Complain to the Information Comissioners Office about this.

Watching investigation, I note your reviving these threads because you've got an axe to grind against Orange - if I may make a suggestion which came to mind after reading through your many unanswered posts and rambling monologues - get help and get a life.

Mobile phones contracts aren't credit agreements and they do not have credit limits, in fact as far as I'm aware Orange and some of the other networks do not offer to cap your usage at any level. If the original poster has been through CISAS then they have completed the final stage of Orange's complaints procedure, their only other option now would be legal action, I doubt after you've finished Orange's complaints procedure they'll carry on dealing with the complaint.

I agree with Lee, Apple not Orange are to blame in this case, if they know the phone has issues which can be resolved by a software update yet refuse to release that update to you via iTunes then they are to blame. Orange fix the problme if Apple refuse to release the software to all customers with your particular model of phone. The networks don't control the release of software in he case of the iPhone Apple do.

They probs wouldn't agree to change the tariff anyway, generally the higher the tariff and the longer the contract the cheaper the purchase price of the phone. If you rang them up to ask that they change both the contract length and tariff I doubt they'd agree, especially if the phone is more expensive on the tariff you believe you should be on. I'd suggest cancellation as well.

If you've got evidence that you called and they didn't answer then your in a strong position to request a refund, you'll probs understand though that the "I tried to call you" line is something that they'll probably hear all of the time, they may not believe you without proof.

Yes it's legal, they are not obligated to give you a brand new phone.

There's no initial obligation, they want to record this information so they write it into the contracts. Once you've consented to the contract they are then obliged to record the information in accordance with the DPA. The ICO's advice to you in this case is poor and irrelevant to this situation as I and others have pointed out, you seem to be clinging to this as if it will somehow resolve this situation for you - it wont. If you don't accept Voda's position and want to continue with this dispute then your choices are either Otelo or court, the ICO may review the situation at your request but they do not have the powers to compel Voda to remove the default.

Locutus Lowell would not be responsbile for obtaining the requested information for the original poster. A SAR only covers data that they hold at the time that the request is made. If Lowell don't hold the data they would not be obliged to provide it. Notwithstanding that point the original poster has sent a SAR relevant to the Consumer Credit Act requesting information that Vodafone would be under no obligation to hold from a legal standpoint such as default notices and original copies of the contract etc.

In answer to your questions, they can't continue to supply the service because the person they have cut off has demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to pay their bills, in which case it is perfectly reasonable to prevent them from accessing the network and increasing the charges they owe until such time as they do pay their bills. Whether they can continue to charge if the person they have cut off no longer able to pay their bills would depend on the wording of the contract, in most cases I'd imagine though it will state that if the customer breaches the terms of the contract they are liable for the remaining months. I've commented on actual losses before, if you of your own free will enter into a contract with a phone company for 18 months agreeing to pay a specific amount per month, then you default on the contract after six months, the network have actually lost the other twelve months you agreed to pay for, it is an actual and a recoverable loss. IMO they sell debts because the debt recovery process is cheaper than litigation, they don't want to pay the solicitors and court fees required to chase these debts through the courts except in the case of large debts. Whether or not the contract terms are fair would be something only a court could decide, you could try to advance the argument that the contract terms are unfair in accordance with the UTCCR before a Small Claims Court, however, you'd be doing so against the Legal Department of a multinational company and I'd imagine Voda don't hire idiots for legal counsel - it'd be very much an uphill struggle. In any case I'm not all that certain that the contract terms are unfair, so I'm not certain you could convince a judge of that.

There are no regulations specific to mobile phone contracts and defaults as far as I'm aware. The DPA would apply as it does to all processing of data. Your daughter would have agreed that Voda could record information with 3rd parties such as CRAs about her payment performance under the terms of the contract, when she entered into it. Voda then recorded this information on your daughter's credit file in accordance with this contact. The dispute is a contractural one.

Nope, I can't see a problem. Airtime contracts are service agreements not credit agreements, you don't need a CCA licence to sell them or to collect money owed under the terms of these contracts. Presumably at some point in the past 3 wanted a licence for some reason or other, they've now decided to let it lapse. They are unlikely in my opinion to be doing anything unlawful.

When you agreed to temporarily disconnect your contract you will have been sent a letter explaining how long this lasts for, I think it is a maximum of six months. The letter also says that should you not reconnect when you agreed then they would charge you for the remainder of the contract. This was all explained verbally to me as well. A couple of weeks before your due to reconnect I believe Orange send a letter advising that the contract is due to be reconnected and reiterating the above info. Your belief is that because your abroad and cannot receive Orange signal in the country where your now living you should be allowed to cancel the contract FOC? Your contract is for supply of network services in the UK - you can't argue because you've chosen to move abroad you should be released from the contract without charge - as far as arguments go its a fairly absurd one. Orange can't be held liable for things which they are not at fault for or which are out of their control such as your decision to move to another country. In fact even in the UK if you move to somewhere they don't provide coverage you'd still have no grounds for cancellation of contract in my opinion. To an extent DX is correct - the most concerning thing for you at the moment should be your credit file though - I've been told that this information may be made available internationally I'm not 100% certain on this though, not withstanding this point. Any information Orange record on your credit file will be there for six years - if you decide to move back to the UK in future it would make it difficult to get any form of credit.

I think the network share thing happens automatically but your right asking to make sure is a good idea. I agree with your point on ADR, I'm fairly sure the Civil Procedure Rules state that you should exhaust this option if it's available before starting a claim. So if the OP wants to initiate legal action its a good step. CISAS won't investigate anything that's not how this ADR scheme works. It's adversarial, like the courts. The claimant makes a claim and the company can then either submit a defence to the claim or settle it. If the claim is defended an adjudicator examines the submissions of both parties and the documents submitted and makes a ruling in line with contractural terms and the relevant law. It's down to the person who makes the claim to prove on the balance of probabilities that either a breach of contract or a failure of duty of care has occurred.

That's your call. I was advising you on the strength of your claim. To be sucessful in an arbitration claim against Orange you need to demonstrate to an adjudicator one or both of these two things. 1. That they've breached the terms of your contract. 2. They've failed in their duty of care to you. This is a legal duty which is difficult to explain briefly. Your argument seems to be that Orange and not performing their obligations to you because calls are not coming through to your phone. I was simply advising you that the contract you have with Orange covers them against this eventuality. Locutus why on earth would you think a CISAS claim to Orange would result in them adding additonal network capacity in one particular area? To do that Orange would probably require planning permission to upgrade their existing masts or install new ones - the planning process takes months or years. A new mast or upgrading an existing mast would probably cost in excess of ten thousand pounds each, one complaint to CISAS is unlikely to result in any changes whatsoever.

Probably the same thing that I said above, that the terms don't guarentee a fault free service or that you'll be able to access the network at all times.

It's not a reflection of a persons ability to pay its an indication that they failed to pay in the past. Unless the info Voda have communicated to the CRA is inaccurate I don't believe that the data subject has a right to remove it, although the op could try a notice under section 10 of the DPA which allows for data subjects to request a data controller cease processing data where it is causing damage or distress, however, I'm not sure that this would be successful either as they've already communicated the data to the CRA. A notice to cease processing would have no effect on data they've already sent elsewhere.

From memory the ICO have no powers to order that Voda remove the default either - they will make an assessment as to whether or not they believe Voda has complied with the act in relation to a specific set of circumstances. If they believe a breach has occurred then they will advise Voda who would probably amend the default, Voda wouldn't be obliged to do so though. The only way that you could force the removal would be Small Claims action or possibly ADR. On the topic of the ICO's guidance on defaults - I don't believe that it is relevant to this dispute. The guidance is clearly phrased as advice to credit grantors and the credit industry, it refers to loans, lenders, borrowers, credit agreements and the like throughout, however, mobile phone contracts are not credit agreements as pointed out above they are service agreements - you receive no form of credit so this advice guidance would be totally irrelevant as it refers to financial products not service agreements. Don't bother complaining to the FSA either you'd be wasting your time - mobile phone contracts don't fall within their remit. In relation to a default issued by a service provider you will have given your consent to Voda to pass data on how you performed during your contract to third parties including CRAs. A default on a service agreement and a default on a credit agreement are not the same thing, however, if Voda believe you have defaulted on your service agreement they'd have a right to record this data on your CRF. Regarding Voda accepting you as a customer again - this would be their preogative it doesn't in my opinion have any relevance to this dispute nor does it undermine their position in relation to the dispute.

TBH it's more likely due to the number of people with iPhones and other smartphones clogging the network with inane posts to Facebook and Twitter than anything related to the T-Mobile merger, this added capacity to the network reducing congestion it wouldn't have increased the likelihood of missed call alerts in my opinion.

If your receiving missed call alerts in a good coverage area its probably down to network congestion. The network can't deliver the call so instead the call fails to come through and you get a missed call alert later. Your chances at CISAS would depend entirley on the adjudicator you get - if your planning to argue Orange are in breach of contract I would refer you to this section of your contract which would seem to cover Orange if my guess above is correct: 3.1 We will take all reasonable steps to make the Services available to you at all times. The Services are only available within the range of the base stations that make up the Network. We cannot guarantee a continuous fault free service. Please note that: 3.1.1 the quality and availability of Services may sometimes be affected by factors outside our control - such as local physical obstructions, atmospheric conditions, other causes of radio interference, features or functionality of your Device, the number of people trying to use the network at the same time, and faults in other telecommunication networks to which the Network is connected;

Those guidelines arguably apply to consumer credit license holders only, mobile phone contracts are not credit agreements their service agreements, they won't have to follow the guidelines. You agreed when you accepted your contract that Orange could disclose info to DCA's and credit reference agencies as well, so they are processing your info with your express consent in the manner you agreed.

They merged - Orange didn't take T-Mobile over. It's possible but unlikely there is a fault with the phone or their service, you could ask them to look into this. If Orange's network was incorrectly charging you they would probably waive the charges, if the phone was faulty depending on where you got it they may not waive the charges. Even if the phone has been hacked you'd still be liable to pay any charges resulting from this. Your contract will state you are responsible for all charges on your account whether or not you incurred them personally, so if the phone has been hacked you'd still be responsible for paying the bills. It's not Orange's fault if the phone gets hacked. They don't make it, your the person using it and most hacks require user intervention i.e you visit a website or install a piece of software etc.

Try this for making a SAR to Orange... http://www.orange.co.uk/communicate/13409.htm

If the OP has agreed to pay them a set amount from a minimum term then does not do that then they will have lost payment for the remainder of the term and they could claim for that as well.

As I pointed out in the last thread in which you made a reference to the phone, it forms no part of the contract for supply of network services and the charges Orange are seeking are not related to phone.