The contract was entered into as a limited company, the company was then dissolved which means there is then no liability to yourself for the outstanding debt. Thats my understanding - I could be wrong... I can't see how you have experienced harassment? Possibly inconvenience in dealing with this, but no harassment?

hi fletch, it seems from peopods posts that Vodafone allowed calls to be made to premium numbers which in itself should have raised security concerns, especially since call was made and simultaneous call was made to exact same premium number. If there is unusual account activity with a bank, the bank under its duty of care suspends cards etc until the account holder can confirm that everything is ok. So, why not with mobile phone companies? From what peopod has described throughout this thread shows suspicious activity with the phone (premium numbers) along with a high significant change compared with the previous phone history. What I see from this thread is that Vodafone has failed in its duty of care to the customer, not only once but several times. The fact that Vodafone have said they will not engage / discuss this complaint further just shows that they are an uncaring company that seeks to make a profit from 'stolen' phone calls. No offence to the Vodafone rep here who appears to do an excellent job.

OK... so, as at least one of the Estonian numbers is a premium number, I would guess that most (if not all) of the other numbers are premium numbers which would in my opinion add more weight to a complaint that vodafone failed in its duty of care. Some of the ways in which I see Vodafone have failed within their duty of care: 1. Vodafone allowed a high amount of call charges - which goes against previous charges in the history of the account. 2. Vodafone sent a text alert - but that is all they did, they didn't take further action such as suspending the account. 3. Vodafone sent a text alert - and still let calls be made - to at least one premium number (possibly more or all after research) 4. Vodafone allowed the phone to call various premium numbers in different countries (assumption that the others are premium numbers) 5. Vodafone allowed calls to a premium number and whilst said call was in progress it allowed a simultaneous call to be made to the exact same number. 6. Vodafone have informed you that they will not engage with you to discuss this matter further. I find number 5 interesting - that they allowed a call to be made to a premium number whilst allowing a simultaneous call to be made to the exact same premium number at the same time. To me, this should have automatically raised an alert on the account. If this was a regular pattern each month, (multiple simultaneous calls to premium numbers) then it would be understandable for Vodafone not to take any action, but seeing as Vodafone was aware of a highly significant change in the usage of the phone I feel as though they should have taken more action than that of just sending a text to say that the call limit had been exceeded. I am guessing the reason why Vodafone (and other mobile networks) take very little action is that they rely on their terms and conditions which state that the customer needs to report the phone stolen - and only after it has been reported stolen action is taken. But Vodafone and other mobile networks have the technology to recognise abnormal account behaviour and should do something about it under their duty of care. After all, it is easy enough to block a phone and then unblock when speaking with their customer services (since after they block it, any attempted calls can then be rerouted to customer services).

I don't see any point in making a call to a number and then making another call to the same number at the same time. Are they premium numbers?

Perhaps a no win no fee medical negligence solicitor will be able to give you better advice and deal with this on your behalf? https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow=1&biw=1301&bih=647&noj=1&sclient=psy-ab&q=medical+negligence+no+win+no+fee+uk&oq=medical+negligence+no+win+no+fee+uk

I find it rather worrying that people believe that stunning the animal is more acceptable than that of no stunning! In either case, the animal is simply being murdered. How long does the stun last? 5 seconds? 10? Perhaps if the animal is "lucky" enough, then the stun will last for 20 or 30 seconds... How long does it take the animal to die from having its throat slit? A lot more time than the stun will last for. RSPCA believes consumers have a right to know whether their dead animal food has been pre stunned before its death or not. Something which is completely irrelevant since the total time that the animal is stunned is far less time than the animal takes to die.

thanks.. but, this is my only fear. i am living outside UK at the moment, virtually in the middle of nowhere. wildlife here is spectacular with wild bears, moose, boars, wolves, snakes. even an insect could potentially kill me from encephalitis. i guess that many people would not live in such a place through their fear. nearly everyone has at least one fear and mine is flying (for many reasons). thank you for the links. i did have a look, but after visiting the first link you gave me - flyingwithoutfear.co.uk that website shows a picture of an airbus aircraft which is shown at an angle of about 45 degrees with one wing low down and the other wing high up. not such a good picture to show people who are fearful of flying

As a vegan, I believe all slaughter of animals is totally wrong unless the animal is in terminal pain. Quoted from RSPCA website in relation to Halal meat: To kill an animal by cutting its throat is a most horrific death. The animal is not stupid, the animal can feel the utmost pain and is probably aware that death will soon come. RSPCA believes that consumers have the right to choose whether the meat (dead animal) they are going to eat has been killed with probably very little or whether the animal has been killed in the utmost pain with a cut to its neck. The RSPCA state: So, RSPCA are fully aware of the criticisms concerning animal experiments (basically criticisms say the experiments are useless). RSPCA is also aware that more and more experiments are being carried out. Yet the RSPCA has as far as I know done nothing to prevent this endless cruelty! If Joe Bloggs cut his cat / dog throat with a knife, RSPCA would prosecute... Why?? Money! If Joe Bloggs forced fed his cat / dog with lethal chemicals, RSPCA would prosecute... Why?? Money! Perhaps there is a hidden reason as to why the RSPCA fails to prosecute people or companies who slaughter animals by cutting their throat and fail to prosecute animal testing laboratories since they are big businesses. There is a rumour of a foreign prince paying £5,000,000.00 to the RSPCA for allowing Halal slaughter, though this has not been proved.

yes, i thought i had broke it myself, but when i looked closely at it, there was no crack or dent on either side of where the bright light is coming from so that got me thinking whether it was a known fault. i googled to see but couldnt find any info. i did buy a protective case for it. if i noticed damage on the outside then i would have thought it was my fault, but the damage seems to be inside. anyway, it still works, just that the bright light is sometimes distracting when reading. this was a gift given to me. i am thinking instead of paying for its repair it may be better for me to buy the kindle fire. the kindle paperwhite is good apart from the touch screen. i find the touch screen to be a nuisance because sometimes i will mistakenly change the size of the text or turn page over... whereas the other version, the kindlefire is not touch screen and i think this would be a lot better.

im not sure if Amazon will do anything, 2 reasons: 1) i dont know if it was purchased from Amazon 2) a customer bought me this as a gift I wouldn't feel right in asking the customer for receipt or saying it had a fault. Just wondering if anyone else had the same problem because if its not a common problem, then I will think about getting it repaired. Or seeing how much it would cost for repair in comparison to a new replacement. The kindle is perhaps the best material thing i've ever had. I even share my bed with her!

hi peopod, If you are going to attempt to get the bill cancelled or heavily reduced using the duty of care angle, then I wonder if any of the calls made to Estonia are premium numbers? you mention premium numbers in your earlier post. If premium numbers, then I feel that this would add more weight to the argument, - although not necessary. Below link is premium phone numbers for Estonia http://www.openaccesstelecom.com/wp-contentuploads201106test-numbers-1650-pdf

I have a Kindle Paperwhite which I have used for around 10 or so months without a problem. The last few days, I notice that there is approx a 5mm line where the screen is displaying a brighter light. Since I didn't have this problem at the start and it has only happened now, can it be considered a fault? I remember problems with computer monitors where there would be a few bad pixels within each monitor and this was deemed as being acceptable... Is this the same for kindle? Or is it a fault? Anyone else with this same problem? 5mm bright light may not sound like such a huge problem, but it is kind of annoying as this affects every page I read on every book... It is like a distraction!

Hello Jason, It appears that grahamroo has already done what you've requested above. As quote from this thread: So it appears the information you ask for above is information you already have.

RSPCA only intention is to make itself a profit. If it cared about the welfare of animals so much, then it would seek to put an end to Halal meat as well as the many animal laboratories conducting needless pointless tests on animals which are nothing other than extreme cruelty.

Re the ombudsman, the article from this link http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/aug/05/vodafone-stolen-sim-cards states: Whilst Vodafone have not breached their contractual obligations, IMO they have not shown a duty of care. The duty of care should have been to confirm whether the calls were genuine or not, - whether phone was stolen or not. From the same article above, I feel the only way this can be rectified is through court - showing that Vodafone failed in its duty of care to you. Since Vodafone are refusing to discuss this matter with you and the Ombudsman can not deal with matters such as this, then I feel that legal action is the only way this can now be resolved. The bank has a duty of care to its customers - eg, the bank would stop unusually high spending on a card (this has happened to me several times) Also, the bank needs to be informed what country I am in so that I can use my card. If the bank failed in their duty of care, then the bank would be liable for any financial loss. Whilst Vodafone have not failed in their contractual obligations, I believe they have failed in their duty of care - especially since they sent the text you state above. There seems to be absolutely no point in Vodafone sending a text to alert the customer they have exceeded their usual bill and apart from the text no other action is taken.

The OP said there was a code. Besides, such codes are easily bypassed. As for you saying Vodafone has done nothing wrong, I would disagree with this. Vodafone have a duty of care to their customer. The duty of care in this instance would be to block the phone when it has reached a certain limit. It can be seen that Vodafone are intent on making a profit from the stolen calls since they don't offer the calls at wholesale price to their customer, instead, they are demanding the full price paid therefore making a profit from the theft. This does seem standard practice not only with vodafone but also with other networks. Mobile networks respond with the argument that they can not always provide a duty of care in respect of mobile phone bills whilst abroad since they are unable to monitor the exact value of the calls as it is not updated daily. I find this to be a very feeble excuse since if the phone was a Pay As You Go, then as soon as that credit is used abroad you would need to topup... Contract phones can not be monitored in respect of call charges, yet Pay As You Go phones can!

To update thread, email received from Hastings yesterday: I find it strange that I ask for a Subject Access Request within email and Hastings reply that they require the request in writing! I had thought that my previous action of writing an email was 'in writing' Am I missing something so obvious? I thought that writing an email concerning a Subject Access Request was in writing. There again, I thought that a photo image of a letter was equivalent (better) than that of a scanned image. Despite my criticisms of Hastings within this thread, I must say that as they have been informed I am outside the country they have suggested alternative and what they thought was easier payment methods for me. Communication now seems to exist, something which was lacking several years ago. Also the Hastings rep on CAG has been trying to help me sort this problem out. I am happy in the fact that Hastings have agreed to pay me in respect of the theft, though am dissatisfied in their response to my other complaints. I will continue to update thread.

Thanks for that! Cooling vest looks good, I think I will buy one of them for next year when I am here. But won't help when I am travelling as only lasts for upto 2 hours.

hi, i've tried to go a bit of digging around google. i read the Jensen case you write about. you have probably read what much the same sites as myself. but, what i have found interesting is this: Quoted from link here: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/18/vodafone-7000-bill-phone-thief Above states that vodafone do alert their customers when there is an unusually high spending pattern but there is no automatic barring of calls, this is in my opinion a failure on behalf of Vodafone in their duty of care to that of the customer. After all, your bank would certainly block your bank card if its systems triggered an unusually high spending pattern - I feel the same should be reflected by mobile phone companies. You've probably read this article here: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/aug/05/vodafone-stolen-sim-cards That article states the following: From what you have wrote, it is clear that Vodafone are intent on making a profit in respect of the stolen calls. They could have offered the calls at wholesale price (as I said earlier) as this would not cause them a financial loss, but their stance seems to be that they MUST make a profit - even if that profit comes from making a long term customer dissatisfied with their business practice, the profit coming from stolen phone calls. For a company as large as Vodafone to be seen making a profit from a customers phone which was stolen is totally wrong. Unfortunately, from reading the comments in your thread and learning that Vodafone will not answer your complaint further, then the only option I see available to you is legal action against them, which is more or less outlined in the last link above.

Vodafone have an expense themselves - to pay other network carriers for the 'stolen' calls made. Whilst vodafone are not under any obligation to cancel the charges since the phone was not reported as stolen, this thread just shows that vodafone are seeking to make further profits from the stolen mobile since they have not even offered a reduction in the bill as a goodwill gesture. When I say that Vodafone are seeking to make further profits from this unfortunate incident, I mean that they could very well for the sake of customer goodwill just charge the wholesale price of the calls - the wholesale price being what they pay to the other networks. However, Vodafone have not done this which is indicative that they seek to make a profit from the stolen calls. Peopod - sorry I can't help, just making a general comment pointing out that Vodafone could at least reduce the bill to that of the wholesale cost of the calls since IMO I consider this to be a fair conclusion seeing as the phone was not immediately reported as stolen.

I guess the only person who would be offended is the chemist.

You could make a Subject Access Request and force the post office to supply you with a copy of their CCTV which will show you handing over £40 to the cashier. If you decide to do this, you should act quick since it is probable that the CCTV is only held for upto 4 weeks. Once you have a copy of the CCTV, you can then escalate your complaint further along with your proof.

Ok, i see. I've done a quick search and found information from this site: http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t93138.html Suggestion / advice from that site states: If that above suggestion is true, then instead of carrying them back to Germany, they can then be transported from Netherlands back to UK. Sorry I can't be of any more help to you. I hope that a solution is found quickly for the remaining family since the burial of ashes will help to bring closure.

hello, I did type out a rather long message to you and lost it. Not even my keylogger saved it for some reason... So, i start again... i've given you one idea / scenario for you above but you feel you can't use it as there are tenants in your BTL property. this scenario i guess is dependant upon what relationship you have with your tenants also. i guess that to pay the sum demanded by your mortgage company is also impossible, especially as they are increasing their demands!!! Property law recognises 2 types of possession of land, = physical possession and the right to receive rent money. Mortgage lenders could simply seek possession and write to your tenants instructing them to pay their rent direct to them. Mortgage lenders do not do this since that would mean they would in law become landlord and have the duties and responsibilities of being a landlord. The mortgage lender does not want this liability, so, they instruct an LPA receiver to do this for them. An LPA REceiver who is an agent for the borrower can accept rents without having the added liability of being a landlord. An LPA Receiver who is an agent for the mortgage company accepting rent is the same as the mortgage company accepting rent - with the added liability of a landlord.W Leading on from this, I assume that the LPA Receiver who has taken your property is infact YOUR agent... Your agent HAS to act for you! Whilst you have the LPA receiver in control of your property, I think you need to make them aware of this fact. (they wont like it!) If there are any terms concerning the LPA receivers which you feel are wrong, or, if there is any fault in the wau your mortgage company has used its powers to appoint a receiver which has caused the relationship between the lender and borrower to be unfair to the borrower, then the borrower can apply to the court to have the unfairness rectified under section 140B. So, what I am saying is this: Contact your bank and make arrangements to pay the arrears. If you google "Norgan VS Cheltenham & Gloucester" you will see that you are able to pay your arrears split over the entire remaining term of your mortgage. If you have already done this, then in my opinion the appointment of the LPA receivers is unfair to yourself and you should apply using section 140B Also, I would say that there is an unfairness already since the money they are demanding from you is far higher than the arrears. The action of your bank in appointing LPA receivers has in my opinion created an unfair relationship between yourself and your mortgage company since that action has added on a lot of unnecessary expense which you are liable for. If it were a case of you having say £10,000 of arrears, then the LPA receivers could be justified in an additional expense in respect of their costs / fees etc. But this is not so in your case. You have very little arrears and the action of your mortgage company has in my opinion resulted in an unfairness to yourself - something which you can rectify yourself through the court using section 140B. Sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act do apply to Buy To Let mortgages. I am kind of clutching at straws for you above.... To get rid of LPA receivers can be quite complex. Even if the total arrears were paid to your mortgage company plus other money they demand, they do not necessarily have to terminate the LPA receivers control. Though, if you fight back using 140a and 140b with as many reasons why you think the receivers appointment is unfair then you should have a much better chance in getting rid of the receivers. I am no expert in this which is why I took control back by living in the BTL property myself since I realised that if I did this, then there was no need for LPA receivers. Though, the unfair relationship was my fallback. Hopefully someone may be able to provide you with better advice.

To fly ashes from Germany to UK? I imagine it would be quite expensive if you arranged for a third party / company to do this. It may be a lot cheaper for you to fly to Germany yourself and return to UK with the ashes. If flights are expensive this time of year, then a bus to germany would cost less than £30, a train slightly more expensive. As for burying the ashes in UK, if this is done in a council cemetery then the charge is dependant upon what council you are dealing with. A cemetery is not a legal requirement, the ashes can be buried in a garden or a beauty spot, alternatively they can be scattered. In relation to the debts, I am wondering whether a renunciation of German citizenship would be beneficial to the children who are now responsible for the debt of the deceased parent.