Hello All, 1. What happened I recently sold an phone on ebay. The buyer decided to return it (he lied about the battery being defective). ebay debited my account to pay the buyer, I got my phone back. When I tried to turn it on, it wouldn't start, so I took it to a phone shop. They said it was water damaged. "Maybe he dropped it in the toilet?" 2. Appealing to ebay Rightly, I complained and made an appeal. A few days later, they sent me an email: "Congratulations! You've won. We shall send you a partial refund." They offered to send me 50%! I don't accept 50% and have told them so. I have a broken phone, and they expect me to take the hit! 3. What is the problem? At no point did they say my refund would be half the item - not on the phone, nor by email. Their language is misleading, and they did not communicate it would be half. That's not a "win". Purely because of their miscommunication, I don't accept the sum they have offered and want a full reimbursement. 4. What Can I Do Now? I want to take them to the Small Claims Court. They have set up arbitrary rules, completely opaque to the user. It's their "kingdom" and they appear to do what they like. I very much doubt any common-sense test would equate half an item's value to a "win" or "partial" refund. Do I have any basis on which to take ebay to court? Thanks.

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.

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?

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.

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"?

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?

I don't think they liked the letter from the regulator. They've offered to replace the phone! ;-) Who knows? They may even have lurkers reading these threads. Thanks for all your help. The thing is that they want to send me a replacement phone! What the hell is the point of that?? I have had to shell out for another at a cost of £352 Great British bl**dy sterling. I have asked them to send me a cheque instead. They have said: "It's against our terms and conditions." I'll take those terms and conditions and jam them up your ****. Thoughts?

@slick132: thanks for your input! I have a crime reference number, and have lobbied my point firmly to the point of exhaustion. I have put all these details in writing, showing that I am covered under the terms of the contract; and if I have voided my claim, to indicate the appropriate passage in the T & C that invalidate it. All I get is the nebulous response: "We feel you have not taken all reasonable precautions." Sadly for Talkcover, contract law is not based on our "feelings" but they have basically told me: "We don't feel like paying you." @buzby: Unbelievably, they were so kind as to _suggest_ that I take it to the regulator if I didn't like the judgement! I am amazed by the cavalier attitude this company takes. I think their approach is to bounce as many claims as possible as their default position and hope people don't have the stomach for a fight.

@buzby: I do understand the "out of sight and locked tight" knock-back applying to stolen items in locked cars. Crappy, but that is what they do. However this only applies if the item is no longer within touching distance. So if you lock your car and walk off and the car is stolen, bye-bye phone. They have knocked me back citing the item was "unattended", when it was not (according to their own terms and conditions): TalkCover Mobile Phone Insurance Terms and Conditions The phone being by my side does not make me negligent - it was always within touching distance! What possible basis for rejection can they offer? Temporarily placing a phone immediately adjacent to your body for a few seconds constitutes a normal pattern of behaviour for a handheld appliance, and so the "£50 note" analogy you gave earlier falls down. I really appreciate the dialogue and thoughtful responses, by the way - thank you.

@buzby: I take issue with the idea that it was a careless act. Leaving a phone on the top of a car is careless. The likelihood of it being smashed into a thousand pieces is extremely high. Leaving a phone on a seat by your side for a few seconds with no reasonable expectation that it will come to harm is not careless. It's being stolen was unlikely in the extreme, and under the terms of the contract, it was not unattended at any time. @FightThemAll: I am less concerned with the phone per-se at this point, as I have had to shell out for another. I am concerned that I bought an insurance policy with the expectation that I was covered for loss and theft, when in fact experience has borne out that under almost no circumstances were they ever going to pay out. For instance: they said that if I had been jogging and the phone had bounced out of my pocket, I would have been covered. I could put it to you a reasonable get-out (in their line of thinking) would be that as I had not zipped the pocket, I had not taken "reasonable precautions" to prevent loss or damage. Okay, what if the jogging pants had no pockets? Then it would have been "unreasonable" to go jogging in a pair of pants without a zip, as it was always liable to bounce out. The excuses could go on and on.

I was travelling on the top deck of the bus going home. Two police officers came up with an inspector to do spot checks. Not having my ticket to hand, I put the phone I had in my hand on the seat with some books I had in my bag while I located my ticket. I must have been unsighted for perhaps 10 seconds, before I realized what I had done. In that impossibly short time span, the phone had gone. Now: the insurance company say they will not pay out because I had not taken "all reasonable precautions" to safeguard the safety of my item, citing in the terms and conditions: "Reasonable precautions - all measures that it would be reasonable to expect a person to take in the circumstances to prevent accidental loss, damage or theft of your electronic equipment"; and that as I had in fact, left the item “unattended”, the claim is void. From the terms and conditions: "Unattended - not within your sight at all times and out of your arms-length reach." Well, by their own definition, the item was never unattended, as it was always within my reach. I am clearly covered, and the insurance company have rejected it on their "appeal". Am I in the position to sue them for losses stemming from their refusal to pay out, as they seem to be flagrantly breaking the terms of their contract? Thanks.

The "appeals" process is a total sham. Can I sue these c*n artists for damages? Loss of income? It is amazing cowboys like this are allowed to trade at all.

Hi. I took out an insurance policy with Supercover Insurance (trading as "Talkcover") for my brand new iPhone 3G. Tragically(!) it was stolen. Typical. Good thing I was covered, right..? Wrong. Despite the fact that my case is expicitly (I feel) covered within the terms and conditions, they have refused to pay out, rejecting the claim on the grounds that I did not take "reasonable precautions" for the item's safety. This is a blatant lie. What should I do next? Can I sue them? I certainly have had to shell out for a new phone in the interim at a cost of £360. Can I get them for lost productivity or loss of earnings? Thanks.

Nope, it's for my Barclays credit card. Am I in the wrong space?

Have just sent out my subject access request, the salient points in "Bailiff Red", lol. Here's to sticking it up unethical corporations.