[Ben]

Could this finally put an end to the black spots which still plague our mobile phone reception?
In a tremendous moral victory for the consumer late last week Orange subscriber Tom Prescott successfully sued his network over a lack of signal. Prescott had asked Orange to cancel his 18 month contract after discovering he had no reception at either his Richmond home or place of work. He has received £500 and had the contract annulled.
"As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel my contract," he explained. "However, it has taken me three months in court to get it cancelled. I felt bullied by the company, and dealing with Orange was awful. I hope people who have the same problem now realise they can do something about it."

Prescott had sensibly argued he should have a reasonable expectation of service both at home and in the office upon signing the contract. Orange countered it wasn't its responsibility, but the courts thought differently. In fact Orange even maintained after the ruling that "Continuous network coverage cannot be guaranteed and network coverage can be affected by factors outside of our control." Legally however this no longer stands up.
TBH I'm not sure if TR are interpreting this correctly... but if it really is the first case of somebody getting their mobile phone contract cancelled and being compensated for having no signal then, well, hurrah.

There's always something a bit hit and run about mobile phone contracts. I'm honestly not sure how the industry isn't better regulated. Wait, they've got the UK govt. in their pockets, that's how :D

[solo12002]

Wait, they've got the UK govt. in their pockets, that's how

And not forgetting the likes of OFCOM and other bodies of course

[Hands0n]

..Orange even maintained after the ruling that "Continuous network coverage cannot be guaranteed and network coverage can be affected by factors outside of our control." Legally however this no longer stands up.

It really is about time that the mobile operators had that lame excuse taken away from them. Without buying a contract or at the very least a PAYG it is impossible for the average user to tell what kind of signal reception they are going to get at home or work. Considering that these two places are the main locations a person spends their life in it is completely unreasonable for the mobile operator to try and use the excuse offered by Orange. It is the standard response and, frankly, it is well past its sell by date.

To finally see a mobile network operator become accountable for their lack of service provision is extremely late but welcome nonetheless. How OFCOM has let them get away with it this long is lamentable. And the fact that it took a court ruling rather than OFCOM to regulate makes matters even worse. It brings the whole reason for OFCOMs existence into question. These are, after all, very fundamental issues.

That said, Orange are completely unrepentant as this clipping from Cellular News tells ...

... A spokesperson for Orange told The Telegraph newspaper: "The award granted to Dr Prescott was due to exceptional circumstances. We are disappointed with the outcome as our records show that Dr Prescott had good use of his phone.", warning potential claimants that, "the Brentford County Court judgement in no way sets a precedent as claims made in the small claims court are decided on a case-by-case basis. Dr Prescott's case does not change our liability for any future claims of this nature."

Full article: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/36176.php

So what they're saying is "Come on punter, try your luck if you dare...."

Orange, shame on you.

[Ben]

That's a very harsh response designed entirely to scare ordinary people off of claiming. It wont work...