Is this a crime?

Flightphoto

Flightphoto

Messages
1,628
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys,

I know of a certain idiot that's taken out 10 mobile phone contracts to purely sell the mobile phone to gain money and then default on the phone contracts as he won't be paying them, is this a crime as such? I was thinking about deception as it is clear that the said person will not default on the payments under financial hardship but for financial gain etc?

Just looking for some advice for a member of his family who's worried as this will also involve bailiff visits I should imagine, he doesn't even live at that address so they will ofcourse need to prove they own the items in the house etc!

Any help would be appreciated, it's just hard thinking how to word such for a google search!
 
I assume the phones belong to the company offering the contract so is it not theft?
 
key word being contract .... just look one up...

if it was legal.. we would all be doing it :)
 
There's probably a clause on mobiles that if it's defaulted in the first 12 months that the phone has to be returned aswell? Never really thought about this sort of thing, I buy a phone and pay it off when it's due like everyone else. I just want to help my friend get some idea of what they can do as it's their son etc!
 
You dont say how old..is he an adult? have they signed anyhting?

Flightphoto said:
I just want to help my friend get some idea of what they can do as it's their son
Click to expand...

My alarm bells are going ten to the dozen here ...
 
Ah! He's 25 I think, or 24, but they've received these contracts in the post so it's all there in the writing and as he doesn't live there any more it just looks like a potential mess in the near future :)
 
All in his name, everything's all legit, it's just the straight fact that he's decided to take out 10 iPhone contracts and then he was caught by his parents selling them on facebook etc, they then received the contact terms etc in the post which double confirmed what he had done. It's just a curiosity as to whether it's a crime as he's obviously not got any way of paying for them as he has no job and is living with a friend somewhere - it just seems like a form of fraud purely to sell the phones for quick cash with the clear intent not to pay the contract payments etc
 
it's fraud, which is of course a criminal offence

The parents need to report this
 
Cheers Keith, he's gone downhill apparently so I think he really needs to grow up and maybe a scrape with the law will knock some sense into him ;)
 
Al1944 said:
I assume the phones belong to the company offering the contract so is it not theft?
Click to expand...

Flightphoto said:
There's probably a clause on mobiles that if it's defaulted in the first 12 months that the phone has to be returned aswell?
Click to expand...

The handset is specifically excluded from the contract (contractually its an inducement to sign the contract). The networks do it that way to prevent any issues with the customer losing, breaking or somehow getting a faulty handset and then linking it to the contract. Effectively you pay your monthly charge for the provision of service to the simcard.

While it is fraud, good luck getting the police to take any action, when I still worked for a mobile network I remember the most prolific offender we investigated managed to get 47 handsets in a reasonably short time using Salvation Army and hostel addresses with faked proofs, even that didn't get police attention. This was a number of years ago, and the systems will now pick up this sort of discrepancy quite quickly, I'm surprised he got to 10 handsets, he must have done them all in a very short space of time at multiple shops/networks,

You can be sure the bailiffs will become involved though, and in the case of the connections being deemed fraudulent the phones will probably be IMEI barred. If he's done it in his own name it's really stupid, he will have screwed up his credit file for many years to come for a smallish criminal reward.
 
Personally I'd just write to the mobile companies and tell them that the address on the contract is incorrect - his new address is such and such

Then just butt out and leave him to get on with it - at 24 he's old enough to deal with the consequences of his own actions and mummy and daddy shouldnt even be opening his post, let alone getting involved in any other way
 
When the phones are barred those that bought them will also be out of pocket and out to give him a good kicking too.
 
It's obtaining goods and/or services by deception with the intent to defraud.
But as others have said, good luck getting the rozzers to take an interest.
The parents should simply drop him in it with each company and wash thier hands of it.
 
Cheers chaps, just sent this thread to the father of the idiot to have a read through ;)

Can't believe the things people will do for money these days!
 
Most UK telecomms companies (including mobile providers) have fraud departments and this is the sort of thing they deal with on a daily basis. Your friend's son has actually made their job easier as he is using his own name and a relatives adress which I presume he used to live at.

When the fraud departments believe they have enough to go on, they usually take one of two routes - they will either prepare an evidential package that will include all statements, exhibits etc and present it to the police for them to get the necessary warrants etc and they will assist the police when any premises are visited. Alternatively they go down the private prosecution/civil recovery route and summons the individual to court where he may be liable to repay any monies outstanding.

As he has been using his parents address it will probably have an negative impact on their credit rating so it is something they need to look into. Obviously I have no idea what their relationship is like with their son but they might want to consider speaking to the telecomms company's fraud departments directly.
 
The parents also face their address being "blacklisted" for the fraud committed in respect of the failure to pay for the service signed for. Could have an effect on getting Sky services or a mobile phone !!! etc.

Its this kind of "theft" that bites into the bills thhrough the upward creep that the phone companies load on monthly charges the rest of us pay.

S
 
Last edited:
It would be deception, but the problem is he hasn't actually done it!
You see, while he may have said what he is going to do, he hasn't, from what I gleam from what you have said. And that is the issue, at this point, it's impossible to prove.
Like lots of things we all know some people are at it, but proving it is a different matter.
If he is planning on doing it with someone else then yes, there's conspiracy, but that takes 2 or more to tango. Planning it on your tod, is no offence..
 
Deception. Also when he doesn't pay the monthly bill the IMEI will be blocked rendering it useless for UK use. (if a UK phone)

Surprised he got to 10 without phone company systems lighting up like a christmas tree!
 
Lynton said:
Deception. Also when he doesn't pay the monthly bill the IMEI will be blocked rendering it useless for UK use. (if a UK phone)

Surprised he got to 10 without phone company systems lighting up like a christmas tree!
Click to expand...

yeah but by then he'll have sold them so it won't be his problem ( until the buyers come and kick his head in) - charming chap
 
It's fraud, he should go to prison as in turn this is making everyone else premiums go up..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd have thought this is still under the realms of civil contract law? At present, there is no issue - he can do what he likes with the phones as long as the payments, as per the contract are met

When he flails to meet the payments, which he will, it goes into the realms of civil recovery and debt collectors (as he won't be ale to give the phones back).

He's not actually defrauding the phone companies as it stands at the moment, UNLESS he's lied in order for them to agree the contract and give him the phone(s), such as lying about his job or income.
 
Last edited:
He's not actually defrauding the phone companies as it stands at the moment, UNLESS he's lied in order for them to agree the contract and give him the phone(s), such as lying about his job or income.
Click to expand...

He's not in terms of prima facia evidence no. It's his intention when he gets shot that it becomes an issue. One can only presume it's to pocket the cash from the sale, and plead no dosh to the phone company. At that point, it becomes criminal, although proving it isn't as simple. Unless he makes full admission in interview, which is unlikely if he has half a brain cell active or even the cheapest brief.
I'd have given it a run at court, but to be honest, there's more chance of Devla Kerwin propositioning me in the next 10 minutes than the CPS trying it.
 
Bernie174 said:
He's not in terms of prima facia evidence no. It's his intention when he gets shot that it becomes an issue. One can only presume it's to pocket the cash from the sale, and plead no dosh to the phone company. At that point, it becomes criminal, although proving it isn't as simple. Unless he makes full admission in interview, which is unlikely if he has half a brain cell active or even the cheapest brief.
I'd have given it a run at court, but to be honest, there's more chance of Devla Kerwin propositioning me in the next 10 minutes than the CPS trying it.
Click to expand...

From my understanding of the first post, he provided a false address (that of his parents) when applying for credit, so deception rears its ugly head here.
 
odd jim said:
UNLESS he's lied in order for them to agree the contract and give him the phone(s), such as lying about his job or income.
Click to expand...


From what I understand that is exactly what he has done, claimed he is living at his parents in order to get the contract when in fact he is not.

Could have read it wrong mind
 
From my understanding of the first post, he provided a false address (that of his parents) when applying for credit, so deception rears its ugly head here.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove deception alone. Or wouldn't if he continues to pay for the service. It may invalidate the contract but thats not criminal.
If he then sells the phones on and defaults, and it transpires that was his intention all along it would form part of the evidence. As I said until he does that there is nothing at the moment criminal.
 
I don't think there is anything "criminal" in taking out a contract you cannot afford to pay back unless you provide false details such as providing the address of a third party as opposed to your own. Giving a parents address would be fraudulent unless it was your main address where you were registered for council tax etc

The networks will not blacklist a phone because of non payment unless the phone has been acquired fraudulently. They will only cut off the service, so if the phone is resold the new owner would not be affected.

Another myth is an address being blacklisted - credit ratings affect people NOT addresses.
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
Another myth is an address being blacklisted - credit ratings affect people NOT addresses.
Click to expand...

Yes credit ratings affect people

But it it is not a myth that a persons address pays not part in that rating or whether you can obtain credit from an address known to have had a bad debtor living at it
 
Keith W said:
But it it is not a myth that a persons address pays not part in that rating or whether you can obtain credit from an address known to have had a bad debtor living at it
Click to expand...

This is misinformation.

The credit rating given by the likes of Experian takes no account of other bad debtors at the address unless they share a financial connection with the person for whom the rating is for (e.g. a joint account).

Credit reference agencies do not hold information linked only to an address and haven't collected it that way for 20 years.
 
Experian would disagree with you, indeed their website is pretty explicit about this. I expect you know better than them how credit scoring works, so I'll give up at this point. (y)
 
Keith W said:
Yes credit ratings affect people

But it it is not a myth that a persons address pays not part in that rating or whether you can obtain credit from an address known to have had a bad debtor living at it
Click to expand...

The address doesn't have an affect, what can do though is when the CRA's financially link family members. This can cause a "good" family member to be linked to the "bad" record, but it isn't only by living in the same house. There has to be a financial link.

There is definitely no house "blacklist", that part is a myth.
 
Sorry to disagree - but if he takes out the contact with the intent of defaulting to sell the phones it is already criminal - been a while since I did English Law but I'm sure it could be classed as Attempted Fraud
Criminal attempt - any person who commits an act which is more than preparatory to the commission of an offence shall be considered to be guilty of attempting to commit that offence (or summat like that is how it goes)
Actual gain from the act is not necessary.
So as soon as he actually takes out the contract he has done something "more than merely preparatory" but the intent to default on the contract would still need to be proved.
 
weealien said:
Sorry to disagree - but if he takes out the contact with the intent of defaulting to sell the phones it is already criminal - been a while since I did English Law but I'm sure it could be classed as Attempted Fraud
Criminal attempt - any person who commits an act which is more than preparatory to the commission of an offence shall be considered to be guilty of attempting to commit that offence (or summat like that is how it goes)
Actual gain from the act is not necessary.
So as soon as he actually takes out the contract he has done something "more than merely preparatory" but the intent to default on the contract would still need to be proved.
Click to expand...

Intent would be a bugger to prove though

However he's already committed an act of deception by giving an incorrect address on the contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top