Carphone Warehouse

[Paladine]

I wasn't sure which forum to post this to so I decided to post it here. In October 2005 I purchased a new phone and setup a new contract with Three via Carphone Warehouse. During the call i was asked if I wanted insurance for the phone, which I declined on the basis that my phones are covered under our Home Contents Insurance and I have 2 witnesses to this fact.

 

Now, in June I was going through bank statements sorting out all the unlawful charges made by Abbey and I noticed that on 1st June Carphone Warehouse took out £33 from my account. This confused me because I had finished my contract and moved to a new provider back in March, 3 months earlier. So went back through my statements and noticed they had charged me £33 every 3 months since October 2005. Up until this point I had always assumed that the payment was my phone bill and never noticed the 3 month schedule.

 

So I rang Carphone Warehouse to find out what they had been taking money off me for and they told me it was for insurance, insurance I specifically stated I did not want. I explained to them that I had specifically requested that I did not want any insurance as my phones were covered under our Home Contents insurance and asked them to give me back the £270 they had "stolen" from my bank account. I explained I had never signed any agreement for insurance or a direct debit mandate and asked them for a copy of the telephone call where I allegedly agreed to insurance. They were unable to locate the recording of the call and have so far been unable to provide me with any copies of any paperwork I signed agreeing to the insurance or the direct debit.

 

After a month of asking them for the money back and them refusing to return it, I sent them a Letter Before Action as follows:

 

Lifeline

Carphone Warehouse

1 Portal Way

London

W3 6RS

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Policy Number: **********

 

I am very disappointed that you have refused to refund the £270 you took from my bank account between 19th October 2005 and 1st June 2007.

I have explained to your staff on the telephone that I never purchased any insurance and that I explicitly stated I did not want insurance for my phone since it is covered by my Home Contents Insurance. I have a witness who is willing to give testimony supporting this fact.

Below is a schedule of charges including interest calculated daily at the appropriate rate of 8% APR:

Date Amount Days Ago Interest 8% APR

19/10/05 33.75 654 4.86

01/12/05 33.75 611 4.54

01/03/06 33.75 521 3.87

01/06/06 33.75 429 3.19

01/09/06 33.75 337 2.5

01/12/06 33.75 246 1.83

01/03/07 33.75 156 1.16

01/06/07 33.75 64 0.48

270 22.41 292.41

I require repayment in full the sum of £270.00. If you do not comply fully within 14 days then I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount plus interest totalling £21.87 plus my costs and without further notice.

Furthermore I will be sending an official complaint to the Office of Fair Trading, The Financial Ombudsman and talking to the police regarding whether or not your company has engaged in the criminal act of Fraud.

Please note the difference between the schedule and the letter is down to the additional days which have passed since I set the LBA.

 

So what I am basically posting for is advice and a confirmation that I have gone about this the correct way. I got another letter off Carphone Warehouse today refusing to refund me and their 14 days runs out next Friday at which point I will start the proceedings.

 

My main interest in posting on this forum is the criminal aspects of this situation. Clearly they have taken money out of my bank account without permission which I regard as theft and probably fraud, can anyone confirm if this is the case?

 

Also, would I be eligible to seek further damages from them for defrauding us or can I only claim the s69 8% APR interest? Would it be worth asking the Judge for punitive damages of some form as he/she sees fit when I file the claim with the court?

 

Furthermore, I would never have even noticed they had stolen this money off me if it wasn't for the fact that they continued to do so once my contract with them had ended, so now I have a wider concern that there could be thousands of people in the same situation who don't even realise what is happening or has happened. Is there some way I can request the FSA to fully investigate Carphone Warehouse with regards existing and previous insurance contracts for other all their customers/previous customers?

 

Thanks for any help/advice.

[Lula]

Hi, I cant help I am afraid, but this nee3ds to go here, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed-broadband/

 

i have asked a mod to move it, good luck

[Paladine]

Thanks, you know I searched the forum list looking for an appropriate forum and totally missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out.

[buzby]

Don't you have your original contract to check....? On the CW forms Insurance was a tick-box and integral to the service contract. Whilst phone insurance isn't mandatory, it is also worth remembering that most household contents policies will not cover mobiles as standard if lost/stolen outside the insured premises, also if stolen, they do not cover the cost of calls made until the device is blocked.

 

If you have been paying for insurance this would have been in addition to the line rental/calls, was this not picked up, or was everything rolled in to the single monthly payment?

 

It won't be theft - and if you provided a DD then there is a joint responsibility that you check the amounts taken. Errors can occur, and if it is found there is one, then you are entitled to one. Since theres was no intent to defraud no prosecutor will raise an action, and you cannot do so yourself.

 

You go on to say that after the contract ended they continued to take payments, so it seems you've just let them take these additional amounts and not queried them. As noted previously in other threads, the insurance covers the phone, not simply the contract. Many users would be happy to let the insurance benefit continue as they can be passed on to other family members and go on as PAYG.

 

Claims for interest on the taken amounts would not IMHO succeed, as if you did not check your statements regularly and query these charges, the insurer would be still providing all benefits under the policy. They may agree to some form of rebate if there has been no claims, but these are usually ex gracia and amount to 20-30% of the premiums paid.

[Paladine]

Don't you have your original contract to check....? On the CW forms Insurance was a tick-box and integral to the service contract. Whilst phone insurance isn't mandatory, it is also worth remembering that most household contents policies will not cover mobiles as standard if lost/stolen outside the insured premises, also if stolen, they do not cover the cost of calls made until the device is blocked.

 

I never signed anything or ticked any boxes. I purchased the phone and new service plan over the telephone. My home contents insurance does cover my mobile phone, I paid for custom cover to cover my computer equipment and phones since the standard cover did not offer enough to cover all my computer equipment.

 

If you have been paying for insurance this would have been in addition to the line rental/calls, was this not picked up, or was everything rolled in to the single monthly payment?

The insurance was a separate payment every three months, I never picked up on it because I just assumed it was my phone bill. I don't expect companies to steal my money so I don't generally inspect my bank statements on that premise.

It won't be theft - and if you provided a DD then there is a joint responsibility that you check the amounts taken. Errors can occur, and if it is found there is one, then you are entitled to one. Since theres was no intent to defraud no prosecutor will raise an action, and you cannot do so yourself.

I never signed any direct debit mandate, they are claiming I authorised the DD over the telephone. I have 2 witnesses that I explicitly stated Idid -not- want insurance as my phone was covered by my home contents insurance. I never received anything in the post about the insurance, no contract, nothing to sign and no direct debit mandate. They have stolen my money from my bank account with zero authorisation from me.

You go on to say that after the contract ended they continued to take payments, so it seems you've just let them take these additional amounts and not queried them. As noted previously in other threads, the insurance covers the phone, not simply the contract. Many users would be happy to let the insurance benefit continue as they can be passed on to other family members and go on as PAYG.

My contract ended in March, they billed me again in June (3 months later) which is when I realised what was going on and I phoned them immediately requesting an explanation and asking them to give me the money back.

Claims for interest on the taken amounts would not IMHO succeed, as if you did not check your statements regularly and query these charges, the insurer would be still providing all benefits under the policy. They may agree to some form of rebate if there has been no claims, but these are usually ex gracia and amount to 20-30% of the premiums paid.

 

I don't see why s69 would not stand in this case as to my knowledge it is a statutory right for any monetary judgments, so the 8% APR should stand regardless.

 

I don't think you quite understand what the problem is. The problem is they stole money from my bank account for an insurance policy I explicitly stated I did not want. There is no confusion here they have committed fraud.

[patrickq1]

i have trading standards looking at exactly the same thing taking monies without consent and i also noticed my statements looking for another comapny taking monies from my account so contract trading standards but also e mail cpw that you have given your consent to them to pass your data only on this ocasion to trading standards cause they will try to use the DATA PROTECTION ACT on the TS good luck

[buzby]

i have trading standards looking at exactly the same thing taking monies without consent

 

That's where it will stay, unfortunately. TS will not pursue anyone for this OR take them to court. Proving consent has not been given is impossible to prove, especially since you would have to have given them your account details in the first place.

[patrickq1]

.

Charles Dunstone, the Chief Executivei [/font].]I have been contacted yesterday whilst in hospital so i have arrived home to find you have refused to give information concerning me to TRADING STANDARDS OFFICE IN COLWYN BAY/CLWYD[/.I xxxxxxxxxxxx CONSENT TO MY DATA BEING PROCESED BY YOU to TRADING STANDARDS ONLY i ALSO INSTRUCT YOU TO TO CEASE PROCESING ANY DATA CONCERNING ME (EXCLUDING A COURT OF LAW AND THE POLICE AND TAX AUTHORITIES )FAILURE TO OBSERVE THIS CONDITION WILL RESULT IN MY RIGHT TO PROSECUTE UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT,you are now instructed to TO HAND OVER ALL DATA ALL TAPED PHONE CONVERSATIONS ,BILL PAYING STATEMENTS ,FULL WRITTEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS SIGNED BY ME ,MICROFICHE DATA ,HAND WRITTEN NOTES,ANY CREDIT DATA FILES YOU HAVE ANY SEARCH DATA FROM OTHER COMPANIES YOU MAY HAVE ,WHAT TARRIF ,.ANYTHING YOU HAVE ON FILE CONCERNING MYSELF.This letter is also being passed to the TRADING STANDARDS as a cc attachment for their records[/ i am paying my phone bills as usual and not under any circumstances refusing to pay i am just reiterating an unfair term in any non written contract they may think they have if cpw decide to cancel their contract then so be it if he decides he does not like my terms and conditions then he can act on it either ask a judge to force me to accept his right to process my data or he can agree in writing with me that he accepts my terms and no pre conditions[/font]

[Paladine]

That's where it will stay, unfortunately. TS will not pursue anyone for this OR take them to court. Proving consent has not been given is impossible to prove, especially since you would have to have given them your account details in the first place.

 

I disagree with you completely, according to a legal friend of mine CPW are governed by FSA’s ICOB rules and as such they have to prove that I did give my consent not the other way round. So far CPW have been unable to provide me with any evidence that I did purchase the insurance, they have no signed agreements, no DD mandate and no recording of the phone call.

 

As for the account details, they had to be given for the phone contract therefore they had access to those details and in my case have obviously used them fraudulently to steal money from my bank account for insurance I told them I didn't want.

[buzby]

There's no confusion, I'm afraid. No theft and no fraud. I fully understand where your coming from and what has happened, and I'm simply starting as best I can that your interpretation of events would not stand up in court (if that's where you hope it will end up). To prove theft, you will have to involve the police, and you can be assured this will be deemed a 'civil matter' for you to sort out on your own with the trader.

 

I see no admission of any error on your part, yet you allowed these amounts to be taken from your account on a continuing ongoing basis without comment. Wouldn't you think that this was just a tad careless?

 

As for you not expecting companies to 'steal your money', they didn't. They provided you with phone insurance (whether asked for or not) so no 'theft' of any kind was involved. However if you feel that big companies do not take money they are not entitled to, you'll find lots of CAG member on here who are exactly in this situation. Virgin Mobile tried to take £30 from me (in error) as recently as 14 days ago. If I hadn't checked the paperwork and ask for it back, I would have been just as remiss as them. So not checking your bank statements on ANY premise is a fatal flaw, especially if you've given anyone a DD.

 

Moving onto your own policy, just as your computer may or may not be covered when taken away from the insured address (I once stupidly had a laptop covered that way for all-risks, but only if it was at my address). You unwanted policy probably covered you for up to £1000 of fraudulent calls made ON your phone, not just the physical device. Unless your home policy had this as standard, you weren't comparing like cover with like.

 

You do not need to 'sign' a DD - the system is so insecure they can say there is one and the bank will believe them. However, they do need to know your Account Number and sort code, so if you gave this to the supplier, any subsequent claim that they must have invented it would not be sustainable. However as to your witnesses, were they listening on the phone? This they hear both sides of the conversation? Once your contract was established they would have sent you a paper copy of the Terms & Conditions. What happened to that?

 

As for s69, you received the benefit of a service (insurance) so if the cover was in force, you were a consumer, and covered by the T&Cs of your service contract (not the CCA). This is not the slam-dunk you appear to think it is, and you will be criticised (if it comes to court) for failings to monitor and manage your affairs and identify the problem in a timely manner.

 

The bottom line is consumers, like never before ,are being railroaded into situations they have almost no control and the government and banks condone it. The courts invariably take sides, and if the consumer is seen as being deficient in any way (giving banking details then not checking them) works against consumers in general.

[buzby]

I disagree with you completely, according to a legal friend of mine CPW are governed by FSA’s .

 

Legal friend aside, I was explaining the TS will not pursue this matter through the courts on your behalf, they are only there in an advisory capacity.

[Paladine]

There's no confusion, I'm afraid. No theft and no fraud. I fully understand where your coming from and what has happened, and I'm simply starting as best I can that your interpretation of events would not stand up in court (if that's where you hope it will end up). To prove theft, you will have to involve the police, and you can be assured this will be deemed a 'civil matter' for you to sort out on your own with the trader.

 

I see no admission of any error on your part, yet you allowed these amounts to be taken from your account on a continuing ongoing basis without comment. Wouldn't you think that this was just a tad careless?

 

As for you not expecting companies to 'steal your money', they didn't. They provided you with phone insurance (whether asked for or not) so no 'theft' of any kind was involved. However if you feel that big companies do not take money they are not entitled to, you'll find lots of CAG member on here who are exactly in this situation. Virgin Mobile tried to take £30 from me (in error) as recently as 14 days ago. If I hadn't checked the paperwork and ask for it back, I would have been just as remiss as them. So not checking your bank statements on ANY premise is a fatal flaw, especially if you've given anyone a DD.

 

Moving onto your own policy, just as your computer may or may not be covered when taken away from the insured address (I once stupidly had a laptop covered that way for all-risks, but only if it was at my address). You unwanted policy probably covered you for up to £1000 of fraudulent calls made ON your phone, not just the physical device. Unless your home policy had this as standard, you weren't comparing like cover with like.

 

You do not need to 'sign' a DD - the system is so insecure they can say there is one and the bank will believe them. However, they do need to know your Account Number and sort code, so if you gave this to the supplier, any subsequent claim that they must have invented it would not be sustainable. However as to your witnesses, were they listening on the phone? This they hear both sides of the conversation? Once your contract was established they would have sent you a paper copy of the Terms & Conditions. What happened to that?

 

As for s69, you received the benefit of a service (insurance) so if the cover was in force, you were a consumer, and covered by the T&Cs of your service contract (not the CCA). This is not the slam-dunk you appear to think it is, and you will be criticised (if it comes to court) for failings to monitor and manage your affairs and identify the problem in a timely manner.

 

The bottom line is consumers, like never before ,are being railroaded into situations they have almost no control and the government and banks condone it. The courts invariably take sides, and if the consumer is seen as being deficient in any way (giving banking details then not checking them) works against consumers in general.

 

I don't know who you are or why you seem to believe you are an authority on this, but I will say it again, you are completely wrong on all counts. Fraud is defined as obtaining money through deception ergo if I specifically tell them I do NOT want to purchase a product or service and they then use account details given to them for a completely different purpose, they have committed fraud. I have no doubts on this and have already discussed it with a qualified lawyer.

 

And again, under the FSA's ICOB rules all companies selling insurance are held to very strict regulations (even more strict that the European directive the ICOB rules stem from) and in the case of a dispute they must provide evidence that the customer consented.

 

As for my Home Contents Insurance, I already explained I have a custom package specifically designed to protect my electronic and computer equipment (including my mobile phones) and it does extend to outside the home, although it is not needed outside the home as I don't leave the house very often at all due to a disability.

 

As for receiving the benefit of a service, no I didn't, I already had insurance and furthermore I specifically stated I did not want their insurance package. yes the witnesses did hear both ends of the conversation as the phone was on speakerphone.

 

And finally as I already stated, I have never received any terms or conditions or indeed any paperwork whatsoever regarding the insurance policy. If I haven't made that clear by now, I don't know how else I can do it.

 

As for not monitoring my bank statements, I do monitor my bank statements, but the payment simply stated Carphone Warehouse, so I assumed it was my phone bill, had the DD stated Insurance then yes I would have noticed it sooner and would have done something about it.

 

By your reasoning, if I enter into any direct debit agreement with any company they could legitimately withdraw money from my account for any service they feel I may want whether I have agreed to it or not, and that simply is not true. They have used my bank details fraudulently, it is as simple as that.

[Paladine]

Legal friend aside, I was explaining the TS will not pursue this matter through the courts on your behalf, they are only there in an advisory capacity.

 

I haven't asked TS to do anything, if I was to go to any body it would be the FSA. As it is, I am taking them to court myself, once I have a judgment I will be contacting the Fraud Squad to pursue criminal charges. The only reason I haven't yet is because the police don't like to pursue a case if there is an ongoing litigation at the same time.

[patrickq1]

you remind me of mr dunstone lol that was not the case im my account busby my account was transfered from SAINSBURYS and i am not in any dispute over my phone bills as i pay like you say by direct debit...but i had no insurance policy on my phone from carphone warehouse...never asked for one and never required one and due to the illness i have i have only just begun on the stages of recovery...so as far as any agreements are concerned i have written one for cpw they have the option lose the account or keep the account and on agreeable terms .so my dispute is they took monies without my permision so somewhere along these lines someone has taken money and want it back but i am prepared to see it in court

[buzby]

I haven't asked TS to do anything, if I was to go to any body it would be the FSA. As it is, I am taking them to court myself, once I have a judgment I will be contacting the Fraud Squad to pursue criminal charges. The only reason I haven't yet is because the police don't like to pursue a case if there is an ongoing litigation at the same time.

 

You said and I quote: "i have trading standards looking at exactly the same thing taking monies without consent"

 

This runs contrary to your later statement that you haven't asked them to do anything. Still, I've no axe to grind, and irrespective of your judgement (which may not go your way) will have no bearing on the 'fraud squad' whoever that is, or the CPS in pursuing any action. A criminal action will take precedence over a Civil one, and the police will see no benefit to wait for your say-so to investigate.

 

Trying to see this matter from both sides, I note you are still not accepting responsibility for looking after your financial affairs, so do be prepared for this to be an issue at a later stage - if it goes that far. Once you have delat with the FSA, do let us know how you get on, as if it mirrors my experience, they'll say it is a consumer dispute and not under their control or jurisdiction.

 

I just don't want you to waste money and effort if there's not a reasonable chance of success.

[buzby]

I don't know who you are or why you seem to believe you are an authority on this, but I will say it again, you are completely wrong on all counts..

 

In that case, good luck and I await news of your inevitable victory on the forum.

[patrickq1]

you can look at it [edited] for all i care busby but for once i have passed it to TS for advice and i dont hear any questions ar answer with regards to my T&CS i have sent to cpw the ball is in their court they can rescind the agreement or accept my T&CS end of perhaps they will remember the agreement that they will pay me comission of one thousand pounds at the end of a two year contract that was agreed over the phone now we have a cheque from carphone with their account and branch num so perhaps you agree with me that they have acepted my T&Cs

patrickq1

[Paladine]

You said and I quote: "i have trading standards looking at exactly the same thing taking monies without consent"

You are quoting the wrong person, I never said any such thing.

 

This runs contrary to your later statement that you haven't asked them to do anything. Still, I've no axe to grind, and irrespective of your judgement (which may not go your way) will have no bearing on the 'fraud squad' whoever that is, or the CPS in pursuing any action. A criminal action will take precedence over a Civil one, and the police will see no benefit to wait for your say-so to investigate.

Actually the police have told me specifically in the past regarding another theft that they advise members of the public never to pursue criminal action if there is an ongoing civil litigation and to wait until the civil case has finished.

 

Trying to see this matter from both sides, I note you are still not accepting responsibility for looking after your financial affairs, so do be prepared for this to be an issue at a later stage - if it goes that far. Once you have delat with the FSA, do let us know how you get on, as if it mirrors my experience, they'll say it is a consumer dispute and not under their control or jurisdiction.

I am not involving the FSA, I am pursuing litigation and then criminal charges for fraud. As for your comments regarding my financial affairs, I am not going to keep going over it again and again, they stole from me and I will get my money back. How I conduct my finances has no bearing on this case whatsoever, they used my bank details fraudulently.

 

I just don't want you to waste money and effort if there's not a reasonable chance of success.

I won't be wasting any money as it will not cost me any money to file the claim with the courts. As for success, if I didn't think there was any chance of success, I wouldn't have initiated the process in the first place.

[patrickq1]

so we are being sensored because you dont like personal abuse busby no personal abuse was intended i only refered to what ever side you want to look at i do not really care much but instead of being over critical why dont you sugest something substantial like advice for the good of the people who are asking for help point them in the right direction a bit of consideration would nt go amiss you seem determined at the very mention of cpw you jump to their defence at every occasion throughout your posts on most threads your answers are abrupt and unhelpful and smug .if a person treats or veiws the actions of cpw as bordering on criminal why do you not voice your concerns that perhaps this is a truthful person and perhaps he is correct you are so knowledgable in cpw and the law then why dont you prpose some sort of action plan concerning the tactics used by some of these phone companies ..if these phone companies make a contract over the phone then surely they should be held accountable and show full recorded phone conversations concerning the contracts that you so smugly say are legal i dis agree and deem any contract by phone is legal unless acompanied with a contract in writing and also the transrcript of the actual phone conversation then i will beleive that the spoken word thing and the contract are both the same

patrickq1

[complete]

Obviously it is one rule for CPW and another rule for everyone else, unless an error was made on thier part.

 

I own an independant dealership, and we have to and would do anyway, send a welcome pack when we complete a mail order sale. This has to list tariff details, contract term, any extras signed up to etc. We also include distance selling regulations offering 7 days return of unused product, and full contact details including company reg details. i have a policy of not connecting the handset and sim until i have received verbal confirmation with 48 hours from receipt that they are happy with the whole package.

 

I would have thought, that CPW would also do this. In fact, i had someone come into my shop about a month ago, asking if i would buy his LG Prada that he obtained from CPW online on an 02 contract, as he could not get on with the phone. I asked for proof of purchase and proof of ID.

 

He included a welcome pack, with an invoice detailing the whole package including insurance, and T's & C's so i do not understand why you did not receive one.

 

I agree with Busby, that you were remiss in checking your bank statements, for anything out of the ordinary. Sky recently upped my package by £10 a month as i did not have the box put in the phone line, but i noticed that straight away, and resolved the matter.

 

If CPW say that paperwork was initially sent out with the package, detailing the insurance, then where will you stand.

 

It was obviously an error that you did not pick up on till your contract had ended, and they may offer a goodwill gesture. I personally don't think a fraud case would stick.

 

Sorry could not be of more help. I now await a tongue lashing

[buzby]

so we are being sensored because you dont like personal abuse busby

 

I'm told it's against the rules, and as it is not our ball, we have to live with it. As for CW, we also have to take responsibility for our actions. The 'nanny state' has gone to ridiculous lengths, and yet when it comes to important matters (like money) folk happily allow direct debits from their bank accounts then look amazed when it all goes wrong, then try to find a scapegoat to blame, forgetting that if they hadn't put so much blind faith in their retailer they wouldn't have been in that mess.

 

It is now possible for a retailer - having been voluntarily given a bank sort code and account number not only to take any payment at any time for any amount, and not need a contact because the courts will accept that a regular payment taken from a bank account is proof positive that the customer agreed to it. Incredible? Absolutely, but it is true. No signature, no documentation, nothing. We get the system we deserve, and this is the primary reason I won't allow any DDs from my accounts as it opens the door on loss of financial control. I won't tolerate that under any circumstances.

 

For those that do - and clearly aren't interested in fiscal control of their affairs, are contributing to the problem, because if consumers didn't all fall for it, we wouldn't be in the situation where it is now virtually impossible to purchase goods or services WITHOUT a DD being in place and having to give a DoB to buy a pair of socks.

[patrickq1]

nothing has gone wrong with my account with cw apart from someone took it upon themselves to divert money from my bank account in favour of cw...i dont have any problem with cw personally..but i do have a problem with my money being taken for peurposes other than that i agreed to ie my phone bills but certainly not for insurance .4.99 may be a miniscule amount to some but added up over three years without consent is wrong

like i have said if i had mr cd details of his bank account then i am sure he would be pretty peed off at me taking money from his account without his absolute say so .that is the reason i have sent him my T&C instructing him that that if he cannot agree with my T&C then he can cancel our contracts as we have a different opinion and he is not willing to sign my new contract because i have put conditions into this T&C that i know he will never accept thus making both contract voidable

i owe him nothing accept my loyalty and he can do the decent thing and that is to root out this dis honesty within his company and re imburse the monies that are not hisas you say without the DD being in place then this means two DD must be in place one for the phone another for the insurance,so someone has deliberately taken it upon themselves to withdraw these funds without permission and mr CD is a party to this fraudulent behaviour.but when i do decide to start an action it will not be for monetary gain. it will be to put CW before a magistrate to show the recorded conversation that i agreed to insurance being taken from my account. i hope this clarifies your mis understanding

also when you point out someone took money from your account dont you think that that is wrong i do understand you can make a quick phone call to your bank but why did you not prosecute for someone taking monies from your account.am i to beleive you or was this a ficticious story in aid to score a point...so what CW are doing is bordering on being unlawful and it is a practice that should cease ,and not forgeting my contract was not with CW it was with sainsburys but when it was transfered to CW someone took it upon themselves to withdraw the little bit extra...oh he must need insurance i will be a kind person and just fill in his DD without his permission...you are telling me you find this acceptable .point me to a statute that accepts this as being acceptable behaviour bearing in mind i have no contract with CW apart from the spoken word..but i cant just be the only person they have had this or very simmallar problems with ,i imagine it would be in the hundreds and considering it was that many this points out that their is a particular problem with any distance selling ...do you know of anyone who has a written contract with CW that also has insurance written into the same contract...i doubt this very much

patrickq1

[buzby]

Have you considered that the phone contract and insurance are supplied by the same company? That CW simply looked at the form (supplied on on screen) and either mistakenly or with malice added the insurance option, expecting the consumer not to notice? The responsibility to ensure you are not being ripped off rests solely with you. Trust nobody - that way you're never caught out. For me it's not the £4.99 quarterly, it is the fact it could have been taken for three years without my even noticing and would make me wonder what else is being taken that I haven't noticed yet.

 

In response to your last question - yes, The option for insurance was a tick box on CW airtime service contracts. (Also P4u, as I recall). The terms and conditions on the other side of the form explained it was acting as an agent for CW Insurances, and the full policy wording of the insurance including limits and exclusions were available on request.

[patrickq1]

do you know of anyone who has a written contract with CW that also has insurance written into the same contract...i doubt this very much....so i am without contract but ive ticked the box in mid airtime do me a favour? and if the money was taken mistakenly or with malice what has malice got to do with it are you saying the guy did nt like my voice so he maliciously took more money .the mistakes are too many in my honest opinion and if MR CD was an honest and reliable person he would question this himself and simply remedy the matter to everybodies satisfaction,but on the other hand if he is a dis reputable person then his company will be tarred with the same brush and this seems to be the theme of the threads i have read so far concerning CW.now the insurance is with another company as stated by CW so i doubt if he would have a tick box,i am saying this because the insurance document he sent me isnt worth jack **** because it isnt something i asked for,come to that does anyone else have an insurance policy with Carphone Warehouse from 3/4 years ago if so can you post it we can compare what CW have sent me...now if its any different from four years ago or three years ago then this will answer a few questions

.

[buzby]

Do I know of anyone with an airtime contract that includes insurance. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, CW and P4U have done this since 2002, possibly longer. The insurance is provided after ticking the relevant box.

 

You say you are 'without a contract', I fail to see how you make that assumption, your airtime contract may have expired or been terminated, but until you cancel the insurance (which would remain ongoing) until you specifically cancelled it. You also seem to be saying your Insurance 'appeared' mid contract. Seems pointless as the phone's value is at its highest when new - so if you had an online or verbal contract, then the T&Cs of those would apply, and your payment seen as acceptance of it.

 

Regarding your comment about malice and Mr Dunstone, I'm not with you. If you are saying firms are not open to adverse comment, perhaps you missed the complaints about Mr D's other venture, Talk Talk, which has been accused of many problems similar to what you describe.

 

I also mentioned CW were the agent providing the insurance, so that ties in with what I said earlier. However, as you appear to have a document proving the insurance is in force, why did it come as a surprise that you were covered? Firms don't usually send out documents proving a policy exists if you didn't pay for it.