• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
update to "my phone has been BLACKLISTED"
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
LCDMAN
14-07-2008
Originally Posted by superboy:
“but it was NOT stolen property,”


But it was as far as 3 are concerned. They gave the guy the phone for free, he (probably) stopped paying his bill so the phone is basically nicked - hence it goes on the blacklist!!

People do sell on their upgrade phones, regardless of whether they should or not, but those phones aren't blacklisted 'coz they carry on using their account and paying their monthly bills.
coopermanyorks
14-07-2008
Originally Posted by LCDMAN:
“But it was as far as 3 are concerned. They gave the guy the phone for free, he (probably) stopped paying his bill so the phone is basically nicked - hence it goes on the blacklist!!

People do sell on their upgrade phones, regardless of whether they should or not, but those phones aren't blacklisted 'coz they carry on using their account and paying their monthly bills.”


How can you know its no longer been paid and thats not what Three are telling the Op is the reason

I must admit I have sold a couple of upgrade phones , the last one I sold was an 02 XDA with Sat nav , I got £300 on eBay for it which almost paid for the whole of my 12 month contract 12 x 35 = 370

But i have then put the sim into my existing phone , continued to pay my monthly DD until the end of my contract with no problem
flagpole
14-07-2008
what they're telling the op is rubbish. Three's customer service is so bad the operative probably doesn't understand either. But there is nothing in the contract about using the right sim in the right phone. The guy that sold it stopped paying his bill. It has to be.
LCDMAN
14-07-2008
Originally Posted by coopermanyorks:
“How can you know its no longer been paid and thats not what Three are telling the Op is the reason

I must admit I have sold a couple of upgrade phones , the last one I sold was an 02 XDA with Sat nav , I got £300 on eBay for it which almost paid for the whole of my 12 month contract 12 x 35 = 370

But i have then put the sim into my existing phone , continued to pay my monthly DD until the end of my contract with no problem”

As flagpole says, this is the only conclusion you can draw from what has been said. 3 want to recover the cost of the phone throughout the life of the contract. If you stop paying it (break the contract) then they blacklist the phone. If you then sell the phone - it is still blacklisted and won't work for its new owner. This doesn't have to happen in that order - as in this case. Sold phone, stopped paying, phone blacklisted, no longer works for new "owner".

The SIM bit is a red-herring, for SIM read "contract".
coopermanyorks
14-07-2008
LCDman

Which part of Gods Own County are you from
LCDMAN
14-07-2008
Have pm'd you
Rich2k
14-07-2008
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“But there is nothing in the contract about using the right sim in the right phone.”

But there is

Quote:
“5.3 Each SIM may only be used in Handsets which are enabled for 3 Services and are authorised by us for Connection to the 3 network. Any attempt to use the SIM in other Handsets may result in serious damage to the Handset and may prevent you from being able to use it,”

Quote:
“5.4 Handsets which can be used to access 3 Services are locked to our network. ... During the term of your Agreement for the supply of 3 Services, you must not permit your Handset to be unlocked via any unauthorised manner (ie. by anyone other than us or the Handset manufacturer).”

Their definition of a handset in the glossary is

Quote:
“the device (including a DataCard) or mobile handset that is authorised by us for Connection to the 3 network which is used to access 3 Services, excluding all Accessories. ”

Now the way I read that is that they state a handset is something authorised by them for connection. That authorising doesn't just have to be locked it can be specific SIM locked, therefore yes they are covered saying specific SIM to specific handset.
flagpole
14-07-2008
no that's not what that means. 5.3 means that you can't use it in a 2G handset, basically...

I'm on my phone so it's difficult for of to read and type.

...we know why they don't want you using a 2g handset. The other one is that you can't have it unlocked by crazy dave down the market. That's just because they don't want you breaking it i guess.

There's nothing that says you can only use one sim in your phone.
superboy
14-07-2008
i sent an email outlining my situation to Kevin Mitchell, who is the owner of three (i think). Anyway i got a reply the very next day saying he had forwarded it to the relevant department (cant remember what the deparment was called), and i was given a reference number and told that they would look into it and reply within five days. It's brilliant talking to people at three who actually understand the english language
flagpole
14-07-2008
now i'm not on my phone. yes authorised equiptment means a 3G phone and not some chinese knock off. it doesn't mean a specific handest.

And besides there's nothing in there that says the consequence of you violating that condition is that they'll spontaneously report the phone stolen. and that'll show you.
tn2000
14-07-2008
The t & c's only say you can't give the phone away - it doesn't say you can't sell it. Get me a Philadelphia lawyer pronto!
superboy
14-07-2008
got a reply:

Thank you for your recent email, highlighting your concerns regarding the blacklisting of your handset, with corresponding IMEI or identification number ******************. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this matter may have caused.

I have spoken with our Investigations team and been advised that your handset cannot be reactivated. You were asked to provide proof of purchase, so that we could confirm that the handset had been bought from an authorised outlet or distributor.

Regrettably, I must advise that Ebay is not an authorised outlet of 3's and in view of this, your handset will remain blacklisted. This issue is in no way related to your SIM card.

Your account is due for renewal on 9th November 2008 and you will be eligible to upgrade from September 2008. I understand our Customer Services have offered you a refurbished handset, as part of our Lost and Stolen propositions, at a discounted rate. This was extended to you as goodwill gesture and remains an option for you.

Thank you once again for your enquiry.


Yours sincerely,



Grace McPherson
3, Executive Office

hmm, what does it matter that ebay is not an "authorised retailer of three"? They asked me to send them proof i paid for the phone and i did!
coopermanyorks
14-07-2008
Originally Posted by superboy:
“You were asked to provide proof of purchase, so that we could confirm that the handset had been bought from an authorised outlet or distributor.



hmm, what does it matter that ebay is not an "authorised retailer of three"? They asked me to send them proof i paid for the phone and i did!”


Sadly they didn't want just proof of actual purchase they wanted proof of where you bought it from

I think you should keep the dialogue going noting you are a three customer using your three sim in a locked 3 phone as yours broke
prking
15-07-2008
You really do need to get proper advice on this. As it was a private sale, the law is very different from buying from a retailer. I still say you need to go to Citizens Advice.
ok.
16-07-2008
The thing is, if the person who sold the phone didn't have the right to sell it, and stopped paying the contract then HE wasn't authorised to sell it.

When you're dealing with a 'service' you can't expect to carry on using a phone worth £150 or whatever that was still under contract that had not been honoured / paid for.

It's obvious that the original person used false details to obtain the contract / property and then did not pay the bill, furthermore they sold the property.

The phone was funded / subsidised by Three and then the person stopped paying and sold it on. Therefore it becomes stolen, as the handset was given with the contract, and on condition that the contract was paid in full.

If you buy a car and agree to pay monthly and stop paying, they take the car back or report it stolen.

There are 2 elements to a contact, the service and the handset. Both can be cancelled for non payment during the contract as they are both provided up front under a credit agreement.

The lesson is, only buy from recognised dealers, if you buy stolen property and it's discovered, in every case you normally lose the property. In phones it's very easy to block the phone.
lalaland
16-07-2008
Has the OP been to the police yet?

Three either need to prove that the seller did not have the right to sell it and that they do have the right to 'blacklist' it or they need to remove it from the 'blacklist' and allow you to use your new purchase. If they can't justify the block then they have to remove it, if they can then you have evidence that you've been sold a phone by someone who shouldn't have sold it to you. At this point you visit the police, give them the details of what's happened including the Ebay account details and any other details of that user and you let them take over.

You are currently out of pocket, if you consider your next move properly then you can sort this out.
ok.
16-07-2008
Originally Posted by lalaland:
“Has the OP been to the police yet?

Three either need to prove that the seller did not have the right to sell it and that they do have the right to 'blacklist' it or they need to remove it from the 'blacklist' and allow you to use your new purchase. If they can't justify the block then they have to remove it, if they can then you have evidence that you've been sold a phone by someone who shouldn't have sold it to you. At this point you visit the police, give them the details of what's happened including the Ebay account details and any other details of that user and you let them take over.

You are currently out of pocket, if you consider your next move properly then you can sort this out.”

No, the OP needs to prove it's not stolen as it has obviously been blocked for that reason, or the person not paying the contract and making money from selling the phone as well.

Data protection would prevent 3 from giving exact details to the OP.
flagpole
16-07-2008
you certainly don't have to 'prove' it's not stolen, anymore than i have to prove my phone is not stolen. The rule is not that unless you can prove your phone is not stolen it gets blacklisted. The problem is three haven't really said why they blacklisted it. But they need to prove it is stolen. I guess there are some other possible reasons. The phone could be part of a batch of stolen phones for example.
tn2000
16-07-2008
Three could avoid all this bad publicity if they followed other networks examples. They get complaints off public forums quickly by providing details of who and where to call.

Instead, Three let these run and run and it does them no good. As a goodwill gesture they could have dealt with this off line, unblocked the phone and had a customer for life.

But then again, retentions don't seem to be a priority for Three.
ok.
16-07-2008
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“you certainly don't have to 'prove' it's not stolen, anymore than i have to prove my phone is not stolen. The rule is not that unless you can prove your phone is not stolen it gets blacklisted. The problem is three haven't really said why they blacklisted it. But they need to prove it is stolen. I guess there are some other possible reasons. The phone could be part of a batch of stolen phones for example.”

The original person may have sold it on ebay, then said it's stolen and claimed on the insurance.

The rule is, if it's blocked because it's been reported as stolen or the contract it's attached to has not been paid, unless you have a receipt from an authorised dealer for your purchase then the phone will be blocked.

There is so much mobile phone crime going on at the moment, this means that all stolen phones can be blocked and are of no use to anybody, apart from as a door wedge. I'm very much sticking up for 3 in this dispute.
flagpole
16-07-2008
i understand what happened. I think, i could be wrong, it was me that suggested it. What i'm saying is that if say my phone were suddenly blacklisted i couldn't prove where i bought it.

Three, to me, should have to explain what happened, why they've blacklisted it. The burden of proof should be their's. That is there should be a specific crime that causes them to think it's stolen and they should be able to offer some evidence.
ok.
16-07-2008
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“i understand what happened. I think, i could be wrong, it was me that suggested it. What i'm saying is that if say my phone were suddenly blacklisted i couldn't prove where i bought it.

Three, to me, should have to explain what happened, why they've blacklisted it. The burden of proof should be their's. That is there should be a specific crime that causes them to think it's stolen and they should be able to offer some evidence.”

As explained already, that would breach the data protection act. If it's been reported / blocked then it's been blocked.

You bought a stolen or un-paid for phone. End of, it's you that has to deal with that. They wouldn't just do that for 'fun', it would have not been paid for, or reported stolen by the owner, insurance company etc.

The real person you should be angry with is the seller, they are the one who has acted illegally, paypal should refund you and charge back from the seller.
flagpole
17-07-2008
Originally Posted by ok.:
“As explained already, that would breach the data protection act. If it's been reported / blocked then it's been blocked.

You bought a stolen or un-paid for phone. End of, it's you that has to deal with that. They wouldn't just do that for 'fun', it would have not been paid for, or reported stolen by the owner, insurance company etc.

The real person you should be angry with is the seller, they are the one who has acted illegally, paypal should refund you and charge back from the seller.”

I realise you said this before, but this is one of those things where just because you said it doesn't make it true. To be clear i'm not disagreeing with you because i don't understand what you're saying it's that i think you're wrong.

If three were to contact him and say that Mr Smith of 14 Acacia avenue stopped paying his bill then that would violate data protection laws.

If they were to say the phone has been marked as stolen becuse the customer failed to pay his bill that wouldn't. If they were to say it was part of a shipment of phones stolen from a warehouse in janurary that wouldn't.

further, if it was a non bill payer then they should report it as a crime in order to backlist it. then the OP can see what he can get out of the police.

'They wouldn't just do that for 'fun', it would have not been paid for, or reported stolen by the owner, insurance company etc.'


You've never dealt with three have you? Like I said the burden of proof is with them regardless of your interpretation of the data protection act. What if because of an administrative error three blocked your phone or my phone. You can't just say no no they wouldn't do that. a typo maybe.

I understand that if you buy solen property you have no more legal right to it than the person that sold it to you but if say you bought a stolen car then you'd clearly have to give it up to the orgiginal owner or the insurance company that paid out on it. But you wouldn't just take their word for it. you would want to see police reports etc. if the insurance company said actually that's our car, you wouldn't just hand over the keys saying to yourself well they wouldn't just do it for 'fun' would they......?

I don't understand why you don't understand that.
Dan Sette
17-07-2008
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“ What if because of an administrative error three blocked your phone or my phone. You can't just say no no they wouldn't do that. a typo maybe.”

But you'd be able to ring up and talk to then wouldn't you.

The conversation goes.

"Can you give me your name"

"Can you give me your phone number"

"Can you give me your postcode"

"Can you give me the first line of your address"

"Can you give me the answer to your security question"

then you'd get either

"Thank you, do you mind if I call you xxxxxx. How can I help?"

or

"I'm sorry, without those details I'm not at liberty to discuss an account with you"

So if your phone on a legitimate contract got blocked by accident, you's be able to have the conversation.

As it's someone elses phone who has been blocked for not paying the bills and you have bought it, then they din't have to tell you diddly squat as it isn't your phone.
flagpole
17-07-2008
Well no that's the opposite of what would happen. If three typed in my IMEI instead of the correct one then when i spoke to them they'd be expecting to speak to someone else.

But regardless you don't have to be the orgional, registered user of the handset in order to legitimately use it. if a hand set were sold perfectly legally then they wouldn't have your details on file.
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map