Roam further - is it mandatory?

[donnyguy]

Beginning next month, will Roam-further (what is now known as World Traveller) become a mandatory product or will customers be able to still opt out of it and pay standard rates if required?

The reason I ask is my parents travel and it drove me nuts last year when they were in the UAE (which was at the time a World Traveller destination) as they'd incur the £5 per day charge for sending a text and no matter how many conversations I'd have with them around "you may as well use your phone all day as if you were here in the UK as you're charged on the first activity of the day", they didn't. 

So looking at their bills, I'd see a £5 charge for a text or for a 30 second call. 

The Roam-further is brilliant for people like me who will get their monies worth but is there an option for other customers to pay the standard prices rather than the flat daily charge?

[jeffkinn]

Registering on a foreign network in itself does not trigger the charge. You can receive calls and texts for nothing. But roaming for extended periods could be a problem. Roaming arrangements are designed for occasional use when on normal short holidays.

[Annie_N]

---

@jeffkinn wrote:
But roaming for extended periods could be a problem. Roaming arrangements are designed for occasional use when on normal short holidays.

---

I confess I hadn't thought of the contractual aspects, but overnight it struck me that 6 months in the USA on a PayM basis could come quite expensive if you want to use the phone reasonably often.

A possible strategy might be to lend the PayM phone to a reliable family member for the duration, start off with a UK PAYG phone - Vodafone's new rates from 5 August are much more affordable than used to be the case (USA in RoW Z1) - and aim to switch to a US PAYG phone once you've had an opportunity to research it. In the past I've had amazing value in USA from a really cheap drugstore phone, but the snag was that it was tied to the handset, which of course didn't work in Europe, so I couldn't do anything about keeping it active once I brought it home. Also, having a local number means that American friends can call you if they're on a contract which doesn't permit overseas calls.

[notreallyhappy]

Please note that in my experience it is also mandatory outside of the Roam Further destinations having had it applied as a £5 a day charge to my account for a single text (which should have cost 7p) sent while in Montenegro. I think there seems to be some disparity for Vodafone about whether or not Montenegro is still part of Serbia or not as calls there seem to be being routed and charged as thought they are made in Serbia. And no I am not oanywhere near the border so am not accidentally picking up a signal via Serbia. The whole policy of mandatory daily charges at £5 for one text stinks but being charged for a counrtry you are even in stinks even more.

[buckdenbursar]

Like others I am incensed by this change which has been forced on existing customers.  I am a light user and rarely use data or my phone whilst in an expensive roaming country.  Occasionally I send a text and as I am going to Canada this month I was happy to pay 35p for the odd text but to pay £5 for one text is outrageous.  I tried to opt out via customer services (not permitted) and visiting a Vodafone Store to register my objection (they said lots of people had been complaining).  What they should do is charge the going rate for calls, texts & data until you have spent £5 then transfer you to "take my package with you".  If this isn't changed, I will move my business elsewhere - there are now plenty of options when you use your own phone on a SIM only deal.

[Alex]

@buckdenbursar I do apologise you feel this way.

We appreciate all feedback and we'll be sure to send this across to the relevant departments. 

[Stub101]

I have been battling with Vodafone CS for the last couple of weeks on this and got absolutely nowhere!

I cannot believe that Vodafone think this blanket opt-in to Roam Further is morrally, contractually, or commercially the right thing to do. 

I am travelling to the US in 6 weeks and as a light user I am now uncle to use my phone to send the usual 2 text messages a day that I do every time I visit. The normal cost - 70p(x20 day's = £14, and now the cost will be £100!!!

I did not sign up for this when I took out a new 12-month SIM only deal in March this year, but I am now being subjected to these changes with no option to Opt Out, and (apparently) have no rights to ask Vodafone to terminate the contract because they don't believe this is a material change to the contract!?!?!

I urge everyone to do what I will be doing and leaving Vodafone as soon as I am physically able to. It's the only way to make them realise what a disastrous decision they have made. 

I am also talking with the Ombudsman to see if they can help. 

[Annie_N]

@Stub101, @buckdenbursar

I share your bafflement that Vodafone should regard this as a reasonable step to take.

Until you have moved elsewhere, are you able to use an app such as Skype to avoid the daily charge? For some years I've kept a small balance with them, to avoid costly roaming charges, although I believe it's now covered by my MS Office subscription.

It's my understanding that incoming calls and texts don't trigger the charge. Of course, your correspondents would have to cope with receving texts from one number while replying to another (unless you set up a separate number), but I think this would only be a problem to one of my "regulars".

[Stub101]

@Annie_N

I am left with no choice but to use Skype or similar, however wifi coverage is not that prominent in the Southern US states which will makes things much more difficult for me.

My main point and grievance is that existing customers should not be forced to accept such a material change to their contracts which now result in me being significantly disadvantaged and having to find alternative ways of communicating .

I categorically would not have taken a new SIM only 12-month contract with Vodafone in March/April based on my usage. This change is fundamentally wrong and should not be allowed within UK contract law!