Mobile customers paying £92 extra for handsets you've already paid for?

15 April 2015

mobile phone Mobile-havers in the UK are losing £92 each per year (that's around £355million if you add everyone up) on handsets they've already bought, but carry on paying for through their bill.

A lot of contacts combine the tariff and the cost of the device over a period of time, however, the cost isn't always split, which means many don't know when they've paid off the cost of their phone. Those who are with EE, Vodafone, and Three will be charged under one bundled price, while O2, Virgin Media and Tesco Mobile have separate handset and other tariff costs.

This is all according to Which!!! who gave a couple of examples, which show how overcharging occurs. For example, a contract with O2 Refresh for an iPhone 6 costing £49 a month for 5GB of data and unlimited minutes and texts points out that the handset part of the bill is £25 and the deal price will drop to £24 once the device has been paid for. However, if you do a similar thing with Vodafone, costing £48.50 a month, the price doesn't change once the contract period is up and the handset has already been paid in full.

According to the Which!!! survey, 60% of those polled think that there should be a clear separation of tariff and handset costs in their bills. Around 97% think that price is a crucial factor when deciding whether or not to switch and 74% reckon that it is paramount that providers inform customers when their contract is coming to an end.

Which!!! big cheese Richard Lloyd said: "Consumers are being misled and as a result are collectively paying millions of pounds each year for a phone they have paid off. All mobile phone operators should separate out the cost of the handset so people don't continue to pay after the contract comes to an end."

"Mobile providers need to play fair and ensure their customers are not paying over the odds."

 

TOPICS:   Technology   Mobile   Consumer Advice

1 comment

  • Albi
    I would have thought this would have been unlawful under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008? It never occurred to me that this even happened until O2 started going on about it in their new ad. Case seems ripe for someone somewhere to start suing.

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment