£4175.37 bill from Vodafone after old SIM card lost

[emptyingpockets]

At the end of March last year, I received a bill of £4175.37 from Vodafone. I am currently living and working in the Dominican Republic and as far as I was aware at the time, my english SIM card was stored in a cupboard next to my bed. It turned out that it had been stolen some weeks previously.

My intial bill of £770.02 had caught me unaware and then had further grown to £4175.37 some weeks later. When I eventually recieved the call charge breakdown, I found out that Vodafone had allowed these charges to run up over the course of a week before they put a block on my account. It was unbelievable that a week's worth of local Dominican calls could cost so much. To make maters worse, even though I paid for a monthly insurance with this phone, the insurance was not valid because Vodafone were not notified within 48 hours of the theft.

After lengthy complaints to Vodafone customer services and a complaint to Otelo, the Ombudsman, I was granted a 25% discount on my bill and instucted to pay the remaining £3131.53 in a series of installments over the following months.

My salary as a teacher here is much lower than the salary I was previously earning whilst teaching in London. I am currently paying over a third of my year's salary in installments to Vodafone. There is a remaining £1200 still to pay.

The remaining £1200 was due in December and I have ot been anle to afford to pay it. Vodafone has now informed me that my details have now been referred to an external collection agency called Credit Solutions. Is there anywhere I can go from here?

 

 

[Goldlady]

I am not sure where you stand legally, but can't believe that Vodafone let you run up such a massive amount without blocking your account earlier. They have to be partly responsible IMO. I might be able to help further - but it could be a day or two.

[sowerby17]

gosh i would never have paid them for what i had not used you were in the dom rep with a passport to prove it. Why are you paying?

[emptyingpockets]

Thankyou for your reply. Any help would be greaty appreciated.

 

The bill was run up during one week before Vodafone put a block on my account. They said they could not block it earlier because of the time taken for details of the call to reach them as calls were made in the Dominican Republic.

[emptyingpockets]

I have paid so far because I thought I had no further alternative after going through Otelo. Apparently as the card was stolen from my apartment here in the Dominican Republic I was liable for charges run up during this week. There is still 1200 to pay..

[Goldlady]

I will let you know if I find anything out:p

[sowerby17]

ok well only some one who knew it was there would take it after all did they take anything else?

[emptyingpockets]

It was likely stolen by a cleaner who was recommended to me by the company I work for here. Nigh on impossible to retreive any money by going down this route. Vodafone acknowledged that I had not run up this bill myself, put pressed that I was still liable. Surely they are the real culprits?

[sowerby17]

yes and sorry but i think you have paid them far too much money already. They must have known that it was unusual as for it being a cleaner doubt they would know any one in england.

[emptyingpockets]

I agree that they probably wouldn't know anyone in England, but the calls were not made to England. They were made to Dominican numbers - I found this out when I finally received a copy of the 10 page itemised bill.

I also understand how outrageous this bill is and believe me, I really didn't want to pay a thing! However, if I am liable, where can I go from here?

[sowerby17]

stop paying and they will contact you. they will default you if you dont pay but gosh i would like to see them try anything else.gl

[lawbunny]

Erm... yeah they will default you. I guess if it was like twenty quid maybe they would write it off for you, but I doubt they're likely to do that for over £1000.

 

Unfortunately, you are liable for the charges. Yes, you personally may not have made the calls, but you are responsible for your sim, it is up to you to check that it is safe and not available to anyone else to use. And as you are living in the Dominican Republic at the moment, it is perfectly feasable that you could make these calls; although, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter, it's still up to you to make sure nobody nicks your sim, or if they do you report it straight away.

 

The reason the charges were run up so high is because the Dominican network does not pass the details of the calls on to Vodafone UK immedately, technically it can take anywhere up to 3 months. This means that the £4000 probably went on to your bill mostly in one go! It is not until the charges reach your credit limit that you will get cut off - if the Dominican network did not pass the charges to Vodafone for a week then Vodafone would not cut you off.

 

You say it was a week before you were cut off, meaning that for at least a week your sim was stolen and you did not report it. I realise you were unaware of the theft, but unfortunately ignorance is no defence in this case. Although Vodafone have admitted that they reckon you probably did not make the calls, what they are saying is that they believe you personally did not make the calls. However, you effectively permitted someone else to and so you are still liable as it is your account.

 

I'm unable to advise on the insurance though, sorry. Although I am aware that most mobile insurance policies do have a clause of reporting within the first 24 or 48 hrs - presumably because if it is any longer than this you have not exactly tried hard to minimise the loss yourself by getting the sim blocked...

[emptyingpockets]

I wonder how much profit Vodafone stand to make on this bill?

[goodwill]

hi emptyingpockets

Have you ever wondered why so many stolen phones (home and abroad) result in grotesquely high phone bills for the victim?

 

When a new account is opened, the mobile network operator puts in place a upper charge limit on calls from that account. It's only removed after a number of bills have been payed. This helps protect the phone company from potential 'contract' fraud by showing that the account/person is 'billable'.

 

When calls (international/roaming/home) are made, they are monitored/logged through each network that call goes through. The revenue share bill accounting between these companies takes place almost instantaneously.

 

Vodafone have in place AIT (Artificial Inflated Traffic) mechanisms to detect abnormal call patterns. Unfortunately if the account is billable they appear to turn this protection off. Here's an article explaining how they protect themselves from fraudsters using bogus accounts.

Classification, Detection and Prosecution of Fraud on Mobile Networks

 

I believe the mobile networks were recently asked to be more pro-active in protecting their customers from this type of fraud.

[buzby]

Certainly you are liable for the amounts - and if ever there was a lesson in ensuring you put a PIN code on every SIM you have is a good one. Because you've been paying the debt is admitted, and as you agreed to repay, this will be taken as full admission. Your credit record will be showing the default, so if you return it will be there for 6 years.

 

One possible silver lining, is that for a time Vodafone were mis-charging - not for the calls themselves, but the application of VAT (which can ONLY be applied for calls made within the EU area). Check to see whether they've added VAT on the call charges applied for roamed DomRepublic. If they have, this is a major error, and you could re-open the negotiations again.

[goodwill]

Because you've been paying the debt is admitted, and as you agreed to repay, this will be taken as full admission.

can anybody post a link to any consumer Act/law/regulation that confirms this?

 

here's a recent article from the US

http://communitydispatch.com/Announcements_9/Stolen_Cell_Phone_Bills.shtml

October 10, 2007

 

SAN FRANCISCO -- California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a “groundbreaking settlement” with AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular) that will prohibit the cell phone carrier from charging customers for any calls made after their phones are lost or stolen. Brown alleged that the company violated California law, including Public Utilities Code section 2890, which bars phone companies from charging customers for unauthorized services.

 

“No cell phone company should profit from calls made by thieves or unauthorized users,” Brown said.

 

The agreement, a stipulated judgment filed today with the San Francisco Superior Court, requires the company to credit a customer’s bill or immediately investigate customer reports that the calls were made after the phone was lost or stolen. The company may only charge a customer if an investigation determines that the customer actually authorized the charges.

 

The judgment requires AT&T Mobility to inform each of their customers of their legal rights regarding lost or stolen phones. Under the agreement, AT&T must either credit the disputed charges or inform customers of their legal rights which include:

 

• The right to have the case investigated within 30 days

• The right to provide information showing a customer did not authorize the calls

• The right not to pay disputed charges during the investigation

• The right to appeal the outcome of an investigation to the California Public Utilities Commission

 

AT&T must notify customers--in writing--of these new requirements and assist customers to obtain credit for amounts already paid on lost or stolen phones, back to year 2003. AT&T will also pay the Attorney General's Office $500,000 for costs of the investigation and for the Unfair Competition Law Fund, administered by the California District Attorneys Association.

 

“This groundbreaking settlement makes AT&T the first cell phone company that has agreed to protect its customers from cell phone rip-offs and other unauthorized uses,” Brown said. “It is now time for the rest of the cell phone industry to step forward and follow AT&T’s example,” Brown added.

 

The Attorney General’s Office began the investigation in 2006 after several consumers complained they were being charged thousands of dollars for calls made on cell phones that were stolen. In one case, calls originated from Mexico, a country the customer had never visited. Although customers could fully document that the calls were unauthorized, AT&T refused to credit the accounts.

 

The law for cell phones is similar to that for credit cards: customers have a right to dispute unauthorized charges and request an investigation. Customers should not be held responsible for charges until the investigation concludes.

 

By entering into the agreement, AT&T does not admit it violated any laws or engaged in any wrongdoing. The state’s complaint and the agreement are attached.

That's interesting:

In 2000 the EU Commission introduced the e-Directive which stated that mobile phone accounts should be subject to the same FSA rules and regulations that UK bank and credit card accounts are subject to.

for example:

KYC (Know Your Customer)/"Due Diligence" test.

POCA (Proceeds of Crime) and money laundering laws.

 

The UK Government allowed the Network Operators to be exempt from these laws.

[buzby]

Can't comment on what the US get up to - they interpret things differently even between County and State, never mind Federal. As to a link regarding the OP's payment - there's no 'law' simply common sense. A judge will accept that any contract is valid (or any debt accepted) if the defendant makes any payment for the services in question.

 

Like these wonderful reverse-charge premium texts, but with the safeguard that the customer has to at least MAKE a payment to confirm acceptance of the T&Cs. This is how the whole e-commerce market sustains itself... no signature, just the provision of banking details and the taking of funds to confirm the contract is valid. Many have tried to deny they signed anything, but the courts disagree, saying paying for the services is adequate proof the person should be held to the terms and conditions put forward by the pursuer.

[emptyingpockets]

Can anybody help with a further query?...

 

How will I know if I have been 'defaulted' and how exactly would that affect me?

[buzby]

30 Days after the payment date of your invoice, your credit record will show that it late in being paid, the number will increment each month until it reaches 3 (or 4) then it will change to show that the account has been defaulted. As to how it would affect you, it depends what you intend doing, if you try to obtain credit, some firms will mistakenly treat it like a CCJ (which it isn't) and perhaps reject you - others won't care. It's the luck of the draw.

[PrettyPaula]

I cannot speak for vodafone themselves but i can tell you the policy that another leading network in the UK and world has as i work for them

 

If you have insurance through the company or their subsidiary company they will cover "airtime abuse" which is what you have suffered.

 

recent FSA amendments to the majority of these policies ensures that the date of claim (ie the 48 hr period) goes from the time you discover the theft NOT the time it was stolen.

 

This can be substantiated by crime refs etc.

 

Please check your policy, and if it does not cover the airtime abuse, then usually if you insure your handset the airtime provider then covers the airtime abuse for you.

 

bottom line, if the theft is reported then dont pay. You shouldnt pay for something a criminal has done and i cant see any judge in any court making you.

[emptyingpockets]

Thanks PrettyPaula

I did contact the insurance company as soon as I found out and then again on later occasions. Unfortunately, they assured me that I would not be covered as it was not until three weeks later (when I was billed by Vodafone) that I realised my SIM card was missing.

[emptyingpockets]

Thanks Buzby.. When your name has been defaulted - can this be undone by payment? I am looking to move house in the near future, so it may be necessary to pay to avoid being defaulted..

[buzby]

Under normal circumstances, the answer is no - it is supposed to be an 'accurate record' of the way your handle your financial affairs, so a late payment or default can show either an isolated incident, or the start of a trend. That said, it is the network that has the ability to remove this blight, and if you make a persuasive case and speak to the right person they can undo the injustice... you just have to find them!

[buzby]

i can tell you the policy that another leading network in the UK and world has as i work for them

If you have insurance through the company or their subsidiary company they will cover "airtime abuse" which is what you have suffered.

 

recent FSA amendments to the majority of these policies ensures that the date of claim (ie the 48 hr period) goes from the time you discover the theft NOT the time it was stolen.

 

bottom line, if the theft is reported then dont pay. You shouldnt pay for something a criminal has done and i cant see any judge in any court making you.

 

You would''t like to run that past one of your supervisors? What you are suggesting is that insurance only covers abuse after you've notified the network, and that calls made without your authority prior to notifying the network shouldn't be paid, because a judge won't force you.

 

Firstly, the whole point of mobile insurance is to cover you for the period you DON'T know it is stolen, and until the network is informed (no time limit is specified, but I think they'll baulk at 3 weeks). Why? Because when you tell the network it is stolen, they block it and no further calls can be made. If you are happy with this, then why bother with 'insurance' - as this won't protect you from abuse, the simply replace a missing handset and let you pay a healthy excess, not only that, many networks will also re-start your contract minimum period and provide a refurb phone, NOT a new one.

 

Secondly, a look at ANY mobile contract will show you that callsmade without the owners permission (irrespective whether simple abuse or theft) the owner remains fully liable for such usage. What the judge's personal opinion may think is immaterial, contract law will apply - and all the networks ensue they're not going to take the hit for unauthorised network access.

 

Since SIM cards can be PIN locked, if the owner chooses not to bother, he's showing disregard for the inbuilt security within the SIM card, so if someone makes off with it and runs up a bill, it may seem harsh, but the owner is squarely to blame, and has successfully been held so since 1994.