This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Should non-payment of a mobile phone bill be a criminal offence?

It used to be known as abstraction of electricity on a landline telephone network but it might be better referred to as abstraction of EM waves or photons, depending on how you view the wave particle duality, on a mobile network.


A friend racked up a mobile phone bill of nearly £2000 as a result of exceeding his data allowance whilst abroad back in 2017. He changed his network provider then cancelled the direct debit resulting in this bill going unpaid to today. It's not actually illegal to do this as all the old network provider can do is demand the payment, as a civil matter, and ruin his credit rating. He claims that unlike an unpaid gas or electricity bill, an unpaid phone bill has not consumed any of the earth's precious natural resources apart from a bit of electricity that cost only a tiny fraction of the value of the bill.


A local bobby disagrees and says that theft is theft regardless of whether it's a tangible object or a non-tangible service, so the criminal should be brought to justice and jailed.


Does the IET have a position regarding the legal status of unpaid phone bills and whether or not refusal to pay should be a criminal offence?
Parents
  • There's a surprisingly readable description here:
    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences


    I like this bit:

    Most of the offences in the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 require proof of dishonesty as a specific ingredient.

    [...]

    R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is the leading authority on dishonesty. It sets out a two stage test to be applied whenever dishonesty has to be proved as an element of an offence.

    If the answer to either of the following questions is 'no' a prosecution is bound to fail. The first element is objective; the second subjective:



    • According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?

    • If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?


    This bit's also quite fun:


    Electricity is not property within the meaning of section 4 Theft Act 1968 (Low v Blease [1975] Crim L.R. 513) and cannot therefore be stolen. When electricity is used without due authority, or dishonestly wasted or diverted, prosecutors should charge the offence of abstracting electricity contrary to section 13 Theft Act 1968.





    We had a horror story with mobile phone bills when our daughter first started at Uni. She was sent two "free" SIM cards, which she never activated, but then started getting bills for. As described above this got as far as bailiffs writing to our address, which was pretty unpleasant. To be fair, when we contacted the bailiffs they were fine, they appeared to be used to incompetent phone companies. Thankfully the ombudsman sorted it it out, including getting us compensation for stress and our wasted time with phone company staff who switched from "it's fine, those accounts are closed, it's all sorted" (and then a month later another demand would come) to "it's with the bailiff's now, there's nothing we can do" (the most ridiculous of all the statements, the bailiffs are under contract to the phone company.) I'm reasonably good at contract law and dealing with poorly managed companies and it was still a nightmare - I'd hate to think how someone who knew nothing at all about it would cope.


    Grrrrr...


    Andy

Reply
  • There's a surprisingly readable description here:
    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences


    I like this bit:

    Most of the offences in the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 require proof of dishonesty as a specific ingredient.

    [...]

    R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is the leading authority on dishonesty. It sets out a two stage test to be applied whenever dishonesty has to be proved as an element of an offence.

    If the answer to either of the following questions is 'no' a prosecution is bound to fail. The first element is objective; the second subjective:



    • According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?

    • If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?


    This bit's also quite fun:


    Electricity is not property within the meaning of section 4 Theft Act 1968 (Low v Blease [1975] Crim L.R. 513) and cannot therefore be stolen. When electricity is used without due authority, or dishonestly wasted or diverted, prosecutors should charge the offence of abstracting electricity contrary to section 13 Theft Act 1968.





    We had a horror story with mobile phone bills when our daughter first started at Uni. She was sent two "free" SIM cards, which she never activated, but then started getting bills for. As described above this got as far as bailiffs writing to our address, which was pretty unpleasant. To be fair, when we contacted the bailiffs they were fine, they appeared to be used to incompetent phone companies. Thankfully the ombudsman sorted it it out, including getting us compensation for stress and our wasted time with phone company staff who switched from "it's fine, those accounts are closed, it's all sorted" (and then a month later another demand would come) to "it's with the bailiff's now, there's nothing we can do" (the most ridiculous of all the statements, the bailiffs are under contract to the phone company.) I'm reasonably good at contract law and dealing with poorly managed companies and it was still a nightmare - I'd hate to think how someone who knew nothing at all about it would cope.


    Grrrrr...


    Andy

Children
No Data