UK, Spain, Greece, Ireland, US, France, Asia, Iceland and so on.
It's revenue is in the billions and it's one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world.
They operate by buying a company and re-branding it as Vodafone 'country'

None of which counters the argument that they are part of the one global company and thus are liable for calls made via their networks.

As you say, their revenue is in the billions, they have the resources to detect fraudulent calls, the fact that they haven't in this case makes them partially responsible for the charges imo.

hognef

L1011 wrote: »

Not if the the remote network knows the charges, which they would.

There is very limited if any ability to try and transfer responsibility to Vodafone here.

If the charges are shared between the networks, I'd be extremely surprised if a cutoff point is not shared too.

Also, what good is 'querying the credit' if that credit is not updated? Even for PAYG, it would always report available credit, therefore allowing the call. Multiple times, well beyond the actual available credit.

L1011

hognef wrote: »

If the charges are shared between the networks, I'd be extremely surprised if a cutoff point is not shared too.

And on billpay, that is going to be lots and lots and lots, as already stated. It isn't a prepay phone.

The core issue here is that the OP waited far too long to report the phone stolen - under the mistaken belief that they didn't take calls for stolen phones overnight, it seems. Trying to transfer blame to Vodafone via each and every edge case you can imagine doesn't correct that.

They need to try negotiate a settlement with Vodafone - not scramble for a reason to blame the phone operator for something they did (well, didn't in this case).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

SB1988 wrote: »

They won't what?

This

will have an internal intranet to work share across their offices

njs030

Pelvis wrote: »

None of which counters the argument that they are part of the one global company and thus are liable for calls made via their networks.

As you say, their revenue is in the billions, they have the resources to detect fraudulent calls, the fact that they haven't in this case makes them partially responsible for the charges imo.

It's a nonsensical argument.
The op signed an agreement saying he would tell them when his phone was lost or stolen and accepting liability for all call charges up to that point.

To attempt to manipulate the liability onto Vodafone because the op failed to do so is a little bit silly and won't get him far.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

Thats a ridiculous point, of course they do. How do you think your phone registers with their network when you arrive in their country? How do you think when you ring the helpline you get an office in a different country and they are able to identify you?

Not using an intranet (between two effectively unrelated divisions of a global holding company), that's for sure.

Your phone would handshake to Telefonica in the same way it does to Vodafone Spain.

njs030

SB1988 wrote: »

Thats a ridiculous point, of course they do. How do you think your phone registers with their network when you arrive in their country? How do you think when you ring the helpline you get an office in a different country and they are able to identify you?

The phone has been told to connect to the vodafone network op.

dudara

SB1988 wrote: »

Good point.

Any multinational companies, regardless of them operating as separate entities, will have an internal intranet to work share across their offices. This is how they can share data...

Not necessarily. In an ideal MNC situation that would exist. However over the years I've worked with many MNCs that were not joined up internally. I wouldn't assume that.

L1011

dudara wrote: »

Not necessarily. In an ideal MNC situation that would exist. However over the years I've worked with many MNCs that were not joined up internally. I wouldn't assume that.

I worked in a MNC and we hadn't got a coherent intranet between us and other firms in the group in other parts of Ireland!

njs030

dudara wrote: »

Not necessarily. In an ideal MNC situation that would exist. However over the years I've worked with many MNCs that were not joined up internally. I wouldn't assume that.

I worked for mobile phone companies (not Vodafone) and couldnt get proper contact with newry let alone Spain!
Infrastructure linking up would be wonderful

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

Okay, fair point. And I'll also take the point that the network connection is separate from the database. But, to think that a telecommunications MNC whose purpose is to connect you around the world, does not have an internal database where they can see your details is a bit far reached IMO.

Its far-fetched that they would - data protection rules would make it utterly impractical. Its also not relevant to your issue.

Vodafone Group do not fully own Vodafone Spain, by the way. Large majority, but not entirely. They entirely own Vodafone Ireland.

njs030

SB1988 wrote: »

Okay, fair point. And I'll also take the point that the network connection is separate from the database. But, to think that a telecommunications MNC whose purpose is to connect you around the world, does not have an internal database where they can see your details is a bit far reached IMO.

100% true because they are a seperate company with separate ownership it would be a serious breach of data protection if they could see your details in Vodafone Spain.

In my last post I made a comment about Newry and that's the truth, we couldn't see customers details because they were UK customers of the same operator but we worked in the Irish company so no connection.

whiterebel

It seems like they phoned one of those scam lines that come up from time to time in surinam or Guinea where it costs an absolute fortune to even answer the call. Even if they took out the sim card, doesn't it need the pin number to work?

dudara

SB1988 wrote: »

Large majority? Would that not mean that they still make the policies, etc.

Completely depends on how the management structure is set up. Majority ownership does not automatically equal management power. For instance, it's not uncommon in joint ventures for one party to have the majority, but for the other party to actually run it.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

Large majority? Would that not mean that they still make the policies, etc.

Not necessarily, and critically - not relevant.

You were roaming even if the network has largely similar ownership.

Pelvis

notjustsweet wrote: »

It's a nonsensical argument.
The op signed an agreement saying he would tell them when his phone was lost or stolen and accepting liability for all call charges up to that point.

To attempt to manipulate the liability onto Vodafone because the op failed to do so is a little bit silly and won't get him far.

The OP also signed an agreement that allows Vodafone to change their rates once a notice is served. That doesn't mean they can start charging €500 for every text and expect it to hold up in court when they start legal action against those who refuse to pay.

Not everything is so black and white. Vodafone do have to conduct their business in a responsible manner, and they have the means to stop fraudulent activities on this level. When they fail to do so then they must accept part of the blame. I don't think this is an unreasonable view and if in the OPs shoes I would be more than happy to argue my case in court.

I would also argue that Vodafone themselves would hold the same view, which is why I believe they would accept a payment that is far from the 3k+ bill the OP has gotten.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

I understand ye'r points, but how may I ask, that when I ring Vodafone and I get an office in another country are they able to access my details? Genuine curiosity...

Because they're contractors of Vodafone Ireland. Not Vodafone Spain, etc.

Contacting Vodafone is entirely and solely what you need to do next - you need to negotiate a settlement with them, as scrabbling for blame is not going to get you a result.

njs030

Pelvis wrote: »

The OP also signed an agreement that allows Vodafone to change their rates once a notice is served. That doesn't mean they can start charging €500 for every text and expect it to hold up in court when they start legal action against those who refuse to pay.

Not everything is so black and white. Vodafone do have to conduct their business in a responsible manner, and they have the means to stop fraudulent activities on this level. When they fail to do so then they must accept part of the blame. I don't think this is an unreasonable view and if in the OPs shoes I would be more than happy to argue my case in court.

I would also argue that Vodafone themselves would hold the same view, which is why I believe they would accept a payment that is far from the 3k+ bill the OP has gotten.

Can you link to that part of the t&c's? I'm pretty sure if Vodafone change prices and op is unhappy it gives him the right to end the contract with no penalty.
So if Vodafone have notice of £500 text messages they would lose all their customers wouldn't they?
As per the t&c's right to cancel.

Pelvis

notjustsweet wrote: »

Can you link to that part of the t&c's? I'm pretty sure if Vodafone change prices and op is unhappy it gives him the right to end the contract with no penalty.
So if Vodafone have notice of £500 text messages they would lose all their customers wouldn't they?
As per the t&c's right to cancel.

And inevitably, people will miss the notice, forget to cancel etc. My point is just because a contract says something doesn't mean a court will enforce it. Courts are made up of people, with brains, who are capable of rational thought.

Saying "it's in the contract" is not good enough sometimes.

L1011

Pelvis wrote: »

And inevitably, people will miss the notice, forget to cancel etc. My point is just because a contract says something doesn't mean a court will enforce it. Courts are made up of people, with brains, who are capable of rational thought.

Saying "it's in the contract" is not good enough sometimes.

Courts also place major importance on personal responsibility. Which was lacking in this case due to the time delay in reporting.

Some networks stolen report line is as little as a voicemail box - but you are not liable from the voicemail until they eventually kill the SIM.

Once you pay a solicitor to take a case you are basically in to paying more than the actual bill. Negotiating something with the network is much more likely to be of use.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

But yet in a different country to Ireland? Interesting...

Its completely irrelevant. They work for Vodafone Ireland.

Vodafone Spain is NOT Vodafone Ireland.

This is off-topic - drop it.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

Personal responsibility lacking?? I rang the phone immediately once I realised it was gone, but it didn't ring each time I tried. Why would I have assumed that my phone was still functional when every time I rang there was no dial? Hindsight is a great thing, but unfortunately thats not going to help me here...

You did not report it stolen immediately, as required.

There is nothing you can do to transfer blame for that to the network.

Its important here because it is entirely critical to the problem - the network are not liable for use made when a phone is not reported stolen. We've had ten pages of people trying to invent reasons they are - but they aren't. You are.

Its not what you wanted to hear, but advice is not always nice. You will probably be able to come to a settlement with the network but it isn't going to be zero.

njs030

SB1988 wrote: »

I agree, theres been enough said from both sides of the argument, whether right or wrong. Maybe when I know whats going to happen I might post the details of the phone bill, just so ye can see how ridiculous it is.

Below, is just another T&C I came across...

"59. Vodafone may find it necessary to disclose certain Customer information to its group companies, other licensed telecommunications operators and Vodafone’s agents and also to third parties (including other telecommunications operators) for the purpose of administration, account management, Customer profiling, market research, fraud prevention services and product development, insurance claims processing, porting, if required by Data Protection Law, court order, the Data Protection Commissioner or any other statutory body or agency or to third parties lawfully sub-processing for Vodafone to deliver the Service and other legitimate business purposes. Personal data is not otherwise disclosed to third parties, save where required for the purposes of compliance with any regulatory, government or legal requirement."

This is the one that gives them permission to pass your details to debt collectors or solicitors in the event you don't pay your bill.

L1011

SB1988 wrote: »

Below, is just another T&C I came across...

"59. Vodafone may find it necessary to disclose certain Customer information to its group companies, other licensed telecommunications operators and Vodafone’s agents and also to third parties (including other telecommunications operators) for the purpose of administration, account management, Customer profiling, market research, fraud prevention services and product development, insurance claims processing, porting, if required by Data Protection Law, court order, the Data Protection Commissioner or any other statutory body or agency or to third parties lawfully sub-processing for Vodafone to deliver the Service and other legitimate business purposes. Personal data is not otherwise disclosed to third parties, save where required for the purposes of compliance with any regulatory, government or legal requirement."

This is STILL irrelevant. You were told to stop already.

njs030

Op do you have phone insurance?

MysticMonk

Cancel the direct debit or they'll clean you out.

njs030

SB1988 wrote: »

Yes I do, but I am not overly optimistic about them covering this because of the reasons you have stated...

Yes sorry I went and read the t&c's of their insurance after I posted that and it also says you must tell them immediately.

Unless there's a reason you were unable to contact them for so long like you were very unwell or your travelling partner was unwell and you were looking after them I can't imagine what you could do to explain it.

njs030

SB1988 wrote: »

I don't have insurance with Vodafone. To be fair to my insurance company, they say within 48 hours...

And with your previous point about debt collectors, is the first part of that paragraph not more important? Well, for me anyway. The part that says they can share with group companies for things such as fraud prevention??

Oh sorry I was looking at Vodafone insurance. Have a good look at your insurance t&cs and see what they ask for and what you lose in terms of premiums etc.

Im not answering that second bit as I think the mod has told you to stop and I don't want to get in trouble

hognef

L1011 wrote: »

And on billpay, that is going to be lots and lots and lots, as already stated.

Why would it be lots and lots and lots? If this mechanism indeed in place, it's clearly a way for the home network to monitor and block the usage even if it may not be 100% real-time. If they choose not to take advantage of that path, the lack of real-time updates is not a defence. They have a responsibility to take precautions against suspicious usage, and this sounds like a straightforward way to do. If they can do it for PAYG, there's no reason they can't put a reasonable cap on bill pay too.

Whether through this method or another, I strongly suspect they have the ability to monitor and block usage (much more so than claimed in this thread), and they have clearly failed here.

They can clearly monitor data usage abroad, and used to be (still are?) required to text you once you were approaching a certain data roaming cost, and also to block further usage once the limit was reached, so why would it be so fundamentally different for calls?

L1011

OP has requested the thread be closed.