This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jun/09/orange-phone-cost
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Bitter lesson with Orange phone | Bitter lesson with Orange phone |
| (4 months later) | |
| It took me a few weeks to realise that I had lost my Orange phone. When I reported it missing, I found it had been used to make nearly 19 hours-worth of calls to Ghana, to the tune of £1,313.46. It turns out that Orange had just realised this usage was unusual (I'd never called overseas) and finally barred the sim. | |
| Orange confirmed that it doesn't have the level of fraud detection in place that banks do for monitoring peculiar card usage. | |
| The company claimed to have tried to contact me (despite a complete absence of any letters or emails). | |
| As the loss hadn't been reported within 24 hours, I was deemed fully responsible. When I lodged a complaint with EE's chief executive, Orange agreed to waive 50% of the cost "as a gesture" and replace the phone. I pay back £50 each month. | |
| Exasperatingly, my new mobile was stolen in February and Orange refuses to apply my insurance. Apparently, it is unusable until the balance of the rogue calls to Ghana is cleared. RR Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex | |
| You have learned the painful way that you should treat your phone like your credit card and alert your service provider immediately if it goes missing because customers are held liable for fraudulent charges until a loss or theft is reported. Your plight raises a crucial question, however. If bank customers are only liable for the first £50 of any fraud, unless it's proved they were unreasonably negligent, why don't mobile phone customers enjoy similar protection? | You have learned the painful way that you should treat your phone like your credit card and alert your service provider immediately if it goes missing because customers are held liable for fraudulent charges until a loss or theft is reported. Your plight raises a crucial question, however. If bank customers are only liable for the first £50 of any fraud, unless it's proved they were unreasonably negligent, why don't mobile phone customers enjoy similar protection? |
| It's an issue that has been exercising the industry regulator, Ofcom. "We have concerns about the unlimited liability that consumers face," says a spokeswoman. "We have therefore raised this issue with government to consider if legislation could be appropriate to address this problem." | It's an issue that has been exercising the industry regulator, Ofcom. "We have concerns about the unlimited liability that consumers face," says a spokeswoman. "We have therefore raised this issue with government to consider if legislation could be appropriate to address this problem." |
| Ofcom is also trying to prod providers into allowing customers to set caps on their tariffs and to invest in better monitoring systems so that unusual use of phones is flagged up. "O2, for example, has introduced a system that monitors customers' spend, looks at how long they have been a customer, how much they normally spend and if they pay their bill on time," says the Ofcom spokeswoman. "If it looks like the phone has been lost or stolen O2 will notify the customer and may restrict the service until they are sure that the phone use is authorised by the contract holder." Orange, which requires lost or stolen phones to be reported immediately, insists it has a proactive fraud management system which did, ultimately, block your phone. It refuses to reduce your bill further. | |
| If you need help email Anna Tims at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Include an address and phone number. | |