The Judge was just ruling in line with the law, as the law stands the charge is legal. I'm surprised she went as far as making the Claim when she had received notice of the charge, I'm not surprised BT got it dismissed. There are lots of other service providers she could use other than BT, any other service provider can provide the service down BT's line, she would than pay any line rental to this other provider. Talk Talk, Toucan and Onetel off the top of my head offer this service.

How long ago was the upgrade negotiated and how long did your company take to bring this matter to Orange's attention? Orange wouldn't be the Claimant in any case they would just instruct a Debt Collection Agency. If this was to go to court the company would most likely have to issue proceedings, then the burden of proof would lie with them. If the ex employee was named on the account as acting on behalf of the company and a point of contact, which seems to be the case as the company are having to request that the point of contact is changed, then I can't see that Orange have done anything wrong, they've acted according to the instructions of the person they were told was authorized to act on the company's behalf. If that's not the case then the company should not have allowed that employee to be nominated as the account holder for that account in the first place, don't the bills on Orange company accounts indicate who the point of contact for the company is anyway, along with who the user of the phone is? Mine seem to. In which case isn't it down to the company to audit its accounts more effectively? It looks like the OP was aware that this person took the contract out on the companies behalf, knows they agreed it and is now insisting that the network provide proof of the contract, this seems to be in bad faith to me as they were aware the employee accepted the contract. As far as I can see it the company can't allow someone to act on their behalf, presumably over a period of some time and then try to back out of the contract. I'm sure from the networks perspective it just looks like an attempt to default on payment and avoid responsibility for the actions of their employee. With reference to the burden of proof mentioned above, if Orange had account records showing this employee exercising authority on behalf of the company and renewing the contract which you'd have to assume they would, wouldn't the balance of evidence favor them? For a distance sale to be binding in law all that is required is the order to be explained properly and a summary of the order details to be dispatched along with the relevant contact details and the T&C's of the contract AFAIK. I doubt a court would insist on a recording of the call, dispatch of the goods to the company along with relevant documents, activation of the SIM and acceptance and use of the goods would probably be sufficient to prove the renewal of the contract between both parties IMO.

4.3 terminating your Contract because Orange has changed its terms You may also terminate your Contract if we vary its terms, resulting in an excessive increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us telling you about the changes). However this option does not apply if: 4.3.1we have increased the Charges by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices published by the Central Statistical Office in the Monthly Digest of Statistics in any 12 month period; or4.3.2the variations we have made have been imposed on us as a direct result of new legislation, statutory instrument, government regulation or licence; or4.3.3the variation relates solely to an Orange Additional Service, in which case you may cancel that Orange Additional Service in accordance with Condition 15.1. 19.2disclosure of information to third parties You agree to the disclosure to any telecommunications company, debt collection agency, credit reference agency, credit or fraud monitoring scheme, security agency or credit provider of: a)any information relating to your Contract, including your personal financial information and details of how you have performed in meeting your obligations under your Contractb)any disclosure as may be within our Data Protection Act registrationc)any disclosure required as a result of an order of any court of competent jurisdiction or by statutory authority. Looks like Orange have themselves covered from a contractual perspective. Let us know how you get on

Best suggestion is to refer to this post below which discusses the entire issue in far more detail: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/74802-penalties-not-paying-direct-6.html Quote: Originally Posted by lawbunny I work for T-Mobile but I've never been quite sure about the legality of the £3 handling charge, and wondered if someone could clear this up for me. So is it only a penalty if it's extortionately high, or if it is for every other method of payment except direct debit? Does this mean that it is okay for T-Mobile to impose this charge, because they do allow you to pay by another method (BACS) rather than direct debit and still avoid the charge? It is lawful. From some earlier posts in this thread which hopefully explain things: Quote: Originally Posted by kewbridge I sent off the template letter to Orange as they'd been charging me £3 a month for not paying by direct debit. I've just had this letter back: Dear X Thank you for your recent correspondence, regarding our charges when bills are not paid by Direct Debit. We introduced the charge for payment by means other than Direct Debit in 2005. This charge genuinely reflects the costs incurred in processing payments and is no way a penalty charge. In a recent statement the Trading Standards Institute confirmed that these charges are lawful. Payment by Direct Debit is simple and easy to set up and gives you the added benefit of the Direct Debit Guarantee. We trust this addresses your concerns. Yours sincerely Hakim Alazaibi Executive Assistant ----- So how do we find out if the Trading Standards Institute have indeed pronounced on this and what they said exactly? Also, never been entirely sure of what benefit I gain from the Direct Debit Guarantee? Any thoughts? Quote: Originally Posted by Human Writes Yes they have, I asked Orange about it and they referred me to a statement the Trading Standards Institute made to Watchdog when they ran their story about these charges: BBC - Consumer - TV and radio - Penalty charges The Trading Standards Institute offered a statement regarding this story. It said: "Trading Standards officers have received a number of complaints regarding the extra charge levied by some companies on consumers who pay other than by direct debit. "These charges are lawful. The Price Indications (Method of Payment) Regulations 1991 allow differential pricing provided the indication of the higher price is expressed clearly, unambiguously, and that it's easily identifiable by a consumer as applying to the goods, services, accommodation or facilities concerned, and given prominently and legibly. Basically the charge is lawful as long as it is made clear to the customer, there are several people elsewhere in the thread suggesting petitions/letters to MP's to amend the existing legislation and make it illegal which you may wish to help with if you feel strongly enough about it.

You might have to write in to get it, but Orange have in the past provided me with data itemisation on my bills, that may or may not help you fight your corner.

Yes you do

It is lawful. From some earlier posts in this thread which hopefully explain things: Basically the charge is lawful as long as it is made clear to the customer, there are several people elsewhere in the thread suggesting petitions/letters to MP's to amend the existing legislation and make it illegal which you may wish to help with if you feel strongly enough about it.

Have you got something in writing stating their formal reason for refusing access to this data? I'd have been tempted to get something in writing from their Data Protection Officer stating how long they hold the info and why they won't give the info, then sending that to the ICO. I'd also be tempted to request a commitment in writing from them that they will not delete or amend this information whilst you have submitted a SAR for it in accordance with the ICO's legal guidance on the act, or that they formally confirm whether or not the data is still in existence. If your going to update us when you've heard from the ICO I'll look forward to hearing from you again in a couple of months! The ICO can be notoriously slow. I have said elsewhere I complete SAR's for the company I work for, last week we received a query from the ICO about someone who had contacted them about my employer's practices in October, so I wouldn't expect a forthright and prompt response from the ICO that being said they could surprise me!

You could always dispute the date that they showed it as settled, just because they choose to show it as settled on that date doesn't mean that its right, unless they could come up with a reasonable explanation for why they chose to do that I'd be tempted to dispute that point. Most service providers refuse to remove info unless its inaccurate though so unless you can come up with some glaring errors in the info they hold I don't know how sympathetic they'll be.

Have tried to get SMS content before from another telecoms provider and they quoted the below bit of the act at me and said that they only stored the content of text messages for seven days, I guess that depends on the Telco though. 8 Provisions supplementary to section 7 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such cases as may be prescribed, a request for information under any provision of subsection (1) of section 7 is to be treated as extending also to information under other provisions of that subsection. (2) The obligation imposed by section 7(1)©(i) must be complied with by supplying the data subject with a copy of the information in permanent form unless— (a) the supply of such a copy is not possible or would involve disproportionate effort, Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) They said that this info was securely stored until automatically deleted, was not readily available and could only be retrieved by their engineers in a time consuming process, due to the costs involved and the length of time it takes to retrieve SMS content they will only do so if an authorized body makes a request under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (this is the law that gives the police/security services even your local council in certain circumstances the right to request your mobile phone information).

The settled date according to Orange is probably when they decided to stop pursuing you for the money owed and decided to write off the debt and claim VAT relief from the exchequer for the VAT they were owed. If you submit a SAR ask them for all info held and they will send you as much as they are prepared to disclose, you'll get sent a form to fill in, if you can't remember the account info you'll need to provide them with as much info as possible to help them locate the accounts I'd think, so give them your old addresses e.t.c. They'll probably ask you for proof of ID if you can't remember the security info for the account(I got asked for some digits from the password or a proof of ID), it won't linclude a copy of the original contract I wouldn't have thought, they aren't regulated by the CCA and don't have to retain copies of the original contract for a prolonged period of time, if its more than a couple of years they probs won't have it.

It's an old letter, it's been kicking around for at least five years 3 and any of the recent MVNO's wouldn't have been around when they drafted it

Have several comments in relation to the Privacy International S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). The networks have by now all appear to have evolved standard responses to this SAR, they will probably not disclose the RIPA based information to you and from experience will cite section 8 of the act and that the disclosure of this information will involve disproportionate effort in refusing to supply it. As someone who does complete Subject Access Requests for my employer can I also make the following point, you probably have no idea of the scale of the information your requesting, when my current network sent me the data it was prepared to disclose it was well over a ream of A4 paper and most of it was of little to no use or relevance to me. I'd also suggest you just ask for what you want because it will save you a long long time wading through a lot of paper looking for the info you want and it is considerably more environmentally friendly!

Second that. Have worked in a Correspondence Team/Complaints Team before and neither myself or any of my colleagues wanted to know what you had for breakfast, the colour of the sky on the day you approached the shop, whether the salesmans tie was crooked, if he'd brushed his hair that day, who said what to whom, or any of the other irrelevant trivia I used to receive. Keep it brief, include a summary or a synopsis of some sort, keep it reasonable, be polite and either ask for a fair resolution or tell them what you feel would be a fair resolution (they aren't paid to be mind readers). If you demand, say I want, or you will give me this e.t.c you'll put them instantly on the defensive and they will dig in and refuse. What you want to do is get them to activley look at different ways of sorting out your problem.

Here's a post I made in the Non DD charges thread. Don't know if anyone has taken court action in relation to this charge, I think your chances of winning in a County Court in relation to this charge could best be described as slim to none unless Virgin Media's charge does not meet the above criteria. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/74802-penalties-not-paying-direct.html You can carry on complaining, there are petitions in the Non DD thread and you could contact your MP to ask them to take action in relation to this.

Trading Standards are worse than wrong in relation to this! They are giving out some questionable advice in relation to the whole Dial A Mobile and cash back issue and are even going as far as appearing on national TV to say it, Watchdog, BBC News, Working Lunch and others from the look of it. On the back of the below advice loads of people affected by Dial A Mobile and other cash back dealers are now saying you have to prove a paper contract was in existence before the debt becomes enforceable and are arguing they weren't aware of a contract with the network. There is Birmingham Trading Standards website below: Mobile Connections and Dial a Mobile Ltd. The networks are just letting their automated collections process run from postings on other forums, with all of the fun this means for the credit files of those affected.

Not really, you don't have a legal right to return the phone. Mobile phone contracts are service agreements not credit agreements and are not covered by the Consumer Credit Act, this means you don't have a cooling off period unless the shop or the network want to offer one to you. If you returned the phone to the store within 14 days they'd probably have cancelled it for you, but from what your saying you sent them a letter within 14 days which they responded to, asking to return the phone, yet you didn't actually take the phone back to the store until the 14 October, when you purchased it on 22 September?? At least that's how I'm reading your post. From the look of it you've had the phone in your possession for 22 days after you bought it. The shop won't cancel anything until your stood there phone in hand waiting to give it back, its just common sense as otherwise the contract would be cancelled, they'd lose their comission and there is nothing to stop you dissapearing off into the distance with the phone, your just going to have to argue it out with the shop and see if they will let you cancel the contract.

Would suggest speaking to a Customer Service Manager and offering to cancel the contract if they pick up the phone, not an ideal solution for both of you but in terms of a negotiated settlement it'll probably satisfy both parties, you'd end your contract and they'd be able to recover some of the phone subsidy as they can recondition the phone and sell it or use it in their insurance scheme.

I'd suggest a read of this thread in relation to this the legality of Non DD charges: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/74802-penalties-not-paying-direct-3.html#post992028

As has been noted elsewhere on the site and in this thread, Mobile phone contracts are service agreements not credit agreements and are not subject to the Consumer Credit Act. If you quote CCA at the network you'll get nowhere and look silly. If both posters are sure that the figures they are quoting and have notified the credit agencies of are a mistake/error you could try sending them a Section 10 notification under the Data Protection Act. This section of the Act allows you to prevent them from processing data which will cause you damage and distress, i.e. incorrect entries on your credit file. Set out in detail why you believe the figures to be incorrect and want them removing and clearly label the letter as a Section 10 notification under the act. Voda have to respond to a Section 10 notification within 21 days (this is a timescale set out in the act) along with the the action they intend to take i.e. removal of the data or a refusal to remove the data. If they are refusing to to comply with your request under Section 10 to have the data removed they have to justify their reason for refusing to do so. Make sure that you advise that you want a full breakdown and detailed explanation along with supporting evidence to as to why they disagree with your conclusions, that way they can't just send you a standard response along the lines of "we believe the data to be correct so were not removing it, but if we figure out it's wrong later on we will remove it". A notification along these lines is a Data Controllers worst nightmare, it forces them to justify their position or have the data removed and they have to do it within a fairly short timescale. As they seem to be giving both of you the runaround make sure that anything sent is sent Special Delivery or Recorded Delivery, if you don't get a response you can then refer them to the Information Commissioners Office for breaching the Act as you have evidence of their non compliance, you can also apply via a County Court to have the Data removed and possibly for compensation although this is slightly trickier as you'd have to demonstrate to the court that the data was incorrect and according to the Information Commissioners Office's legal guidance on the act to get compensation you'd have to be able to prove your losses. itsmeandonlyme I'd also be tempted to suggest that as they have failed to respond to your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s in a satisfactory manner and have recorded incorrect information on your credit file for years you want any entries from Voda and Singlepoint removing to prevent further action. They probably won't agree but it's worth a try. Section 10 of the Act is available below: Data Protection Act 1998 Hope this helps.

Why not try a chargeback via your card issuer and get them to reclaim the money directly or an indemnity claim for your Direct Debit amount for that month? One or the other should result in a swift refund direct from your bank rather than waiting for Orange to sort it.

Without meaning to shoot you down in flames I had a similar thought and researched it: Straight from Orange's contract terms. Orange's Pay Monthly Terms and Conditions 1 Definitions Price Guide: a list of our current Charges which is updated from time to time and is available from us upon request. Charges: all charges for Services, as published in our periodically updated Price Guide. These include any reasonable administration charges. 6.3 payment methods 6.3.1 we reserve the right to charge an administration fee each month for payments not made by direct debit Pay Monthly Price Guide The charges also seem to be clearly referred to on several pages of Orange's Price Guide and they are also clear on my bill, I doubt it is arguable on the basis that the charges are not clear.

Yes they have, I asked Orange about it and they referred me to a statement the Trading Standards Institute made to Watchdog when they ran their story about these charges: BBC - Consumer - TV and radio - Penalty charges The Trading Standards Institute offered a statement regarding this story. It said: "Trading Standards officers have received a number of complaints regarding the extra charge levied by some companies on consumers who pay other than by direct debit. "These charges are lawful. The Price Indications (Method of Payment) Regulations 1991 allow differential pricing provided the indication of the higher price is expressed clearly, unambiguously, and that it's easily identifiable by a consumer as applying to the goods, services, accommodation or facilities concerned, and given prominently and legibly.