Munich: The process for terrible roaming charges – Munich

The worst surprise came in the form of an invoice. A Munich association that concluded a flat-rate mobile phone deal with a major mobile operator will have to abruptly transfer 2, 2,464.39 to the company instead of the agreed .1 50.17. The following happened: The club allowed its board of directors to use the cellphone for a trip to Canada. There, however, the device made a terrible charge within four weeks of dialing in overseas roaming service. However, the association has paid only a part of it. The mobile operator discounted another of the 400 euros as part of a goodwill loan.

But that is not the end of the matter. This is because a debt collection company, which owed 1961.11 euros, has now demanded a sum for its share. The association filed a lawsuit, which is why the case ended up in civil court in Munich District Court.

During the hearing, a representative of the association commented that the mobile operator should have pointed out higher costs abroad. But as this did not happen, the club demanded compensation in return. However, the lending company insisted that the mobile operator was not obliged to provide the information. This only applies to consumers, but not to entrepreneurs such as the Defendant Association.

According to the court, the company should have pointed out the costs

The judge often agreed with the defendant club, so it had to pay only 552.59 euros. In his judgment, the judge pointed out that the mobile operator was obliged to inform the defendant of “costs in excess of the base fee”. Roaming has been free in Europe for about five years.

See also  Ice Hockey World Cup: Canada wrestle with the mighty Kazakhs - winter sports - ice hockey

According to the court, the cell phone operator could have easily pointed out, for example, that using a cell phone in Canada through automatic notifications via SMS or email would cost more than the flat rate agreed upon under the contract. . Especially in the case of mobile phone contracts with flat rate rates, the court believes that there is an “increased reason” for the mobile phone operator to “inform the contractor about the drastically increased costs” (Az. 113 C 23543/20).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.