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
  • Hi Lisa,


    The keyword I think is "dishonestly"

    A person who—

    (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and

    (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,

    is guilty of an offence.



    So I think that means they have to have actively done something to access wifi (in this example) which they know they should not have done. Note also part (b) with the word "intent" - so they knew they were supposed to pay for access and found a way to avoid it.


    Which seems to make sense!


    Oddly I can't find out anywhere what persuaded the court in R v Straszkiewicz that there was dishonesty in the access and intent to avoid to avoid payment. As it's such a well cited case I'd have expected there to be more written about the details.


    Why do BT insist on putting the password details on the backs of the router (so that it's clearly visible if on a windowsill or similar)? Or, since it's on a slide out card, why not make the card so you can put it in blank side facing out? Ah...first word problems...


    Cheers,


    Andy



Reply
  • Hi Lisa,


    The keyword I think is "dishonestly"

    A person who—

    (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and

    (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,

    is guilty of an offence.



    So I think that means they have to have actively done something to access wifi (in this example) which they know they should not have done. Note also part (b) with the word "intent" - so they knew they were supposed to pay for access and found a way to avoid it.


    Which seems to make sense!


    Oddly I can't find out anywhere what persuaded the court in R v Straszkiewicz that there was dishonesty in the access and intent to avoid to avoid payment. As it's such a well cited case I'd have expected there to be more written about the details.


    Why do BT insist on putting the password details on the backs of the router (so that it's clearly visible if on a windowsill or similar)? Or, since it's on a slide out card, why not make the card so you can put it in blank side facing out? Ah...first word problems...


    Cheers,


    Andy



Children
No Data