Got Scammed with a Samsung Galaxy S2 - Tmobile says IMEI is blocked

[jet1000]

That's what I told them.. They don't care.

That's unfortunate. I believe the person who started this thread had the same experience. Customer service just told them too bad. I don't blame the representative because they are just doing their job. I do blame the execs who put this policy in place for not being able to see the consequences of it and that it penalizes existing customers more than it does those that miss the payments.

T-Mobile doesn't even publicize that they do this, so it's quite possible that the seller thought he was selling working devices and not trying to screw the buyer. Again, the lack of publicity is also on T-Mobile.

T-Mobile needs a tool checker (either available to reps or online) to figure out if the phone is on an EIP, if it is - avoid at all costs.

I agree. That would be showing at least some effort on their part to help out their customers in making purchases of pre-owned devices.

[Guest 214]

That's unfortunate. I believe the person who started this thread had the same experience. Customer service just told them too bad. I don't blame the representative because they are just doing their job. I do blame the execs who put this policy in place for not being able to see the consequences of it and that it penalizes existing customers more than it does those that miss the payments.

T-Mobile doesn't even publicize that they do this, so it's quite possible that the seller thought he was selling working devices and not trying to screw the buyer. Again, the lack of publicity is also on T-Mobile.



I agree. That would be showing at least some effort on their part to help out their customers in making purchases of pre-owned devices.

Do they have to publicize they are going to deactivate unpaid phone's? Do you seriously think you can get away with not paying on your car, and sell it and not expect it to be listed up for repossession or stolen? Nope, if you honestly haven't paid the EIP off, then you shouldn't be that stupid as to know its not yours.

Verizon and Sprint have done this for years, and its about time T-Mobile starts cutting their losses.

Sure they do need a tool checker, but they aren't the bad guys you are so poorly making them out to be

[jet1000]

Do they have to publicize they are going to deactivate unpaid phone's?

They should

Do you seriously think you can get away with not paying on your car, and sell it and not expect it to be listed up for repossession or stolen?

A car has a title that is registered to the state showing who the owner is and if there is a loan on it or not. The reason it can be repossessed is because the loan is secured credit.

T-Mobile distributes cell phones on what's called unsecured credit. Phones do not have titles that are registered with the state. You may not have known this. Once the device leaves the store, it is legally the property of the customer. There is not one document that the customer signs that says the phone is collateral for the loan. It can not be repossessed. It can be reported stolen as you claim.

Nope, if you honestly haven't paid the EIP off, then you shouldn't be that stupid as to know its not yours.

While you're going around spouting off about how stupid others are, you are displaying an ignorance of the very legal issue I listed above. That phone is the property of the customer, not T-Mobile. They have no legal grounds to repossess it. If this seems perplexing to you, consult an attorney.

Verizon and Sprint have done this for years

So? If T-Mobile is going to start doing it, they should publicize it so that they're customers know what they should do to protect themselves. That would be what a responsible company does. If they don't want to be responsible, they'll anger their customers and lose good paying ones as has been happening.

[Guest 214]

They should



A car has a title that is registered to the state showing who the owner is and if there is a loan on it or not. The reason it can be repossessed is because the loan is secured credit.

T-Mobile distributes cell phones on what's called unsecured credit. Phones do not have titles that are registered with the state. You may not have known this. Once the device leaves the store, it is legally the property of the customer. There is not one document that the customer signs that says the phone is collateral for the loan. It can not be repossessed. It can be reported stolen as you claim.



While you're going around spouting off about how stupid others are, you are displaying an ignorance of the very legal issue I listed above. That phone is the property of the customer, not T-Mobile. They have no legal grounds to repossess it. If this seems perplexing to you, consult an attorney.



So? If T-Mobile is going to start doing it, they should publicize it so that they're customers know what they should do to protect themselves. That would be what a responsible company does. If they don't want to be responsible, they'll anger their customers and lose good paying ones as has been happening.

They aren't going to repossess it, but they will ruin your credit which is great.

And being that T-Mobile own's their own network, they have every right to prevent an unpaid handset from connecting to their network anymore without giving notice.

As stated, the handset works just fine on AT&T so they aren't limiting the use of the handset.

[fraydog]

I simply fail to see what the big deal is here.

Yes, T-Mo should publicize this policy when selling phones on unsecured credit. However it is not like the T-Mo blacklisted phones are useless. There's an entire global GSM ecosystem that the phones can be used on. It is not a situation where CDMA providers blacklist and the phones are glorified paperweights except for flashers and other people who find unethical ways to game the system, like Cricket dealers for example.

In the end it's T-Mo's network. They can choose to activate whatever devices they want.

[silentjudge]

I simply fail to see what the big deal is here.

Yes, T-Mo should publicize this policy when selling phones on unsecured credit. However it is not like the T-Mo blacklisted phones are useless. There's an entire global GSM ecosystem that the phones can be used on. It is not a situation where CDMA providers blacklist and the phones are glorified paperweights except for flashers and other people who find unethical ways to game the system, like Cricket dealers for example.

In the end it's T-Mo's network. They can choose to activate whatever devices they want.

Yup, at least you can unlock the phone and use it on AT&T (and their MVNOs).

Sent from my LG Nitro HD

[badutahboy]

There are some points here which have been flagrantly glossed over, by both sides.

1. As to the "Sprint and verizon do it" crowd: Yes, they do. And there are defined, reliable systems to verify whether or not a Sprint/Verizon phone is workable to activate as a used phone. If I buy a Sprint/Verizon phone today and it's cleared to activate, as soon as I activate it, Sprint can't/won't deactivate it. There is no exception to this rule, because Sprint/Verizon require the owner of the phone to deactivate it from his account prior to selling it, and their perspective is that theft of an inactive phone is a matter for the police, not them. They only blacklist phones which are reported stolen against current/active lines of service, and/or lines of service which were deactivated for nonpayment. The second a phone leaves their system, they won't blacklist it.

2. T mobile operates under completely different rules (apparently).. I can buy a phone which is in perfect working order today. I can even require the seller to go into a TMobile store with me in order to verify that the serial number is clear. I can buy that phone, and as many as TWENTY months later, that phone can be deactivated if the seller defaults on his repayment agreement. This is important, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect yourself in purchasing a used phone in this instance. I'm sure Tmo won't tell me if the seller owes them money, either on his account or on his phone repayment plan, which means as the buyer of a used phone, I'm left completely without recourse, even if the seller DIDN'T do anything illegal, but simply lost his ability to repay Tmobile nearly 2 years after selling the device.

These two items are critically important. It's one thing for Tmo to protect themselves.. It's another matter completely for them to indiscriminately screw customers who make actions in good faith, and even attempt to ensure that they aren't buying stolen/defaulted items.

If Tmobile wishes to be able to blacklist phones for failure to repay, they should at least implement a situation wherein a buyer can verify the validity of his purchase, such as a system which will say "this phone still has a balance owing of $xxx.xx. Prior to purchasing this phone, you should ensure that the seller satisfies their debt".. At least that way, I could tell the seller "look, we're going to meet at the store, satisfy your debt on the phone, and give you the excess proceeds", and you would be covered.

Since T-mobile DOESN'T implement these safeguards, they ARE largely culpable when an innocent buyer gets screwed over based on t-mo's poor/flawed/(possibly unethical by design, as implied by a few previous posters who accused Tmo of doing this to kill the resale market) business decisions.

And to those who accused customers who were righteously upset about this scenario of "cutting off their nose to spite their face", you're wrong. I recently left Sprint to pay more at Tmo, due to Sprint's recent unethical changing of fees midcontract. I chose to take a stand based on what I perceive to be poor and/or unethical business decisions, and even though my monthly expenditures increased, I am now with a company I can feel good (or better anyway) about working with. The same applies here. Sure, if a customer leaves over this issue and goes to Sprint or Verizon, they're abiding by similar rules, but at least they know that those rules are implemented within a system that covers the bases and protects the buyer who utilizes even a modest amount of effort to protect himself.

[jet1000]

There are some points here which have been flagrantly glossed over, by both sides.

You make an excellent post. You perfectly contrast the large differences of T-Mobile's situation when compared with Verizon and Sprint. You also stressed the point that the device could be in good standing when it is sold to the new owner, and the previous owner could be making EIP payments accordingly. Then the new owner finds out that down the road, the device has been deactivated.

I think the system that you mention of being able to check the balance owed on a device is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, I doubt T-Mobile would ever implement such a smart system.

[Kies]

There are some points here which have been flagrantly glossed over, by both sides.

1. As to the "Sprint and verizon do it" crowd: Yes, they do. And there are defined, reliable systems to verify whether or not a Sprint/Verizon phone is workable to activate as a used phone. If I buy a Sprint/Verizon phone today and it's cleared to activate, as soon as I activate it, Sprint can't/won't deactivate it. The second a phone leaves their system, they won't blacklist it.

that's a lie, Sprint and Verizon's system won't deactivate a phone while it's active on an account even if it has been reported stolen or lost but once it is deactivated, if the previous owner DID file an insurance claim the phone will be blacklisted the instant it is off the buyers account, it happens all of the time.

2. T mobile operates under completely different rules (apparently).. I can buy a phone which is in perfect working order today. I can even require the seller to go into a TMobile store with me in order to verify that the serial number is clear. stomers who make actions in good faith, and even attempt to ensure that they aren't buying stolen/defaulted items.

The only way of knowing if the phone will work is to put your sim in it and have it try to connect to the network. The stores nor T-Mobile customer service can check the status of something like this because it is simply that black and white. What T-Mobile needs is what I said before your post, a system to check if an IMEI is on a payment plan and if it is - DON'T buy it. OR, lock the phone to that sim card until the phone is paid off. Or get rid of Value plan installment plans altogether.

Since T-mobile DOESN'T implement these safeguards, they ARE largely culpable when an innocent buyer gets screwed over based on t-mo's poor/flawed/(possibly unethical by design, as implied by a few previous posters who accused Tmo of doing this to kill the resale market) business decisions.

They are doing it to kill the resale market, as all of the new in box phones are largely fraudulent.

And to those who accused customers who were righteously upset about this scenario of "cutting off their nose to spite their face", you're wrong. I recently left Sprint to pay more at Tmo, due to Sprint's recent unethical changing of fees midcontract. I chose to take a stand based on what I perceive to be poor and/or unethical business decisions, and even though my monthly expenditures increased, I am now with a company I can feel good (or better anyway) about working with. The same applies here. Sure, if a customer leaves over this issue and goes to Sprint or Verizon, they're abiding by similar rules, but at least they know that those rules are implemented within a system that covers the bases and protects the buyer who utilizes even a modest amount of effort to protect himself.

Since when is blocking their phone off of their network which was obtained through fraud unethical? OP's case and others clearly show that the person selling the phones obtained them and never intended to pay the bill.

[nexus14]

that's a lie, Sprint and Verizon's system won't deactivate a phone while it's active on an account even if it has been reported stolen or lost but once it is deactivated, if the previous owner DID file an insurance claim the phone will be blacklisted the instant it is off the buyers account, it happens all of the time.

The only way of knowing if the phone will work is to put your sim in it and have it try to connect to the network. The stores nor T-Mobile customer service can check the status of something like this because it is simply that black and white. What T-Mobile needs is what I said before your post, a system to check if an IMEI is on a payment plan and if it is - DON'T buy it. OR, lock the phone to that sim card until the phone is paid off. Or get rid of Value plan installment plans altogether.

They are doing it to kill the resale market, as all of the new in box phones are largely fraudulent.

Since when is blocking their phone off of their network which was obtained through fraud unethical? OP's case and others clearly show that the person selling the phones obtained them and never intended to pay the bill.

Kies, you definitely need to reread the post because your "points" have already been talked about by the poster you are quoting.

1) You mention the need for a system that allows one to check if there's an unpaid debt on a phone. The guy already talked about it.
2) You mention that T-mobile stores have no way of checking whether or not a phone is on a repayment plan. Guess what? The guy agrees with you, as noted by his example of the phone being blocked 20 months down the road.
3) You also disagreed with the guy's use of the word 'unethical' to describe T-mobile's right to block unpaid devices. Yet you fail to understand that badutahboy was talking about Sprint's unethical practice of charging fees, and the reason why he switched to T-mobile.

Please read before posting. His post is in more agreement with your ideas than you may think.

[Kies]

Kies, you definitely need to reread the post because your "points" have already been talked about by the poster you are quoting.

1) You mention the need for a system that allows one to check if there's an unpaid debt on a phone. The guy already talked about it.
2) You mention that T-mobile stores have no way of checking whether or not a phone is on a repayment plan. Guess what? The guy agrees with you, as noted by his example of the phone being blocked 20 months down the road.
3) You also disagreed with the guy's use of the word 'unethical' to describe T-mobile's right to block unpaid devices. Yet you fail to understand that badutahboy was talking about Sprint's unethical practice of charging fees, and the reason why he switched to T-mobile.

Please read before posting. His post is in more agreement with your ideas than you may think.

I read his post, maybe he missed mine when he lumped me into the flagrant ones that missed points. No one can go into a T-Mobile store and verify anything because they have no way of doing so. If they do it's dishonest, not a good point to make because there is no way of checking ANYTHING at this point.

By mentioning the reason for switching, he's implying that this is unethical (also mentioned that they were doing this to stifle the resale market which would be "unethical" if they weren't really doing it to stem fraud).

Anyway, not to beat a dead horse but.. complain to T-Mobile execs directly. They won't notice that 3 lines switched because they got phones that were banned off of the network.

[Kies]

Kies, you definitely need to reread the post because your "points" have already been talked about by the poster you are quoting.

1) You mention the need for a system that allows one to check if there's an unpaid debt on a phone. The guy already talked about it.
2) You mention that T-mobile stores have no way of checking whether or not a phone is on a repayment plan. Guess what? The guy agrees with you, as noted by his example of the phone being blocked 20 months down the road.
3) You also disagreed with the guy's use of the word 'unethical' to describe T-mobile's right to block unpaid devices. Yet you fail to understand that badutahboy was talking about Sprint's unethical practice of charging fees, and the reason why he switched to T-mobile.

Please read before posting. His post is in more agreement with your ideas than you may think.

I read his post, maybe he missed mine when he lumped me into the flagrant ones that missed points. No one can go into a T-Mobile store and verify anything because they have no way of doing so. If they do it's dishonest, not a good point to make because there is no way of checking ANYTHING at this point.

By mentioning the reason for switching, he's implying that this is unethical (also mentioned that they were doing this to stifle the resale market which would be "unethical" if they weren't really doing it to stem losses).

Anyway, not to beat a dead horse but.. complain to T-Mobile execs directly. They won't notice that 3 lines switched because they got phones that were banned off of the network.

[badutahboy]

that's a lie, Sprint and Verizon's system won't deactivate a phone while it's active on an account even if it has been reported stolen or lost but once it is deactivated, if the previous owner DID file an insurance claim the phone will be blacklisted the instant it is off the buyers account, it happens all of the time.

You either misunderstood me or you don't understand how Sprint/Verizon work. If my phone gets stolen, Sprint/Verizon will deactivate it and flag the ESN so it can't be reactivated. However, if the ESN isn't active in their system, they won't flag it. So if I'm buying a sprint phone, and I check the ESN with them, one of three things happens:

1. It's been flagged as lost/stolen/defaulted (yes, Sprint/Verizon can/will blacklist your ESN if you default on your account. However, again, they only blacklist current ESN's. I can go buy a brand new GS2 on Sprint, re-activate an old school flip phone, default on my contract, and the GS2 won't ever get flagged.). If this is the case, nothing you can do will allow you to activate the phone.

2. It's not active on an account and hasn't been reported stolen or lost.. You're in the clear. If someone reports an inactive phone as stolen, Sprint won't take action, because they have no way of knowing the status of the phone, they weren't insuring it, and they're not getting involved in your civil matter.

3. It's active on an account. In order to sell the phone, you must call sprint to deactivate it, which brings us back to item #2. Once you deactivate it, Sprint doesn't care what you do with it, and the buyer is free to activate it.

The only way of knowing if the phone will work is to put your sim in it and have it try to connect to the network. The stores nor T-Mobile customer service can check the status of something like this because it is simply that black and white. What T-Mobile needs is what I said before your post, a system to check if an IMEI is on a payment plan and if it is - DON'T buy it. OR, lock the phone to that sim card until the phone is paid off. Or get rid of Value plan installment plans altogether.

This was covered. Tmobile CAN check to see if an IMEI is flagged. What they can't do (to my knowledge) is inform the buyer whether or not it's on a payment plan, and this is exactly why they should track that and release the phone if it is sold. As someone else mentioned, their recourse is against the seller, not the buyer. If the seller defaults after selling the phone, the buyer isn't culpable and shouldn't be penalized.

They are doing it to kill the resale market, as all of the new in box phones are largely fraudulent.

Huh? You didn't dispute anything I said.

Since when is blocking their phone off of their network which was obtained through fraud unethical? OP's case and others clearly show that the person selling the phones obtained them and never intended to pay the bill.

It shows nothing of the sort. Not only that, but if you buy a phone and sell it to me while your account is still in good standing, then default after the phone is already active on my account, why should your motives affect me? I didn't buy stolen goods. I didn't commit a crime. I didn't even willfully ignore what MIGHT have been your crime. I participated in a completely legal transaction, and Tmobile punished me anyway.. And worst of all, Tmobile's actions in this scenario WON'T help them collect any bad debt, it just screws me, and that makes me infinitely more likely to leave Tmobile for another carrier.

[badutahboy]

I read his post, maybe he missed mine when he lumped me into the flagrant ones that missed points. No one can go into a T-Mobile store and verify anything because they have no way of doing so. If they do it's dishonest, not a good point to make because there is no way of checking ANYTHING at this point.

By mentioning the reason for switching, he's implying that this is unethical (also mentioned that they were doing this to stifle the resale market which would be "unethical" if they weren't really doing it to stem losses).

Anyway, not to beat a dead horse but.. complain to T-Mobile execs directly. They won't notice that 3 lines switched because they got phones that were banned off of the network.

I didn't even address you, so I don't know why you think I'm lumping you in with anyone else. I was making general commentary on recurring themes throughout this thread.

Also, as per Tmobile's customer service, supposedly, they can verify that the phone hasn't been reported stolen if you call in with a serial number or go into a corporate store for them to verify it. I wasn't clear whether or not they could verify whether it was still tied to someone's ongoing debt for the phone, however.

[Kies]

I didn't even address you, so I don't know why you think I'm lumping you in with anyone else. I was making general commentary on recurring themes throughout this thread.

Also, as per Tmobile's customer service, supposedly, they can verify that the phone hasn't been reported stolen if you call in with a serial number or go into a corporate store for them to verify it. I wasn't clear whether or not they could verify whether it was still tied to someone's ongoing debt for the phone, however.

You addressed everyone when you said "both sides"

If a phone has been reported stolen, a sim put inside the phone wouldn't initialize on the network pretty much making a check like that useless.