Stolen phone £3000 phone bill!

[frink]

Hi all,

 

I just received a £3000 phone bill from Vodaphone! The phone was stolen and reported about two weeks prior to the bill being received. Clearly the calls were made before this time. We'd just moved house and thought the phone was lost amongst the stuff, and it never rang when called. Eventually after a week or so I thought it must be lost and reported it stolen when a friend called the phone and somebody answered it!

 

I am shocked that vodaphone would allow such a huge bill to be run up when the bill has never been more then 50 or 60 pounds. To add to this, when I called about the bill, I was greeted with the most unhelpful, rude and useless representative I have ever had the displeasure to talk to. All he did was keep on insisting that I was liable for the £3000 bill and there was nothing he would do about it.

 

Whatever is happening here? How did they not have any systems to detect such a ridiculously huge bill?

 

Clearly this is a fairly common problem with stolen phones and yet Vodaphone choose to do nothing to combat it, whilst profiting (along with the tax man) from theft.

[jacktheband]

Although receiving a bill of this magnitude must be an awful shock to you, and i wish i could put this in a more positive light, the bottom line is that you are liable for this bill. If any of the charges were incurred after you reported the theft then you can get these written off. However, any charges made before you reported it then i'm afraid you are stuck with them.

 

Whilst some mobile companies do have systems which identify abnormally high usage to combat fraud/theft, this is a system which is put into place to safeguard their interests, not yours. If it fails to come into play in this instance, it cannot really be argued that they have done you injustice as there was never an agreement to provide this auto-barring for the customer.

 

As for the rudeness of the representative, it sounded like he handled a very sensitive issue in the wrong way. Essentially, what he was saying might have been correct, but this deserves sensitivity and tact.

 

On the more constructive side, it might be worth calling Vodafone again to hopefully speak to someone more understanding and appeal to their human side. Maybe they can apply a goodwill credit to reduce the bill and help you out. Although, they have no obligations to do so, it would be worth a try. Also, it might be prudent to enquire as to their escalation process in case the froont-line operator does not have sufficient authority to make such a goodwill gesture.

[locutus]

It may also be worth mentioning that vodaphone's webteam have started frequenting this website, and they seem nice helpful people.

 

Read this thread and contact them, see if they can do anything to help

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/213340-vodafone-webteam-customers-problems.html

[frink]

Thankyou Locutus, I'll contact them tomorrow.

In the meantime, I have to wonder how it ever managed to get to £3000! In the past when I have gone over a certain ammount my phone has been blocked pending a call (from me) to them to confirm that all was well. Now I can imagine a bill getting upto a few hundred pounds, but £3000 is just crazy

 

I happen to work in the mobile telecomms industry and whilst billing system can be very complex, even complex messy systems, with some thought, can do something like this.

 

To be honest I am still in shock, not helped by the quite increadiably insensitive and unhelful vodafone rep who didn't even care to mention that perhaps my mobile phone insurance policy would cover this, at least partially.

 

Anyway, I am going to have a walk outside now and think how on earth, if the worst happens, I will be able to pay a £3000 bill. I am a student, father of 3 and work pretty much part time. I expect I'll be calling my uni to take a year off to repay vodafone for this theft. I may as well have had £3000 stolen in cash directly, it'd have saved a lot of hassle.

[buzby]

First - it remains your responsibility as to who uses your phone, and any 'protection' is their for their benefit and not yours. As a contract customer, and probably one who is a good customer, is unlikely to have their usage restricted - as you'd be mighty haced off if the killed the phone on suspicion, so they couldn't win whatever they did.

 

In cases like these, Vodafon will normally reach some form of half-way agreement, whilst arranging for a replacement phone and SIM. If you did not have insurance on the handset (which covers calls) then look to your household policy - however it is common for them to unsympathetic if there is a long delay between the first unauthorised call and you reporting the theft.

 

Similarly, did you PIN protect the handset? If not, this can also be viewed as being careless in the extreme - a PIN would be required after power-up and limit the abuse, before the SIM itself is destroyed by 10 wrong attmepts.

[frink]

Thanks Buzby. The SIM was indeed PIN protected, clearly, they managed to keep the device powered up. Not that hard to do.

 

I agree with you about the usage restriction, however, I believe that all companies have a duty of care toward their customers and allowing activity that is clearly abusive to continue is at best not fulfilling their duty of care and at worst, negligent in the extreme.

I have already spoken to the insurance people; I went to the police and have obtained the crime reference number. I am sure that Vodafone are a decent company, with ethical and customer oriented policies and I do hope that we can come to some arrangement.

Finally, however, it is clear even from this forum that this is hardly a rare occurrence and as such I believe that it would be in the best interests of the customers if at least there were a default credit limit on an account or at least, simple unauthorised activity detection mechanisms that will restrict a handsets activity in the case of unusual activity, perhaps triggering a requirement for a customer services call or even a simple TXT message to re-authorise the handset.

[jacktheband]

Hi Frink. Yes, i agree completely. Some extra level of protection is indeed needed to safeguard customers that little bit more. Let's hope that something is put in place at some soon. I also hope that Vodafone do come to some compromise to make this a more pallatable situation for yourselves.

 

As for duty of care arguement, i feel that this can be used both ways, with them claiming that the duty of care on your behalf was not maintained as you let a handset which is capable of racking up massive bills if used irresponsibly go missing whilst moving house.

 

A really tricky situation as i can't advise you of any solid arguement to stand your ground on, but hope that Vodafone do decide to find some middle ground to meet you on.

[frink]

I only moved down one floor in the same building, so I had no reason to even believe the phone was outside the building

[buzby]

There is every chance Vodafone will rech an 'accommodation' with you - not a direct cancellation but a fair reduction in the costs, expecially if you have done all that is reasonably possible to ensure no claim of 'recklessness' on your part can be attached.

 

As for more protection, well - I can guarantee you this never works for all, different networks offer different levels of security doftware, but they don;t want to hack off good customers who may simply be experiencing a temporary upswing in their calling patters (which could be due to a breavement, wedding, holiday or whatever). Since the bulk of these issues invariaby centre on International and Premium Rated calls, just as roaming used to be a service you had to request before it was applied to your handset, I would like to see a situation there there was a tick-box requesting the network to block all calls to premium or overseas numbers, requiring a call to customer services to disable it for a set period before it automatically reapplied.

 

When you think about it, networks would not like this as it restricts their ability to make money from high call revenues, but a network that offered this would certainly recieve the kudos of making such a restriction freely available to their contract customers.

 

For me, it just proves how more useful PAYG is as there can be no hidden surprises like this, as it is not simply the careless that get hit in this way.

[frink]

So far I have spoken to the insurance people who were very helpful, polite and handled the claim pretty much instantly once I had the crime reference number. New handset will be here tomorrow and some of the bill is covered by their unauthorised call insurance. So as far as the vodaphone insurance goes, big thumbs up.

[frink]

So they reckon there is no unauthorised call cover, even though their website says that there is such cover:

 

Vodafone What's covered

 

After being pushed 4 or 5 times between the insurance people and vodafone I am going to try contacting their web team. They offered a good will gesture of £40!

[buzby]

Cover specifically for mobile should always cover unauthorised calls - he problem is imost likely with the delay in having the handset blocked - it seems sill y for them to say they cover you for unauthorised calls the moment you tell the network the handset is stolen, when at that point the SIM is blocked and no calls could be made, but then they probably want to protect themselves from someone who finds they're going to be hit with a huge bill, THEN claim the handset was stolen, in the hope that everything will be tidied up, bill cancelled and a new phone to boot!

[Kirsty Vodafone Company Re]

Hi all,

 

I just received a £3000 phone bill from Vodaphone! The phone was stolen and reported about two weeks prior to the bill being received. Clearly the calls were made before this time. We'd just moved house and thought the phone was lost amongst the stuff, and it never rang when called. Eventually after a week or so I thought it must be lost and reported it stolen when a friend called the phone and somebody answered it!

 

I am shocked that vodaphone would allow such a huge bill to be run up when the bill has never been more then 50 or 60 pounds. To add to this, when I called about the bill, I was greeted with the most unhelpful, rude and useless representative I have ever had the displeasure to talk to. All he did was keep on insisting that I was liable for the £3000 bill and there was nothing he would do about it.

 

Whatever is happening here? How did they not have any systems to detect such a ridiculously huge bill?

 

Clearly this is a fairly common problem with stolen phones and yet Vodaphone choose to do nothing to combat it, whilst profiting (along with the tax man) from theft.

 

Hi frink

 

I can understand that this is a very distressing situation for you.

 

I would like to see if there is anything that we can do to help. Follow the instructions on our pinned thread and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.

 

There is every chance Vodafone will rech an 'accommodation' with you - not a direct cancellation but a fair reduction in the costs, expecially if you have done all that is reasonably possible to ensure no claim of 'recklessness' on your part can be attached.

 

As for more protection, well - I can guarantee you this never works for all, different networks offer different levels of security doftware, but they don;t want to hack off good customers who may simply be experiencing a temporary upswing in their calling patters (which could be due to a breavement, wedding, holiday or whatever). Since the bulk of these issues invariaby centre on International and Premium Rated calls, just as roaming used to be a service you had to request before it was applied to your handset, I would like to see a situation there there was a tick-box requesting the network to block all calls to premium or overseas numbers, requiring a call to customer services to disable it for a set period before it automatically reapplied.

 

When you think about it, networks would not like this as it restricts their ability to make money from high call revenues, but a network that offered this would certainly recieve the kudos of making such a restriction freely available to their contract customers.

 

For me, it just proves how more useful PAYG is as there can be no hidden surprises like this, as it is not simply the careless that get hit in this way.

 

Hi buzby

 

You make a good point about the usage monitoring bar.

 

In terms of an easy way to stop international and premium rate services on the phone - we already offer that.

 

An international/premium rate bar is generally in place when an account is first opened and we would lift it when a customer requests it.

 

Once the bar has been lifted a customer can re-bar and un-bar the number as and whenever they choose either by calling us or typing a code into their phone with a pin number. The pin number is set by default for all customers to 1919 for these services - but this can also be changed without the need to get in touch with us.

 

Here is a list of useful commands to do this:

 

**33*pin# bar all outgoing

**332*pin# bar all international when roaming

**331*pin# bar all international

*351*pin# bar all international incoming

*35*pin# bar all incoming

#330*pin# cancel all bars

**03**old pin*new pin*new pin# change default pin code

 

I'm sure that these will come in handy!

 

Thanks

 

Kirsty

Web Relations Team

Vodafone UK

[frink]

Thankyou Vodafone. I have contacted your web people and we are in an ongoing discussion, not much luck so far, but I hope that you are a reasonable company and that we will reach an agreement.

 

In the meantime, a friend of mine who is a producer for the BBC would like to hear from anybody who has been a victim of similar circumstances. She is putting together a series called "the hidden cost of crime" about victims of crime who then go on to become victims of companies. If she gets enough response then one episode could well cover mobile phone companies profiting from mobile phone crime. It's no surprise that mobile phone theft is so rife when it is so easy to run up such huge bills that somebody else pays for.

 

So if you have been a victim of theft and then a victim of any mobile phone company/calling card company and would like to either anonymously submit some info or even appear on the program then please get in touch with me!

[buzby]

Tell her to look at Direct Debits and the 'guarantee' that is worthless. CAG is full of complaints of firms abusing their by coercing people to give their permission to take money from their account, only to find - surprise, surprise - whopping and unexplained debits the consumer has no knowledge off. In my book this is just as big a crime as someone stealing your mobile, but with more finesse.

[RosaofEdge]

Default page break (1) I am posting this in a thread about Statutory Demands and Credit References as well as here, as the issues are quite wide ranging. Any views/advice welcomed.

 

My partner and I have been disputing liability since 2004 with Orange for mobile phone charges of £1000 incurred when my phone was stolen.

 

We maintain that the express term on which Orange relies does not in fact allow them to recover charges from us, alternatively that if the term has that effect it is is an unfair term within the meaning of Regulation 5 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. As such it is not binding on us as consumers pursuant to Regulation 8 of those Regulations.

 

We await the final outcome of the Banks case on the UTCCR with interest but in the meantime there is a jolly helpful case of Foxtons which gives us some comfort too. (See link to summary of case at OFT website The Office of Fair Trading: OFT welcomes high court ruling on Foxtons' use of unfair terms)

 

We are quite content to litigate out our issue in the county court and have put our opponent and the various DCAs they have engaged as their agents, or assignees of the debt fully on notice of the basis on which we dispute the debt. We have no problem financial or otherwise about paying the sum claimed if we suffer a CCJ against us (if, say, we decide to accept it rather than appeal…)

 

However neither Orange nor any of their agents or assignees have engaged. One of them has however now personally served a statutory demand on my OH for bankruptcy, so we have applied to the High Court to set it aside on grounds that the debt is disputed.

 

I’ll check back into the forum when the set aside application has been dealt with and let people know the outcome.

 

MEANWHILE….

 

I would really appreciate some advice on the following.

 

1.Effect of a set aside

 

If our application to set aside the statutory demand is successful does that operate to prevent the DCA or any other assignee of the debt from issuing another one in respect of the same matter (short of getting an unsatisfied CCJ…)

 

If they purport to withdraw the SD what is the effect of that on their ability to come at us again by another SD. And is the best course of action faced with a withdrawal to press ahead to get the SD formally set aside?

 

Does a set aside of a SD raise any kind of issue estoppel against them starting county court proceedings against us in respect of the debt? (My guess is that it does not).

 

2.Abuse of process/unfair debt collection when the debt is disputed

 

We would like some effective strategies for dealing with what we regard as the DCA’s abuse of process in issuing a statutory demand when they know full well that the debt is disputed.

 

They claim in the statutory demand that to the best of their knowledge the debt is not disputed. However Orange, 3 DCAs and one of the DCAs solicitors (all of whom acted as Orange’s agents) were all put fully on notice of the basis on which we disputed the debt. We had countless threats of legal action and etc, to which we responded “Please sue us then we will defend”. But none of them did…

 

After the assignment the Assignee-DCA instructed another DCA as its agent to chase us and we cheerfully sent the whole dispute file to them. And we can see that the Assignee-DCA has done CRA checks as well as re-registering the “default” and can presumably be expected to be on notice of the notice of correction stating that the debt is disputed.

 

If we seek our costs on the set aside is it legitimate to ask them to pay our costs of dealing with such enquiries as they made prior to going for the SD. I would like to recover costs in relation to our earlier correspondence with the current DCA-Assignee and their agents as they maintain in their SD without good cause that we have not notified them of our dispute!

 

I have had a careful look at the OFT’s guidance on good practice in the collection of debts, and its frankly weak on the question of chasing people for debts which are genuinely disputed. I set out the relevant guidance below but the question I want help with is

 

Is it worth a complaint to the OFT of an unfair business practice of serving us with an SD when they know the demand is disputed? Does anyone know if they would venture into territory of issuing guidance that an SD should not be served if there is a genuine dispute notified?

 

The OFT helpful guidance was this…:-

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

Note that our original telephone service agreement was probably not a CCA agreement – we haven’t managed to see it yet! But all of the actions of the DCAs and the current Assignee-DCA would appear to be covered as they operate under CCA licences.

This is the remit of the OFT as per the Guidance on Debt collecting..

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has a duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

to ensure that licences are only given to and retained by those who are fit to hold

them. The Act provides that the OFT take into account any circumstances which appear to be relevant and in particular any evidence that an applicant, licensee, or their employees, agents or business associates, past or present, have:

• committed offences involving fraud, or other dishonesty or violence

• failed to comply with the requirements of credit or other consumer legislation

• practised discrimination in connection with their business

• engaged in business practices appearing to us to be deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).

1.2 Where the OFT has evidence we can take action to refuse or revoke the credit licences of those concerned. This includes evidence that a creditor or debt collector, or any tracing agency engaged on their behalf, has contravened section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by knowingly or recklessly obtaining, disclosing or procuring the unlawful disclosure of personal data without the informed consent of the organisation holding the data.

1.3 The OFT issued general consumer credit licence guidance to holders and applicants in February 2001. This included guidance on debt collection practices. At the time we indicated our aim to issue further guidance for specific market sectors where problems have been identified or where a more detailed consideration of particular market circumstances would be helpful.

1.4 This guidance expands, clarifies and incorporates past OFT guidance and reflects as appropriate responses to our November 2002 consultation paper entitled Debt collection guidance for consumer credit licence holders and applicants. This version of the guidance updates the guidance issued by the OFT in July 2003.

What is the purpose of the guidance?

1.5 This guidance is intended to set out the type of behaviour the OFT considers to fall

within the category of unfair business practices which will call into question fitness to retain or be given a licence. It is expected that applicants and licence holders will abide by the spirit as well as the letter of this guidance. Publication of this guidance will also enable the OFT to take speedier action against behaviour that clearly falls into the type of categories of unfair practices shown.

1.6 This guidance is not designed to be a comprehensive checklist of behaviour. Nor are we advising on best practice or a code of practice. The guidance outlines unfair practices with illustrative examples. The examples given are based on OFT complaint information and issues brought to our attention by organisations representing consumers, business and other regulators.

Who does this guidance apply to?

1.7 This guidance applies to all consumer credit licence holders and applicants.

3.Cleaning up the CRA listing

 

The final issue is the default notice sitting on the records held by all the CRAs. My OH has exercised his right to place a notice of correction there but was not allowed to file it in the form he would wish to. It means that every application for credit gets queried and this puts us to a lot of time and effort to overcome.

 

He attempted a dispute with one of the CRAs over this, but then let it go. However the Assignee-DCA have re-registered a “default” and I think they have ****ed us off enough by serving a SD for us to not let it rest this time.

 

I have now found on this site (thanks!) the Information Commissioners Data Protection Technical Guidance on filing defaults with credit reference agencies.

 

In connection with this I wonder if anyone has any words of wisdom about the relevance of our failure to pay a disputed debt not being a “default” within the meaning of the CCA as this does not apply to an ordinary service agreement. Does anyone know if the IC’s technical guidance applies here as well as to CCA defaults, or whether there is other guidance of relevance.

 

I wanted to have a look at the scope of the consent to processing our data (if any) which we gave to Orange when (and if) we signed to their contract. We don’t have a copy and who knows what will be revealed by the SARS enquiries made about this. I have no idea also if any original contract allowed them to vary the terms of contract or only certain terms. I have noted that terms and conditions on Orange’s website on the scope of DP consent has varied between different versions of the TCs posted there, but no version is available there for our venerable agreement which apparently dates back to 2001. I also wondered if, while it may be permissible for an institution to vary terms as to payment, service levels and etc assuming a suitably drafted variation clause, it would be reasonable for them to purport to vary the terms of a consent to processing personal data as this is governed by DPA considerations.

 

Still I very much doubt that the Assignee-DCA can produce any evidence at all about what consent we gave, let alone what it means, so we can tie them up in knots for a while over this.

 

So my plan is to follow through procedures with all of the CRAs and with the Assignee-DCA and see what happens and we will also notify the Assignee-DCA that we do not accept that any consent given to data processing covers the registration they have made as well as withdrawing such consent as was given.

 

Any input gratefully received on any of this!

Edited August 23, 2009 by RosaofEdge

[buzby]

You lose a phone, a bill is run up on your account and somehow you are not liable? How do you work that out?

 

Let's not get lost in the world of 'unfair' contracts - you have a responsibility to be careful with your poperty, and whilst you may feel there are issues regarding debt collection etc, this isn't the forum for that debate.

 

If the bill was run up on your account, then you should not be liable for any charges billed after the account has been blocked (after advising the network of the loss). If you are claiming for losses prior to your handset being blocked, then that is an issue for you insurer.

[locutus]

It may be best to start your own thread, however if frink's friend is still thinking of doing a documentary about this sort of thing, maybe frink can put his friend in touch with you.

[jamg27]

My wife and I recently returned from our honeymoon to discover our mobiles had been stolen (from the bottom of our suitcases). We only took them for emergencies, anyway you know what's coming!

 

We reported them stolen as soon as we returned but there is now a £5800 bill between us. We contacted Ofcom and have sent a letter to the companies proving we were in a different country when the calls were made but really it seems as though we're reliant now on how compassionate they are. Our travel/home insurance doesn't want to know and so we appear stuck waiting for help. What a way to start our married life together!!

 

Whilst we realise we are legally liable, but we were still robbed and why on earth don't these companies have automated software with alarm bells ringing when my monthly £25 bill clearly spirals out of control with calls made within South Africa?

 

If anyone has any further advice please let me know...

[RosaofEdge]

jamg

 

Mobile phone charges in the event of theft appear to be an uninsurable risk.

 

I use PAYG now because there is no way of limiting liability - so I limit my liability to the extent of my latest top up.

 

I do however think that there is scope for challenge using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

 

I alternatively think there is scope for challenge the extent of recovery which a phone company can make in these circumstances using principles of restitution. This is unjust enrichment.

 

Why should the Comms company recover the full profit they make from your misfortune rather than say the cost to them of providing the service.

 

The FSA (regulator of the insurance industry) has required an undertaking of one phone insurance company, using UTCCR principles.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/undertaking_homecare.pdf

 

Unfortunately the terms of the cover of most policies extend to the phone and not the charges run up on it. The particular insurance company was required to extend cover to people who reported theft of their phone within a short period after discovering the theft/loss/damage rather than within a short period of the theft/loss/damage itself. Clearly you cant report something before you know about it and yet this was losing some people their cover.

 

I think its going to take a test case to resolve this one but the caselaw is moving in the right direction atm.

[buzby]

Mobile Phone charges are most certainly an 'insurable risk' - it depends on the amount of cover, and the type of policy. It is no different to losing a credit card, any costs billed until the items are deactivated become the responsibility of the customer. Banks will hold customers liable until the theft is reported, any limitation to the loss needs the customer to prove their actions were not reckless. Not using the PIN lock on a handset (requiring a PIN to be entered on switch-on) is increasingly being used as proof that the customer was not being careful.

 

I'd love to wave a magic wand, but where you go to from here rests squarely on your negotiating skills with the network, they may be prepared to reach an accommodation (especially if they arranged replacement phones etc) but remember your own credit file could be affected if the bill is not paid within a reasonable time.

 

I have a policy with Aviva that covered me in full for a handset that was stolen from my hotel, they paid for its repacement when I said there would be no unexpected phone charges as I'd PIN protected the handset. I got a new replacement within 18 days.

[RosaofEdge]

Buzby it is entirely different from losing a credit card - and there's the rub.

 

This is what the Banking Code says about fraudulent use of credit cards.

 

Liability for losses

12.11 If you act fraudulently, you will be responsible for all

losses on your account. If you act without reasonable

care, and this causes losses, you may be responsible

for them. (This may apply, for example, if you do not

follow section 12.5 or 12.9 or you do not keep to your

account’s terms and conditions.)

12.12 Unless we can show that you have acted fraudulently

or without reasonable care, your liability for your card

being misused will be limited as follows.

• If someone else uses your card, before you tell us it

has been lost or stolen or that someone else knows

your PIN, the most you will have to pay is £50.

Protecting your accounts

23

• If someone else uses your card details without your

permission, and your card has not been lost or

stolen, you will not have to pay anything.

• If someone else uses your card details without your

permission for a transaction where the cardholder

does not need to be present (for example, buying

something over the internet), you will not have to

pay anything.

• If your card is used before you have received it, you

will not have to pay anything.

12.13 Unless you have acted fraudulently or without

reasonable care (for example by not following the

advice in section 12.9), you will not be liable for losses

caused by someone else which take place through your

online banking service.

 

The Banking Code effectively limits the customer's liability to £50 in some circumstances or provides for no liability.

[buzby]

You'll find the Banking 'Code' is an old 'ideal' than what actually happens in practice since the introduction of C&P and the PIN security responsibility shifting to the user. With the introduction of C&P, if the PIN is used to authorise or withdraw, then the account holder can assert all tehy like, but they are being held liable for ALL, not just 'the first £50' - as this leads to 'reckless disclosure' and you have to try to prove that you didn't.

 

You'll find this is the case nowadays, and even on CAG people have been left stranded with worry when they claim they never lost sight of their card and still have it in their posession. This is the primary reason I have a Chip ans SIG card - I insist on a signature, not some lucky stab at hitting on a combination of only 9999 'differs'.

 

Getting back to the phone - it remains the consumers choice to PIN lock or not, the latter being viewed as reckless, as they are not using the security systems provided to protect themselves - preferring ease of use and no hassle, and I can assure you this this happens on a regular basis. Liability remains with the customer, and their contract will also confirm this.

[jamg27]

The bill now stands at £12300, this is all very frightening

[Human Writes]

The bill now stands at £12300, this is all very frightening

 

If negotiating with Voda isn't working then you should try a different tactic, the press has been mentioned before I would recommend you try this and contact a journalist.

 

I'm sure that this is causing you a lot of stress and your status as a recently married person, having what should be your happy first months of your marriage tarnished by Voda, a multinational profiting at your expense from the proceeds* of a crime may be enough to get a journalist interested.

 

The networks sometimes, but not always, back down in the face of negative publicity, as an example see the attached story:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/08/internetphonesbroadband.consumeraffairs

 

*They are making a huge profit on international calls rather than charging you at cost for them, which would be more reasonable given the circumstances, ask them how much it actually costs them wholesale for the calls/messages and offer to pay this amount.