@vodafoneuk Stolen phone bill £1,888 , unlimited liability. Vodafone - help ** Settled **

[Peopod]

Hi, We have a call at 12.51 for 6m 37s and then a call to the same number just 1 minute later at 12.52 for 7m 56s, this would mean setting up a conference all, and the someone leaving it to do a personal call at the same time. I think these numbers were probably dialled using a dialler or something similar as dialling is rapid but I could be wrong. Vodafone may know the answer but I haven't heard from them!

[veganite]

I don't see any point in making a call to a number and then making another call to the same number at the same time.

Are they premium numbers?

[Peopod]

I guess if you make two calls to the same number at the same time, you earn double the money if it's a premium line. One of the Estonia number is but I can't see the other main Estonia number on the list? Not sure about Pakistan, Austria or Spain, will investigate further.

[veganite]

OK... so, as at least one of the Estonian numbers is a premium number, I would guess that most (if not all) of the other numbers are premium numbers which would in my opinion add more weight to a complaint that vodafone failed in its duty of care.

 

Some of the ways in which I see Vodafone have failed within their duty of care:

 

1. Vodafone allowed a high amount of call charges - which goes against previous charges in the history of the account.

2. Vodafone sent a text alert - but that is all they did, they didn't take further action such as suspending the account.

3. Vodafone sent a text alert - and still let calls be made - to at least one premium number (possibly more or all after research)

4. Vodafone allowed the phone to call various premium numbers in different countries (assumption that the others are premium numbers)

5. Vodafone allowed calls to a premium number and whilst said call was in progress it allowed a simultaneous call to be made to the exact same number.

6. Vodafone have informed you that they will not engage with you to discuss this matter further.

 

I find number 5 interesting - that they allowed a call to be made to a premium number whilst allowing a simultaneous call to be made to the exact same premium number at the same time. To me, this should have automatically raised an alert on the account.

 

If this was a regular pattern each month, (multiple simultaneous calls to premium numbers) then it would be understandable for Vodafone not to take any action, but seeing as Vodafone was aware of a highly significant change in the usage of the phone I feel as though they should have taken more action than that of just sending a text to say that the call limit had been exceeded.

 

I am guessing the reason why Vodafone (and other mobile networks) take very little action is that they rely on their terms and conditions which state that the customer needs to report the phone stolen - and only after it has been reported stolen action is taken. But Vodafone and other mobile networks have the technology to recognise abnormal account behaviour and should do something about it under their duty of care. After all, it is easy enough to block a phone and then unblock when speaking with their customer services (since after they block it, any attempted calls can then be rerouted to customer services).

[fletch70]

To be honest I think the only relevant point is that they sent a txt message that said the account was suspended yet didn't do it. You really need to try and link that to something in the t&c's

[veganite]

hi fletch,

it seems from peopods posts that Vodafone allowed calls to be made to premium numbers which in itself should have raised security concerns, especially since call was made and simultaneous call was made to exact same premium number.

 

If there is unusual account activity with a bank, the bank under its duty of care suspends cards etc until the account holder can confirm that everything is ok. So, why not with mobile phone companies? From what peopod has described throughout this thread shows suspicious activity with the phone (premium numbers) along with a high significant change compared with the previous phone history.

 

What I see from this thread is that Vodafone has failed in its duty of care to the customer, not only once but several times. The fact that Vodafone have said they will not engage / discuss this complaint further just shows that they are an uncaring company that seeks to make a profit from 'stolen' phone calls. No offence to the Vodafone rep here who appears to do an excellent job.

[rebel11]

There is also conflicting information, initially Vodafone stated that they don't get information immediately from the Spanish network provider so they couldn't send a text, but now they are saying an alert was sent but the phone wasn't blocked.

[fletch70]

It would appear that like most organisations they have a complaints policy and have discussed it . They have now reached deadlock and said the way forward is with the ombudsman. Maybe Lee can do something maybe not. There does appear to be some stuff going on behind the scenes.

 

There is also a suggestion that travel insurance may cover the loss in which case the fight with vodafone may be a waste of energy. I really do have my doubts on the validity of any duty of care claim. Following that logic , should I sue tesco or Imperial Tobacco because they sold cigarettes to my late wife ?

[veganite]

It would appear that like most organisations they have a complaints policy and have discussed it .

Vodafone have said the customer is liable and have also said that they will not discuss it any further. Typical response shown by an uncaring company IMHO.

They have now reached deadlock and said the way forward is with the ombudsman.

If Vodafone have said this then they are wrong since the ombudsman will not be able to help in this area. See one of my links above for this.

 

Maybe Lee can do something maybe not. There does appear to be some stuff going on behind the scenes.

As it has reached deadlock then I guess there is very little Lee can do.

 

There is also a suggestion that travel insurance may cover the loss in which case the fight with vodafone may be a waste of energy.

Travel insurance would probably stipulate that the phone needed to be reported stolen or lost for any claim to be paid.

 

I really do have my doubts on the validity of any duty of care claim.

Other than taking legal action against Vodafone in respect of their negligence of duty of care, I do not know any other way this can be sorted out.

 

Following that logic , should I sue tesco or Imperial Tobacco because they sold cigarettes to my late wife ?

I am guessing your wife died of a smoking related illness and I am sorry about that. However, you can not successfully sue Tesco or Imperial Tobacco since on every pack of cigarettes or tobacco is a government health warning showing the risks associated with smoking.

 

I am unsure as to why you believe that Vodafone do not owe its customer a duty of care.

 

Generally, no duty of care is needed to avoid causing a person a financial loss - Duty of care does cover things like property and health.

 

The reason why I suggested to the OP that they could possibly tackle this problem using the angle of Duty Of Care and that Vodafone is negligent under the Duty Of Care is that in the OPs first post, the following was stated:

 

I've checked The T/C's for Euro Traveller and

it doesn't have anything about customers being liable for calls up until they report their phone stolen,

not even in the part called 'Please be aware'.

 

So, whilst the duty of care does not apply to financial loss, - since there is no duty of care to ensure another person does not suffer financially, there is a duty of care for financial loss if it is caused by a negligent mis-statement. This can be seen from the OPs first post which I have partly quoted above.

 

The case of HEADLEY BYRNE & CO. LTD v HELLER AND PARTNERS LTD[2](HOUSE OF LORDS, 1964) applies to the given situation. Here the court held that if a professional person in the course of his business imparted advice, knowing that it was being relied upon, then he owed a duty of care to that person, to exercise reasonable care and skill, failing which, he would be liable in negligence. However, a disclaimer prevented any duty of care from arising.

Above quoted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/pure-economic-loss-negligence-law-essay.php#ixzz37CEhloCf

 

The above quote shows IMO that vodafone owe a duty of care since there was no reasonable care and skill in stopping the calls and also the nature of the advice given - in the OPs first post concerning terms and conditions. Also above quote shows that you are unable to sue the tobacco companies since they have provided a disclaimer.

[veganite]

fletch... to clarify things further -

 

If the first post in this thread did not state:

I've checked The T/C's for Euro Traveller and it doesn't have anything about customers being liable for calls up until they report their phone stolen, not even in the part called 'Please be aware'.

 

 

then IMO Vodafone would not be negligent in their duty of care since the duty of care doesn't cover economic loss.

 

Duty of care in this instance applies because of the statement / lack of statement in the Terms and Conditions which is then followed by numerous examples of how Vodafone could have followed a course of action in order to protect its customer from financial loss.

 

Though, as my forum signature says below - I could be wrong, since this is just my thoughts / opinions!

[fletch70]

I think we will have to agree to differ on this. I have not read all the Vodafone terms, which will be in addition to the euro traveller, and until i do i can not comment further. I am no fan ofcapitalism and private ownership but until we learn or there is a revolution...

 

On the subject of cigarettes i believe that she smoked and had to face the consequences however when she started smoking there were no warnings. I could equally talk about mcdonalds or processed foods, alcohol etc. There is no disclaimer when you walk into a pub

[locutus]

the thing that I would worry about is that Vodafone are wanting to profit from a crime...

 

 

I wonder if the Spanish network was Vodafone Spain.

[Peopod]

Hi,

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Sorry to hear about your wife fletch.

 

The duty of care definition is: a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others. It's certainly an interesting debate for sure.

 

I've asked Vodafone already for their mobile partner in Spain but they haven't responded and so I don't know is the answer but will let you know when they respond (if they respond!).

 

I haven't heard from Lee, or the Directors' Office regarding my posting about the contents of the message they sent, or the multiple/same time calls to the same number yet but Lee may have had a day off yesterday.

 

Other than my sons issues, what it's highlighted to me is that there is a much bigger issue here for debate, on a number of fronts.

[rebel11]

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/phone-and-broadband-complaints/adr/

[fletch70]

1st off , thank you for the condolences and at the risk of sounding hard and cold it was 2 years ago and a complicated relationship

 

I have read the actual primary vodafone terms and conditions and it does say that you are responsible for all calls and usage up to reporting the phone lost or stolen . It does also say in its complaints procedure that once deadloc is reached the ombudsman is the next step.

 

One question is about who's name is on the contract, is this a 2nd phone on his partners contract or is the contract in his name. If t is in his name then Vodafone should not have taken anyone elses authority to change tariff

[Peopod]

Hello,

 

Yes it's never been in dispute that they have the bit about up until a phone is reported stolen. Deadlock = Ombudsman is correct but things have come to light which need discussing in a sensible way which could change the situation we currently have. We can go around the houses with this or have a discussion and see where it takes us. Unfortunately the ball isn't in our court with this, its up to Vodafone if they wish to speak to us!

[rebel11]

Hi Peopod

 

You could visit one of their shops, plenty around the country, sit in the store until somebody from H/O speaks to you and listens to your new findings.

 

Or you could visit their Head Office, bill them for the visit.

 

I think it's, Vodafone Group Plc Vodafone House The Connection Newbury Berkshire RG14 2FN

 

Hello,

 

Yes it's never been in dispute that they have the bit about up until a phone is reported stolen. Deadlock = Ombudsman is correct but things have come to light which need discussing in a sensible way which could change the situation we currently have. We can go around the houses with this or have a discussion and see where it takes us. Unfortunately the ball isn't in our court with this, its up to Vodafone if they wish to speak to us!

[fletch70]

I am a great believer if following the procedures so why not contact the ombudsman with all your new evidence and old evidence. Part of your request should be removal of the default and compensation for incorrect placement.

I am not sure sitting in a shop will get you anywhere apart from being forcibly removed

[rebel11]

Forcibly removed, why?

 

I am a great believer if following the procedures so why not contact the ombudsman with all your new evidence and old evidence. Part of your request should be removal of the default and compensation for incorrect placement.

I am not sure sitting in a shop will get you anywhere apart from being forcibly removed

[fletch70]

They ask you to leave and you refuse. They can use reasonable force to get ypu off the premises.

[2ltr16valve]

They ask you to leave and you refuse. They can use reasonable force to get ypu off the premises.

 

This is correct. Once your asked too leave a private premises and don't. Your then trespassing. Then you can. E removed with reasonable force, by security or shop staff - altho if the shop staff don't have security they would likely call the police who would ask you to leave and then remove you / arrest you for breach of the peace. Yep it sucks.

[rebel11]

Who said they were going to refuse to leave? They are existing customers, they want to speak to head office, I see no issues with that. The OP wants this dealt within a week or so, not months, complaining to the Ombudsman will take months.

 

They ask you to leave and you refuse. They can use reasonable force to get ypu off the premises.

[Peopod]

Thanks for comments and advice. Hopefully Lee will be back on Monday. If not, I'll give the Directors' Office anther go!

[veganite]

One of my links above shows that the Ombudsman will not deal in this matter.

 

As for forcibly being removed from a Vodafone store? Possibly!

 

If someone stood outside a Vodafone store giving out factual leaflets showing how Vodafone deals with complaints (as above), then there is absolutely nothing Vodafone staff, security staff or even the police can do to remove you.

[MrHat]

Subbing