That is not correct they can default you without issuing a default notice, mobile phone contracts are not the same as credit agreements, there is no legal requirement for them to send you a default notice.

You could always ask CISAS to withdraw the claim tempoarily whilst you gather additional evidence, they are usually pretty reasonable. Remember also though that the company has a duty to disclose relevant information to CISAS, they will probably submit things like copies or your bills and account notes as a matter of course if they are relevant.

Yes you are allowed to reply, however, you will need to put forward all relevent evidence with your application, the company then has 14 days to defend the claim. After the company has defended the claim, assuming they don't choose to settle it, you will be notified by CISAS and sent a copy of the defence and any evidence submitted by the company. You are allowed seven days to comment on the defence, however, you are not allowed to raise new issues in your comments you can only comment on the companies defence. You can usually only submit new evidence with your comments if the adjudicator specifically requests that you do so, so if you plan to rely on any evidence make sure it is included with your claim as you probably will not be allowed to introduce it at a later stage.

The networks used to offer 14 day money back, they don't now, its not a legal right.

On the question of loss of business - is the phone registered to a business? If its not you've got no real claim for loss of business as it wouldn't be a reasonably forseeable loss on a domestic contract.

It's not that odd, giving a child a contract phone is a risk, a very big risk! You see some real horror stories about kids with contract phones, they run up bills of thousands of pounds which you as the parent and contract holder are legally responsible for paying for.

When you port a number the contract associated with it has to be terminated, it's one of the rules surrounding number porting published by Ofcom. You can't have a PAC, port the number and keep the contract active. Also 3 can't change your number and then give you a PAC for the old one, you can only transfer currently active telephone numbers. It would probably be possible for them to allow the port and then reconnect your contract with a different number for the remaining months, it depends on how helpful 3 want to be.

The phone you bought is seperate from the agreement to supply network services, that being the case Orange's removal of a mast wouldn't give you an automatic right to have the phone unlocked FOC, although you could certainly ask them to waive the cost. I don't believe you could sucessfully argue that the removal of one mast constitues a breach of contract, this would be very difficult to prove given that the agreement is for supply of network services across the UK and their network will consist of ten thousand plus + masts, mobile phone networks generally do not guarentee coverage in any specific areas. The removal of one mast - due to factors outside of Orange's control like the demolotion of a building where the mast is sited is also arguably something the network couldn't be held liable for. You mention the cost of porting, there doesn't appear to be a cost involved, a PAC is supplied for free, you can get a free SIM from another network and transfer your number without charge so I'm not sure what costs you believe would be involved other than unlocking the phone which I mention above?

You sure T-Mobile are taking legal action against you? Mobile companies generally rely on DCA's to do this for them rather than taking legal action directly. You'd need to have a solid legal basis to defend your claim, do you have a solid legal argument as to why you shouldn't pay this amount, other than the fact you don't wish to pay the charges? It sounds like T-Mobile are simply trying to enforce the contract they agreed with you, if you agree you did sign the contract and presumably you do as you paid for it, you should consider settling the debt by paying what you owe, if you can't repay the whole amount ask them for a payment arrangement.

Data protection related disputes are outside of the remit of the arbitration schemes, they cover disputes about bills and communications services, i.e line faults, lack of coverage, no service etc. Maybe we should have a sticky which sets out what Otelo and CISAS do, along with links to their websites and contact details for the purpose of clarity.

I doubt it'd be as easy as you think, it'd involve a lot of investment probably milllions of pounds and an extremley powerful and complex comupter system to track a persons usage in this way. The big mobile companies have got what 12 - 15 million customers each, and most people use their phones several times a day, this would amount to hundreds of millions of calls/SMS/and data sessions per day all of which would have to be reviewed to see if it was "unusual". How many transactions do you have on your credit or debit card, 15-20 a month probably? Maybe a few more or less, there's a massive difference in scale here, your also assuming its possible to treat transactions on a mobile phone network in the same way as those made by credit or debit cards.

That assumes they even monitor customers accounts in the way you specify, I can't see anything in the contract which places a duty on Orange to monitor your usage and contact you when it exceeds specific limits.

The charge is £3.00 or £3.50 per contract per month I think. They wouldn't have to provide this information in relation to a written request, the only reason they may have to provide it would be in relation to legal proceedings and even then you can guess that they'd be in no hurry to disclose it.

The charge applies per contract not per account, if you have two phones on one account then you have two contracts so they can charge the fee twice in accordance with the contracts you agreed. There has been a case in which one person claimed that the charges were unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations - she lost, the judge ruled these charges "were fair and perfectly lawful" BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | BT customer loses case on charges Whilst this decision had no precedential effect, I'm not aware of any other people who have been sucessful in reclaiming these charges in court.

AFAIK banks are legally obliged to absord the costs of fraud, this results in higher banking costs for everyone. This is different because mobile phone networks have no such obligation and the terms of your contract make it clear your responsible for any charges on your phone in the event of its loss, this isn't an unreasonable position to take given that the phone is in your possession and security steps such as setting up PINs etc are available to you. You mention Ofcom and CAB earlier, neither of which are in a position to do anything for you in relation to these charges. You need to understand that whilst Orange may reduce the amount owed as a gesture of goodwill they can hold you liable for either all or a substantial proportion of the charges on your bill, if your not in a position to pay the amount they ask for then you need to discuss the possibility of an extended payment arrangement with them.

If Scotcall are calling that frequently after you've advised them the debt is disputed then they are probably acting unlawfully - see the Protection from Harrasment Act and the Office of Fair Tradings Guide to debt collection. Try some of the template letters from the library and amend them as appropriate: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/52-harassment/135--harassment-by-telephone-response-letter-

No they have no legal obligation to provide you with a default notice. Mobile phone contracts are service agreements not credit agreements, the Consumer Credit Act doesn't apply.

Hi Will, I think your chance of sucess would be slim with this one, Orange have a legal duty to maintain accurate records about the payment history on your contract, I think they are unlikely to be sympathetic given the circumstances, you can ask but I'm not sure you'll be successful. Reference CISAS - their remit covers disputes about bills and services provided by communications companies, you don't appear to have a dispute with the bills or the services Orange provided, your dispute is about the information they've communicated to third parties which you agreed they could do when you entered the contract, information related disputes don't appear to be within CISAS' remit. From memory if you wish to nominate a third party to access your account Orange ask permission from you to do this, given that you'd have to give permission you'd be responsible for any actions the third party took, so I don't think your point about different address would apply, also mobile phone contracts aren't credit agreements networks don't actually have to supply default notices.

The judgement in the prior BT claim hasn't been published to my knowledge it dealt only with the non DD charge, a summary is contained in the below article, she was arguing the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contract Regulations. BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | BT customer loses case on charges Reference the Non DD charge, I'd suggest that you refer to the sticky and The Price Index (Method of Payments) Regulations: The Price Indications (Method of Payment) Regulations 1991 It is lawful to charge for alternative methods of payment, there is a sticky that it may be useful for you to review on non dd charges: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed-internet/74802-penalties-not-paying-direct.html Rhia you refer to the CCA, an agreement with a telecoms company is a service agreement not a credit agreement, the CCA is generally irrelevant to telecoms contracts.

You don't get a years warranty on all electrical goods, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 states that if an item is faulty for six months after it is supplied the fault is assumed to be inherent at point of sale and the seller/supplier must replace it. The Sale of Goods Act refers to a reasonable period of time only, what is and is not reasonable depends on the goods in question. AFAIK There is no specific law that gives customers a warranty from the seller of the goods, manufacturers of goods are legally obliged to honour their guarentees and warranties under the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations, sellers aren't.

Handset faults related matters are not within the scope of the arbitration scheme Orange use so I wouldn't bother asking for a reference number, they'll just tell you to do one. CISAS I have a complaint with a member of CISAS, but they have told me I cannot use CISAS. Why? It may be because your complaint is about one of the following matters, which CISAS cannot deal with: Faulty phones or other equipment.

RSS feeds also periodically use data in checking for updates, I've got a weather feature that does this also. Just because its not email doesn't mean that its not something on the phone somewhere checking the internet for something.

Its not a breach of contract by 3. 3's contract section 6.6 states: You must only use Handsets and Accessories authorised by us for Connection to the 3 network and also comply with all relevant legislation relating to their use. 3 - Help & Support - Terms and Conditions Your friend has no reasonable grounds for complaint, your friend is in breach of contract not 3.

Who sold the phone to you? You have legal rights reference a repair or replacement of the goods and they should be of a satisfactory quality and free from minor defects.

Make a SAR to CPW and ask for a recording of the call in question.