Gadgets & Tech

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Mobile firms face new fines for mis-selling

By Martha Linden, Press Association


New rules for mobile service providers to prevent dishonest conduct

Mobile service providers could face fines under new rules designed to prevent mis-selling which come into force today.

Media regulator Ofcom said the rules prevent mobile service providers and those selling their products and services engaging in "dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct".

The new rules include a requirement for mobile network operators to make sure the customer intends, and is authorised, to enter into a contract.

They will also have to ensure that the terms and conditions of cashback deals offered by their retailers are not unduly restrictive.

Ofcom said the rules were introduced after a significant increase in the number of complaints about cashback schemes and other forms of mis-selling in the mobile phone market.

The regulator said examples of mis-selling complaints from consumers included finding themselves signed up to a more expensive tariff than agreed at point of sale.

Other complaints included signing up to a service after being told coverage in their area is good but then finding that they have little or no reception.

A voluntary code to tackle mis-selling introduced in July 2007 failed to lead to an significant reduction in complaints, Ofcom said.

Providers found to be breaking the new mandatory rules could be fined up to 10 per cent of relevant turnover.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Ambiguity...
[info]decisys wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC)
"intends, and is authorised, to enter into a contract". What does the word "authorised" mean in this context?
Re: Ambiguity...
[info]stormkeeper wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
I'm guessing it means that they're both old enough and also the one who is going to be paying the bills?
[info]redcliffe62 wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
will this cover contracts that were illegal and falsified since the voluntary code came in and are currently still in operation, and can these contracts also be fixed?
or does the date mean any contrcat signed from now on?
if anyone knows please tell me as i have 45,000 reasons for the next 89 months on a contract i never agreed to and which was not what i was told it was still to pay for.
[info]thirteen_ravens wrote:
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 11:26 am (UTC)
Orange mislead me with their £15 a month sim only contract with 200 minutes and 300 texts. You would have thought you would be able to get 200 inclusive minutes of calls, and 300 texts included, and just pay £15 per month as said, wouldn't you?

Well no; apparently there are such things as "Non inclusive texts" and "non inclusive minutes." These were not clear when I signed up to the contract, but they have been appearing on my bills - what the stuffing hell is a "non inclusive text???" You text people with other mobile phones, surely that's inclusive....? so my bills every month have never been below £20, no matter if I just text people with Orange mobiles, and don't surf the internet at all. And I don't even have a high-tech phone - I have a Nokia 2680 or something backward.... So in effect they are making at least another £60 out of me a year - all through misleading me.

I've been a customer of theirs for almost a decade because they have good coverage, but they still think nothing of fleecing me. It's disgusting!

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date