Stolen Mobile, calls to Pakistan !!!

[cedarwood]

My daughter's phone has just been stolen and calls to Pakistan, totalling more than £500, have been made over just a few hours from 3.30am this morning. The phone was reported lost within the required time, but the calls had already been made. She never phones Pakistan. She has no need to. Is it too much to ask for true justice in this country? This is a crime, and my daughter is not guilty; that is unless the phone company want to prove that she did make these calls. The phone has a GPS system and we can prove that she was nowhere near the phone when these calls were made. Why are people so wicked!!!!!!

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome, Cedarwood.

 

I'll start a new thread with your post.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[JonCris]

Yes I had Orange Care active on the phone at the time. Nearly £500 of calls were made in the period between my last using the phone and reporting it to Orange (within their stipulated 24hr period).

 

Their argument is that I should have barred the phone upon discovering it was missing - though I can't see anything binding in their T&C to this effect, and also the likelihood of recovery if the phone was barred was reduced in my opinion (myself and friends have recovered phones by calling them and having them answered by the finder).

 

 

They're talking rubbish like many others I regularly mislay my phone only to find I've either left in the car or it's fallen down the back of the settee should I then report it missing only to have it cut off, of course not Orange are trying it on

[buzby]

I wonder if you resolved your problem, and what happened. My daughter's phone has just been stolen and calls to Pakistan, totalling more than £500, have been made over just a few hours from 3.30am this morning. The phone was reported lost within the required time, but the calls had already been made. She never phones Pakistan. She has no need to. Is it too much to ask for true justice in this country? This is a crime, and my daughter is not guilty; that is unless the phone company want to prove that she did make these calls. The phone has a GPS system and we can prove that she was nowhere near the phone when these calls were made. Why are people so wicked!!!!!!!!!

 

As you will have seen from the thread you originally commented on (Jamaica calls) - there isn't really anything, other than throwing herself at the mercy of the network - but she contributed to the negliugence, even though she didn't actually make the calls. Incidentally, GPS only showed where the phone was when the call was made, it dfoesn't matter where the owner was, the owners remain ultimately ressponsible, and like credit cards, you remain liable until the theft is reported and the handset blocked. As for true justice - c'mon now. Justice for whom? The network connected the call on the understanding they were going to be paid for the call. Your daughter shares in the responsibility, and invariably it is ONLY after an incident like this people realise what a liability it is. Insurance can go some way of offering protection - and if she PIN protected the handset, three attempt and the SIM is disabled, pretty good security, but not used.

 

As to the call desinations - you've identified the caller(s) to be or related to foreign nationals, but anyone faced with suspect morals would steal a phone, but the police have bigger fish to fry, so they get away with it,

[cedarwood]

I understand you're comments on the company's position about being liable and responsible. Somehow, though, to expect a customer to be liable for someone who blatantly steals and uses a phone illegally does not make any logical sense.

 

If I were to steal a gun and shoot someone, would I then not be liable for any injury to the person I shot? Would the owner of the weapon be responsible??

[buzby]

Wrong argument, I'm afraid. Turn it on its head - why should a company that offer you a contracted service be liable to additional cost, simply because the user was cavalier enought not to take adequate precautions to protect what is their own property? What if the phone was actually stolen and knifepoint/gunpoint? Why would you think that the phone owner would somehow be less liable in those circumstances? In this case, would it not be proper for some common-good fund to recompense the owner? As clearly, there has been no failing on the part of the network - they were required to provide phone service and that's exactly what they did!

 

As to your last paragraph - I'm not sure of the point you're making, in the case of a gun being stolen (which isn;t a contracted service), the owner of the gun would indeed be held responsible, as the owner is required as part of the terms of the gin licence to ensure the firearm and its ammunition are secured and locked away when not in use. If a theirf broke into the locked safe and stole the gun, and then killed and injures someone, then the gun owner would not be responsible. If however, they'd simply left it under the bed and a burglar went on a killing spree - the gun owner WOULD additionally be responsible because they did not comply with the requirements of their licence to keep it secure.

 

Switch the locked gun cabinet to PIN protecting your handset, and you've got the same situation, and logical result.

[JonCris]

buzby what nonsense, you really should be working for the banks. She followed the drill as set out by Orange so IS entitled to have the demand rescinded. In other words she did what any reasonable person would do under the circumstances so is entitled to have the bill cancelled

[PGH7447]

Wrong argument, I'm afraid. Turn it on its head - why should a company that offer you a contracted service be liable to additional cost, simply because the user was cavalier enought not to take adequate precautions to protect what is their own property? What if the phone was actually stolen and knifepoint/gunpoint? Why would you think that the phone owner would somehow be less liable in those circumstances? In this case, would it not be proper for some common-good fund to recompense the owner? As clearly, there has been no failing on the part of the network - they were required to provide phone service and that's exactly what they did!

 

.

 

If the op report the phone stolen within the required time period and there has been no previous usage of the phone to call the destinations called by the thief then why should the op be responsible, sorry busby but you are wrong.

 

its like saying I had my car stolen and they used it in a bank robbery, so fair cop guv I aided and abetted the robbers

[Human Writes]

The terms of the OP's daughters contract say differently, the OP's daughter was the person in the possession of the phone + SIM, the onus would rightly lie with them to report the loss or theft to the network and its not unreasonable for them to be held liable for any charges until they do so.

 

The network would have no way of determining whether or not the phone + SIM was stolen until they were notified of its loss and Buzby is correct that the OP daughter would have been able to mitigate her losses by protecting the SIM and the handset with a PIN.

 

To turn the argument around as Buzby suggests: Why should the network be liable if the OP's daughter fails to take reasonable care of her phone + SIM, fails to notify them of its theft and fails to take adequate precautions to prevent consequential losses should the phone + SIM be stolen?

[locutus]

She may be able to negotiate a settlement of what it actually cost the network.

 

As for your daughter never calling Pakistan in the past, she'd be angry if a friend or family had an emergency whilst they were in Pakistan and the network didn't allow her to call them!

 

Your daughters best bet is to talk nicely to them (be it over the phone or in writing). Flatter them a little... comments like "I've always been a happy customer", If she always pays on time, this is worth reminding them. See if any addons would've reduced the bill and see if they can backdate them.

 

Now, next point is Orange can put some very nasty markers on a credit file if payments are not timely, so the sooner you get things sorted the better!

[buzby]

buzby what nonsense, you really should be working for the banks. She followed the drill as set out by Orange so IS entitled to have the demand rescinded. In other words she did what any reasonable person would do under the circumstances so is entitled to have the bill cancelled

 

Afraid you should READ the message. What on earth did the OP actually mean when saying 'reported within the required time period'...? There is no 'required' time period. LIKE the banks, you remain fully liable until the loss is reported, once this is done your liability is discharged.

 

As the OP noted, all the calls it appears had been made prior to this - so instead of giving a fluffy but non-existant hope, at least I tell it like it is. If you do not protect your property with the tools they provide, you pay for it, and it was the negligence of the owner - unfortunate nevertheless - that will be called to account. If such loss had been insured, geat, problem solved. However, expecting the network to assume responsibility for ANY of this problem, and none of it their making, shows a loss of reality.

[buzby]

If the op report the phone stolen within the required time period and there has been no previous usage of the phone to call the destinations called by the thief then why should the op be responsible, sorry busby but you are wrong.

 

its like saying I had my car stolen and they used it in a bank robbery, so fair cop guv I aided and abetted the robbers

 

Perhaps you should read the posting more carefully? You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick- in ewssense you are agreeing with me, the OP would only be responsible UNTIL the theft was reported, and that was what happened in this case.

[PGH7447]

but if in the period between notice of loss and report of said loss, the phone was missused that does not automatically mean she is responsible for any calls, also the phone company have a responsibility to monitor calls and when a call/calls reach the above sum of £500 in less than a day steps should have been taken to verify the calls were genuine.

 

but then again these companies just look at the £ sign and ignore it.

 

perosonally I use pay and go, so if I lose or get my phone stolen they get a whole £5 of credit, and I buy a new one for a tenner

[buzby]

Notice of Loss/Theft and Report of los are one and the same. How are you differentiating these as seperate actions? Whether you call it 'notification' or a 'report' the bottom line, remains - as soon as the network is advised of loss, a block is placed on the handset IMMEDIATELY. Any calls itemised after the notice has been given are the responsibility of the network, but a new SIM generated and the monthly rental will continue to be billed.

 

I also agree that the consumer disadvantage to having a contract is never realised until too late. PAYG provides protection that outgeights any tariff disadvantage.

[PGH7447]

by notice I meant when the OP NOTICED the phone was no more

 

and I was not on about new sim and or line rental

 

the OP report the theft therefore any calls made are not in effect the responsibility of the owner of the phone, we all know that when a phone is stolen the thief as a limit time to make calls hence the bill of £500, likewise the phone companies are aware of this but still try and pin it on the owner of said phone

 

Busby we are splitting the atom on this, and it is not helping the OP

[buzby]

Nope - Notice is defined by telling the Network the mobile is no longer under their control. You're probably unaware of the [problem] where wideboys (and girls), loan out their handsets to foreign friends at the weekend for fun, then expect the network to waive the cost by saying they noticed it was missing on the Friday, but they didn't think the office would be open until 9am Monday!

 

They do get annoyed when told it is not when they notice it was missing, but when the network is advised. For information, networks can block handsets 24x7. So the OP remains liable until the netowrk is told of the loss.

[PGH7447]

nope not aware of any [problem] where wide boys/girls lend their mobiles

 

and we are still not assisting the OP, and I take it from the name Busby you work for the telecoms industry

[Powlo1]

I'm afraid that Buzby is correct and the onus lies on the users. Why should the telco be held liable while someone has been negligent.

 

but if in the period between notice of loss and report of said loss, the phone was missused that does not automatically mean she is responsible for any calls, also the phone company have a responsibility to monitor calls and when a call/calls reach the above sum of £500 in less than a day steps should have been taken to verify the calls were genuine.

 

but then again these companies just look at the £ sign and ignore it.

 

perosonally I use pay and go, so if I lose or get my phone stolen they get a whole £5 of credit, and I buy a new one for a tenner

 

The telco does NOT have a responsibility to monitor calls and their value, the main reason they do is to protect themselves not the consumer.

 

She can try bartering with CS and see if they'll take a look at the bill or discount it somewhat.

[PGH7447]

the onus maybe on the user to report it stolen which in post 1 it was explained that it was

 

the onus is not on the user to pay for the thiefs calls

 

and why should she try bartering with CS.

[buzby]

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick.

 

The onus IS on the user to take a responsibility for their actions (or inactions). Who do you think Is going to pay for it? The network? So those charges then get passed on to everyone else? Yes, right!

 

The 'bartering' referred to is based on mitigating your losses. There is a profit element to all calls made. Those that may be made fraudulently, the network MAY be prepared to reduce the bill based on the actual cost to the network without their profit element. They don't have to do this, but if you don;t ask you don't. Since hte OP is legally obliged to pay, it makes sense to get this amount down as far as you can, which is why bartering is a useful (and valuable) route to take.

 

And in connection with your earlier comment, I do not 'work for the telecoms industry'.

[andydd]

I have to agree with Buzby. The responsibilty for any calls made on the handset while it is under contract is with the owner.

 

If if a phone is lost/stolen it is upto the owner to immediately contact the phone company and from that point the phone will be blocked.

 

Although it seems unfair you cant really expect the phone company to pick up the bill can you ?. If this was the case we would all be paying extra through far higher monthly bills.

 

Of course nearly all handsets can be locked with a simple PIN, this would result in the phone being unusable for anyone finding/stealing it.

 

How many of us have ever lost a Credit/Debit card ?. If we were to be foolish enough to write our PIN number down with it, we would aslo be held responsible for any money spent on it, a phone without some sort of PIN lock on it should be thought of as the same.

 

Of course it may be possible for phone companies to constantly monitor millions of phones and to bar them if excess use was spotted but not very practical, although many phones/accounts do have features such as barring international calls and/or only allowing a certain amount of calls per month. Mine is set to £200 a month as a maximum, although I'm sure this can be set higher or lower.

 

The only hope in this situation is for some sort of goodwill gesture from the company concerned.

 

Andy

[JonCris]

Nope - Notice is defined by telling the Network the mobile is no longer under their control. You're probably unaware of the [problem] where wideboys (and girls), loan out their handsets to foreign friends at the weekend for fun, then expect the network to waive the cost by saying they noticed it was missing on the Friday, but they didn't think the office would be open until 9am Monday!

 

They do get annoyed when told it is not when they notice it was missing, but when the network is advised. For information, networks can block handsets 24x7. So the OP remains liable until the netowrk is told of the loss.

 

How are they supposed to notify the company if they don't know it's missing.......permanently .......... clairvoyance perhaps:rolleyes:

[PGH7447]

How are they supposed to notify the company if they don't know it's missing.......permanently .......... clairvoyance perhaps:rolleyes:

 

maybe they got a phantom phone call:eek:

[locutus]

But if you lock you handset & sim with a pin number no calls at all can be made.

[andydd]

But if you lock you handset & sim with a pin number no calls at all can be made.

 

I've noticed that for new phones such as my N97 there are apps that will self lock, send warning messages, track via GPS, delete data and all sorts of advanced security features should your phone become lost or stolen.

 

Andy