un1boy vs T-Mobile data removal. - **WON**

[un1boy]

Hi guys,

Just wondered if I could pick your brains on the following. I've been sending various letters to T-Mobile to get them to remove the entries on my CRA files as the account was closed about 2 years ago.

The latest letter I got from them says this:

"Although you've requested a copy of your signed contract, a contract doesn't necessarily need to signed to be valid. You're able to agree to the terms and condiions, both verbally, and by conduct, for example, the use of the phone."

Is this right? If that's the case - what's the point of agreements and contracts? Surely then no one would make you sign contracts and then could just charge you wanted they wanted and sue you for anything.....

Any views greatly appreciated!

I've been trawling the net to find something in relation to this issue. Maybe you should contact Ofcom...

Consumer complaint against O2 about unfair contract terms | Ofcom

And pose the question to them. Did they send you anything via post? If not and you have never read the T&C 's then it's my understanding that they are invalid. The law of contract...a definition....

Contract law is the law that governs contracts. A contract can take several forms - it can be written on a piece of paper (or napkin, even) or it can be just a verbal agreement if it satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
A contract is basically an agreement between two or more people which creates an obligation to do, or not do, something. The agreement creates a legal relationship of rights and duties. If the agreement is broken, then the law provides certain remedies.
For a contract to be legally enforceable, not only do all the parties to the contract have to get something in return, but they must also suffer a detriment. In other words, one cannot contract to give someone else $500 unless the other person gives up something in return.
Contract law covers the legal implications of a contract. For instance, contract law determines what is and is not consideration, whether a contract was actually intended, if the parties making the contract were legally competent, whether there was fraud or duress involved, or how a contract is terminated.
Certain contracts are not legally valid, for instance, if the contract goes against public policy (such as a contract to satisfy a gambling debt). In most instances, people who are not of the age of majority are not allowed to make contracts.
When writing a contract, it is important to remember a central principle to contract law - terms of a contract will be construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, any ambiguities or uncertainties will be resolved against the writer. For instance, if someone drafts a contract where there is uncertainty as to whether the drafter has to pay $500 or $800 for a good or service, the contract will be interpreted against the drafter - i.e. he or she will have to pay the $800 amount.

It's also up to the drafter of the contract to be certain that the person entering into that contract has had access to the T&Cs. Even on the net, you have to tick a box or something.....just using a phone isn't agreeing to anything is it?

Wxx

[ian cognito]

I'm depending on the opposite for a claim against vodafone - that a verbal agreement forms part of a binding contract! so it will be an interesting outcome to either yours or mine!

I know as far as employment is concerned, verbal contracts are as binding as written ones but whether this applies in all cases I don't know.

One interesting point on here though, if like vodafone they claim not to be governed by the CCA then you can ask under what authority they are processing data - there doesn't appear to be any other!

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by willowb

I've been trawling the net to find something in relation to this issue. Maybe you should contact Ofcom...

Consumer complaint against O2 about unfair contract terms | Ofcom

And pose the question to them. Did they send you anything via post? If not and you have never read the T&C 's then it's my understanding that they are invalid. The law of contract...a definition....

Contract law is the law that governs contracts. A contract can take several forms - it can be written on a piece of paper (or napkin, even) or it can be just a verbal agreement if it satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
A contract is basically an agreement between two or more people which creates an obligation to do, or not do, something. The agreement creates a legal relationship of rights and duties. If the agreement is broken, then the law provides certain remedies.
For a contract to be legally enforceable, not only do all the parties to the contract have to get something in return, but they must also suffer a detriment. In other words, one cannot contract to give someone else $500 unless the other person gives up something in return.
Contract law covers the legal implications of a contract. For instance, contract law determines what is and is not consideration, whether a contract was actually intended, if the parties making the contract were legally competent, whether there was fraud or duress involved, or how a contract is terminated.
Certain contracts are not legally valid, for instance, if the contract goes against public policy (such as a contract to satisfy a gambling debt). In most instances, people who are not of the age of majority are not allowed to make contracts.
When writing a contract, it is important to remember a central principle to contract law - terms of a contract will be construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, any ambiguities or uncertainties will be resolved against the writer. For instance, if someone drafts a contract where there is uncertainty as to whether the drafter has to pay $500 or $800 for a good or service, the contract will be interpreted against the drafter - i.e. he or she will have to pay the $800 amount.

It's also up to the drafter of the contract to be certain that the person entering into that contract has had access to the T&Cs. Even on the net, you have to tick a box or something.....just using a phone isn't agreeing to anything is it?

Wxx

Errr...to be honest it was about 4 years ago and I relly can't remember....I got the phone from a friend's boyfriend over the phone and I know I had to send ID, as for an agreemetn I REALLY can't remember.

I'm confsed as the the drafter thing Willow, can you explain it in a bit more detail, sorry. This bit: When writing a contract, it is important to remember a central principle to contract law - terms of a contract will be construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, any ambiguities or uncertainties will be resolved against the writer. For instance, if someone drafts a contract where there is uncertainty as to whether the drafter has to pay $500 or $800 for a good or service, the contract will be interpreted against the drafter - i.e. he or she will have to pay the $800 amount

Also, if they say that a contract is there because of using the product, or verbally, how can they prove what the conditions were?

If it's about using the service - surely that proves nothing....they could have given me the phone and said I could use it...

p.s.thanks very much for your research!!

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by janquinny

I'm depending on the opposite for a claim against vodafone - that a verbal agreement forms part of a binding contract! so it will be an interesting outcome to either yours or mine!

I know as far as employment is concerned, verbal contracts are as binding as written ones but whether this applies in all cases I don't know.

One interesting point on here though, if like vodafone they claim not to be governed by the CCA then you can ask under what authority they are processing data - there doesn't appear to be any other!

Hi Jan,

So, are you saying that companies can only process information against Credit Refernce Files etc if they are registered under the CCA?

If that's so then that makes sense because utiltiy companies don't they? and they effectively work in the same way as Mobile Phone companies......charging you in arrears....

Also, from what I remember, T-Mobile issue Defalt Notices (one of my friend's had one) and they can't issue Default Notices AND be exempt from the CCA, can they?

Originally Posted by un1boy

Also, from what I remember, T-Mobile issue Defalt Notices (one of my friend's had one) and they can't issue Default Notices AND be exempt from the CCA, can they?

That's a very good point.

The drafter in this instance would be T-Mobile.

I'm finding this so interesting, Jan what are Vodafone saying to you when you claim that the contract is verbally binding?

Wxx

[un1boy]

And, out of interest, why are you depending that a contract is verbally binding? Just curious..

T-Mobile Terms and Conditions

BUT if you haven't SEEN the terms and conditions then HOW can you agree to them?

WXX

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by willowb

T-Mobile Terms and Conditions

BUT if you haven't SEEN the terms and conditions then HOW can you agree to them?

WXX

That's what don'tundersatnd - why would we have to sign for anything then?

I should write back to the woman and say that by her replying to my letter we had an agreement that she owes me 10k..........how would that work?

Or, for conduct, that she replied to my letter means they are wrong and will removemy data!!

[ian cognito]

I'm finding this so interesting, Jan what are Vodafone saying to you when you claim that the contract is verbally binding?

They are aying that they do not provide a service (capped monthly calls) that they agreed to verbally and provided for 3 months then withdrew without notice, I am claiming that the fact that they did provide it for 3 months is proof that they entered into the verbal agreement, which I think is the other side of the coin from this thread. Can't get any further with them - hence the use of the word 'claim', I'll let you know how they defend as i wil also be asking under whos authority they stuck a default on my file when we get to court.

You don't have to sign anything for there to be an enforcable contract BUT if they can't prove that they sent you their terms and conditons before you agreed to enter into that contract then is it invalid?

The system should be, 'I want one of your mobile phones' (LOL), 'that's fine Mr Uni, I will send you our Terms and Conditions and once you have received them, give us a call and we'll connect you'....???

Then they would have reasonable proof that you have them in your possession.

Wxx

Originally Posted by janquinny

They are aying that they do not provide a service (capped monthly calls) that they agreed to verbally and provided for 3 months then withdrew without notice, I am claiming that the fact that they did provide it for 3 months is proof that they entered into the verbal agreement, which I think is the other side of the coin from this thread. Can't get any further with them - hence the use of the word 'claim', I'll let you know how they defend as i wil also be asking under whos authority they stuck a default on my file when we get to court.

Oh for goodness sake, this is really confusing me now.....how can they say that they had NO agreement with you verbally or otherwise and then issue you with a default? The very term 'to default' means that you didn't keep to the terms and conditions set out in a contract......Oh GOD ....I'm off to bed!.....hot choccie first though I'm soooo sad

Wxx

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by janquinny

They are aying that they do not provide a service (capped monthly calls) that they agreed to verbally and provided for 3 months then withdrew without notice, I am claiming that the fact that they did provide it for 3 months is proof that they entered into the verbal agreement, which I think is the other side of the coin from this thread. Can't get any further with them - hence the use of the word 'claim', I'll let you know how they defend as i wil also be asking under whos authority they stuck a default on my file when we get to court.

oic, thanks...it will be interesting to see what happens with your case....and yes, complete other side of it from mine....however, i think our cases are cvered by seperate things.....

ie it's clear that they provided you with that serivce (why not do a Data Protection Act request ask explicitly for that call to be provided too!?)

I am contesting their consent to hold my information, which, under the Data Protection Act is a criminal offence for them not to have....

also, as far as I know, they cannot sen default notices AND be exempt from the CCA...only CCA licensees need to send Default notices.

[ian cognito]

Just to clarify my argument, I agreed to the contract originally on the specific terms that the calls were capped, the phone was for my son and we all know what they're like with mobile phones, so my issue is, either they broke the contract I had with them, or they agreed to something they couldn't provide and mis-sold the contract - either way, I win, they lose (I hope)

[un1boy]

Thank jan -that makes more sense now - have you triedasking for a copy of the call?

[un1boy]

Also Jan, are you susting I write ck and ask T-Mobile if theyare not regulated the Consumer Credit Act, on what authority to they prcess my data?

Is that the right phrase to use?