Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3339 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have a second-hand iPhone 4S on EE and I am being charged £20.45 to unlock it from their network. Is there are legal basis for them to levy this charge? I understand that "the main reason that networks are allowed to lock phones in the first place is because generally when a phone is sold locked it's at a subsidised price..." - however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?

 

"All the networks do it" is not the basis for law. Also of interest to me, the fact that parking charges - and over-charging - previously acceptable to millions of people, is now found to be in contravention to the law. How can I request my money back from EE?

Capital One Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Barclaycard Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Lloyds TSB Data Protection Act sent on three accounts - Current, Business & Credit Card (15th December, 2008)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a second-hand iPhone 4S on EE and I am being charged £20.45 to unlock it from their network. Is there are legal basis for them to levy this charge? I understand that "the main reason that networks are allowed to lock phones in the first place is because generally when a phone is sold locked it's at a subsidised price..." - however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?

 

"All the networks do it" is not the basis for law. Also of interest to me, the fact that parking charges - and over-charging - previously acceptable to millions of people, is now found to be in contravention to the law. How can I request my money back from EE?

 

"however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?" : since you have no contract with them, why should they offer you unlocking (a commercial service) for free? They owe you no obligation.

 

So, "all the networks do it" might not be a basis in law for them to charge you, but since it isn't unlawful for them to charge you for a service that they aren't contractually bound to offer free of charge, they can do so, lawfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be dim about this - but what am I being charged for? Are they hiring some kind of digital locksmith to come along with a pair of bolt-cutters to "release" me? I am not sure why this is a "commercial service". Surely, they can flick a switch and I am off their network? Why do I have to pay to be un-tied from their network, to which they have the "keys"?

Capital One Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Barclaycard Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Lloyds TSB Data Protection Act sent on three accounts - Current, Business & Credit Card (15th December, 2008)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sold locked to that network from new with the agreement that the phone is cheaper as its locked. that is accepted by the buyer.

You have bought it second hand knowing its a locked phone and that it will cost to unlock.

Should you not wish to pay, buy an unlocked phone. Which will probably be £20 more expensive so you are no better off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be dim about this - but what am I being charged for? Are they hiring some kind of digital locksmith to come along with a pair of bolt-cutters to "release" me? I am not sure why this is a "commercial service". Surely, they can flick a switch and I am off their network? Why do I have to pay to be un-tied from their network, to which they have the "keys"?

 

What are you being charged for?

1) The portion of the network's subsidy the phone's original owner hadn't paid off (by paying to have it unlocked)

2) Their staff's time & effort to process the unlock.

 

From their point of view : why should they offer it gratis?

They have no legal or moral obligation to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is amazing is that in France, they're not allowed to charge. They have to do for free. The only condition that they can put is that you are not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is amazing is that in France, they're not allowed to charge. They have to do for free. The only condition that they can put is that you are not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract.

 

Is that not allowed to get your phone unlocked for six months (what if you want it unlocked sooner? At least you get the choice to do so in the UK, even if you have to pay!), OR

 

"Not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract", in which case what do you do for the first six months of your first contract?.

 

Is the handset subsidy less? (In which case you pay, it is just you pay it upfront AND can't get it unlocked for 6 months!).

Unless the subsidies are the same, I prefer the UK version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three, Giff Gaff and Utility warehouse don't charge for unlocking at any time. Other carrriers will unlock for free after a certain period and the charge varies from free to £20+. Doesn't seem to me to be anything to do with any subsidy but a charge made because they can. Rescent legislation in the USA requires all mobile operators to unlock for free when the contract period expires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three, Giff Gaff and Utility warehouse don't charge for unlocking at any time. Other carrriers will unlock for free after a certain period and the charge varies from free to £20+. Doesn't seem to me to be anything to do with any subsidy but a charge made because they can. Rescent legislation in the USA requires all mobile operators to unlock for free when the contract period expires.

 

Thank you. Here I was , thinking: "Is it just me being dim, or is this a rip-off?" It appears to be totally arbitrary then, as far as I can tell: they are doing it because they can get away with it. The original contract on an iPhone 4S bought last year would long have been expired - the phone was made in 2011, so that is not even an issue. What are we left with? "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock." Really? £20.45? Who are they hiring - Harry Houdini? I would at least like to find out how this cost breaks down. Does anybody know who I can write to and find this out? Thank you.

Capital One Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Barclaycard Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Lloyds TSB Data Protection Act sent on three accounts - Current, Business & Credit Card (15th December, 2008)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be commercially sensititve information, there is no way you can force them to divulge that info

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be commercially sensititve information, there is no way you can force them to divulge that info

 

I don't think so. They are providing a "service" and as such are required to break that bill down. If it's a "commercial service" as so many have said, there should be nothing for EE to fear. Doesn't your electricity bill have a break-down?

Capital One Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Barclaycard Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Lloyds TSB Data Protection Act sent on three accounts - Current, Business & Credit Card (15th December, 2008)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Here I was , thinking: "Is it just me being dim, or is this a rip-off?" It appears to be totally arbitrary then, as far as I can tell: they are doing it because they can get away with it. The original contract on an iPhone 4S bought last year would long have been expired - the phone was made in 2011, so that is not even an issue. What are we left with? "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock." Really? £20.45? Who are they hiring - Harry Houdini? I would at least like to find out how this cost breaks down. Does anybody know who I can write to and find this out? Thank you.

 

Thank you for quoting me on "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock" ... You even put it in quotation marks. Bless.

 

However, you forgot to mention that that was the second part that the fee was for, and you've forgotten to discuss the first part. What I said was:

 

What are you being charged for?

1) The portion of the network's subsidy the phone's original owner hadn't paid off (by paying to have it unlocked)

2) Their staff's time & effort to process the unlock.

 

From their point of view : why should they offer it gratis?

They have no legal or moral obligation to do so.

 

Selective quoting by you merely shows how weak your argument is.

Unless the subsidy is included in any discussion, the fact that some UK networks don't lock their phones (do they charge more for the phone?), or the situation in France or the USA can't be compared : the level of any subsidy is relevant.

Make the networks unlock the handset for free? Expect the initial handset cost to rise.

 

By the same consideration, mobiles that are chargeable on PAYG are available for less on contract : the subsidy must be considered for a fair comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Your question: Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?

 

For the same reasons why it is legal for a computer repair shop to charge you for fixing your computer, a painter to decorate your home, a mechanic to repair your car etc etc etc

 

As Bazza has already said above, the network has no legal or moral obligation to provide this service to you for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Your question: Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?

 

For the same reasons why it is legal for a computer repair shop to charge you for fixing your computer, a painter to decorate your home, a mechanic to repair your car etc etc etc

 

As Bazza has already said above, the network has no legal or moral obligation to provide this service to you for free.

 

I think you are missing the point. Isn't it entirely obvious? What is the nature of this "service" and what is the breakdown of this cost? Comparing it to a broken computer or a car that needs repair is false - the device is not broken, so what am I being charged for? Can any of you answer this question? It appears to be a punitive sanction to leave their fiefdom. If I want my home decorated - another bad example - I choose who I work with, and they quantify what services they provide - materials and labour. Unlocking a phone is more like the last decorator, who painted your house 3 years ago, charges a "release fee" for you to leave his decorating kingdom to find someone with better paint. At which point many on this board would then say, "Ah, you know, it's a commercial service."

 

Here's the point:

 

1. The contract has expired, so the subsidy is paid off in full

2. I am no longer using their spectrum

3. The phone is working perfectly well

4. I am no longer under contract (Point 1)

 

I will re-iterate, for those who can't be bothered to read: the subsidy is paid off. The phone is near 5-years old. It cannot reasonably be a factor. Given this "subsidy" argument is vanquished, there can be no valid reason not to provide me with a breakdown of costs, which I will request.

Capital One Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Barclaycard Data Protection Act sent (15th December, 2008)

 

Lloyds TSB Data Protection Act sent on three accounts - Current, Business & Credit Card (15th December, 2008)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's the point:

 

1. The contract has expired, so the subsidy is paid off in full

2. I am no longer using their spectrum

3. The phone is working perfectly well

4. I am no longer under contract (Point 1)

 

I will re-iterate, for those who can't be bothered to read: the subsidy is paid off. The phone is near 5-years old. It cannot reasonably be a factor. Given this "subsidy" argument is vanquished, there can be no valid reason not to provide me with a breakdown of costs, which I will request.

 

1. Just because the contract is ended doesn't mean the subsidy for an unlocked phone is paid off.

The original owner has paid off the subsidy to the level of a locked handset ...... they could have paid extra to have it unlocked, or paid more at the start to buy an unlocked handset outright.

 

2. If you wanted to use 'their spectrum' you'd have to pay a separate charge for their service (contract, SIM only, or PAYG), but you could do so without getting the handset unlocked....... so this(your point 2) is irrelevant to the issue of handset network unlocking.

 

3. Great that the phone is working perfectly well, as designed. It was also designed to have a network lock, so is performing as per design spec.

So, it isn't faulty, and again, this doesn't support your demands for a free unlock.....

 

4. You want to re-iterate point 1?. Same answer (see 1 above), and I'll also re-iterate: they have no contractual obligation to you to unlock the phone. You are so very keen to note that you aren't under contract - so, if there is no contract between you, on what basis are you imposing an obligation on them to unlock your phone free of charge?. Lack of contract works both ways.....

 

As for "for those who cant be bothered to read": I've read what you have written. I've understood what you have written, too, it is just that you are legally (and ethically / morally) incorrect when you create an obligation on them to act that doesn't exist.

BTW, putting "paid off in full" in bold doesn't make it any more correct : since you appear "hard of thinking" (unless you have another explanation for why you think people aren't reading what you have written - disagreeing doesn't mean they haven't read it!) it is my turn to re-iterate, and I'll try to make it clear for you:

 

The subsidy of a locked phone was paid off in full. The subsidy of an unlocked phone wasn't.

 

That is sufficiently simple it doesn't need 'bolding' to try and make it more persuasive.

 

The original owner could have paid to have it unlocked and didn't, which is why you will need to if you want it unlocked officially (rather than jailbroken).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. They are providing a "service" and as such are required to break that bill down. If it's a "commercial service" as so many have said, there should be nothing for EE to fear. Doesn't your electricity bill have a break-down?

 

Please state which law that they are required to follow to break down their charges?

Comparing to a regulated industry like the electric company is a false argument. The electric company is required by law to provide that breakdown. That does not apply to your phone company.

 

Secondly, do not confuse moral obligations with Legal Obligations.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please state which law that they are required to follow to break down their charges?

Comparing to a regulated industry like the electric company is a false argument. The electric company is required by law to provide that breakdown. That does not apply to your phone company.

 

Secondly, do not confuse moral obligations with Legal Obligations.

 

I agree, except I don't think they are under any moral obligation to the OP, either, only to the original owner.

 

The OP paying, (or agreeing to pay), the unlock fee would create the contract / legal and moral obligations to unlock the phone, but thats where it would end, despite the OP continuing, King Canute style, to demand either or both of

a) a free unlock

b) endless itemization of precise costs broken down to their exact origins.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, I would suggest the avenue of approach for the OP would be to try and get support to force a law through parliment banning the locking of phones to a single network.

 

However, I feel that would prob fail

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, I would suggest the avenue of approach for the OP would be to try and get support to force a law through parliment banning the locking of phones to a single network.

 

However, I feel that would prob fail

 

It might well pass.

 

If it did, expect handset price to increase by about for those networks who don't currently unlock for free / provide unlocked handsets. Someone will be paying, at some point......

 

Which brings us back to the OP: Since someone hasn't yet paid for it (despite your protestations otherwise), you'll need to, if you want the added value / utility of an unlocked phone over and above that of a locked phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might well pass.

 

If it did, expect handset price to increase by about for those networks who don't currently unlock for free / provide unlocked handsets. Someone will be paying, at some point......

And also, I suspect, for those which currently do unlock for free anyway ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many local markets have stalls that will unlock a mobile phone for charge £5 or £10! So just go down your local market with the phone and pay one of them!

 

The OP noted their phone is an iPhone.

 

If they wanted an "unofficial" unlock, they could "jailbreak" it themselves for free.

 

Paying at the local market won't give them any advantage over doing it themselves, it still won't be "unlocked" rather than "jailbroken"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...