£91,000 phone bill calling chatlines

https://twitter.com/loughboroughkev/stat...2953064448

they wrote it off....lol let this be a lesson to other unemployeds who want phone sex!

I guess that Kev refused to pay and they thought there was nothing to gain by suing an unemployed person.

Disapointed to hear that, but not surprised they let him off, cause it would have cost them money to take him to court, and realistically he had know way of paying it back, i can just imagine how smug he fills about getting away with it, and that what really annoys me the most, i hope that all the phone providers are warned about this troll, and he struggles to get another phone from any other network provider.

(27-04-2013 11:11 )elgar1uk Wrote:  I guess that Kev refused to pay and they thought there was nothing to gain by suing an unemployed person.

I would imagine though that like most bills and invoices relating to contract is subject to the statute of limitations which actually could give them 6 years to pursue him for the debt, Im surprised they wrote this off so early on banking on his inability to pay over the next 6 years.

Kev doesnt seem too bright so I am wondering if they have actually advised they are no longer dealing with the matter, meaning its been referred onto 3rd party recovery companies

tweet now deleted haha

(27-04-2013 11:13 )marco01 Wrote:  i can just imagine how smug he fills about getting away with it,

I'm sure he does feel very smug and that's why he couldn't resist tweeting about it.

(27-04-2013 12:20 )Prince Henry Sinclair Wrote:  

(27-04-2013 11:13 )marco01 Wrote:  i can just imagine how smug he fills about getting away with it,

I'm sure he does feel very smug and that's why he couldn't resist tweeting about it.

well he did before he got involved in an epic slagging match with donna duke and he deleted the whole thing

(27-04-2013 11:16 )mido Wrote:  

(27-04-2013 11:11 )elgar1uk Wrote:  I guess that Kev refused to pay and they thought there was nothing to gain by suing an unemployed person.

I would imagine though that like most bills and invoices relating to contract is subject to the statute of limitations which actually could give them 6 years to pursue him for the debt, Im surprised they wrote this off so early on banking on his inability to pay over the next 6 years.

Kev doesnt seem too bright so I am wondering if they have actually advised they are no longer dealing with the matter, meaning its been referred onto 3rd party recovery companies

im thinking that as well. that Vodafone have tried getting the money back themselves and failed, so they are now getting a debt recovery company involved to try and get the money back. it's happened with me where ive had various debts I've owed and companies that ive owed the money too have got debt recovery companies involved to get the money back from me. hopefully Vodafone will stop him from using their sim cards at the very least

loving that he's calling the babechannels "money grabbers" and still blaming them for his debt. yes they are out to make money, but theyre not forcing him to call them

(27-04-2013 13:56 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  loving that he's calling the babechannels "money grabbers" and still blaming them for his debt. yes they are out to make money, but theyre not forcing him to call them

Reading what I caught of his twitter battle with Donna Duke, he was saying it was her fault for telling him to call back and then ranted about how it was all for her stats rather than about him

but your right most companies have very basic credit control systems and once they have been exhausted they will pass debts onto other companies to deal with normlly on a basis that the recovery is split around 65-35 in the primary creditors favor,(i used to work for one myself - not a bad job actually but I never even got a fraction of the recoveries as a bonus). He could quite legally appeal that he can only afford a nominal £1 a month until a stage where his circumstances improve and they would not be able to harass him further for it (though they may add rolling interest). In experience I have never known a company accept nothing rather than something unless there are extreme circumstances such as fraud, mis-selling of a contract etc

Although Kev is unemployed we dont know anything about him, he could own homes, have expensive cars bought from a previous high paid job which could be sold or refinanced he could be independently wealthy or have dependants who are.. its unlikely that a debt of this size would be just forgotten because someone is unemployed, though Kev may have been better off claiming bankrupcy.

Yes, I think it's policy for these companies to pursue debts on principle, regardless of cost. Many years ago I had a dispute with Orange over a £12 bill and it was referred to a debt collector before I paid, because it wouldn't have been cost-effective to fight any more, even if I won.
If it has been written off the decision must have been taken at a high level, possibly because of adverse publicity.

(27-04-2013 14:16 )mido Wrote:  Reading what I caught of his twitter battle with Donna Duke, he was saying it was her fault for telling him to call back and then ranted about how it was all for her stats rather than about him

Reading Donna's side of the convo, she mentions having recordings of their calls, where he claimed to have a 'plan' to avoid paying, if vodafone wanted to request them.