giffgaff 海外断号消费者倡议

停号可以 吞掉余额不行

规则不是遮羞布。giffgaff 如果要停号,就必须把依据、人工复核、PAC、退款与缓冲期一次说清。做不到,就别把全部损失甩给用户。余额拿不回来,就直接捐出去——一英镑也别让它困在黑箱里。

Open petition

致 giffgaff:别再用“最终决定”堵住消费者的嘴

公平使用政策不是免检通行证。你们可以执行规则,但不能购买时含糊其辞、封号时一刀切、事后再把 PAC、退款、投诉与 ADR 藏在角落里。规则可以有,黑箱不能有。

1

风险写在购买页上,别等封号后才翻条款

境外首次激活、长期漫游可能触发什么后果,必须在购买和激活时醒目说明,而不是出事后才拿长条款压人。

2

别让算法一句话判死号

永久停号之前必须先警告、先限制、先人工复核。没有真正的个案审查,就不该把一个长期绑定账户安全的号码直接判死。

3

PAC、退款、投诉与 ADR:一次说清

用户不该靠论坛拼凑救命信息。停号通知必须把保号、携转、退款、正式投诉和 ADR 的入口、条件与时限一次列明。

4

回收号码前,给用户足够撤离时间

验证码、银行和重要账户不是说换就换。号码回收前必须留出合理缓冲期,让用户迁移二次验证、更新绑定并保护资产。

5

余额不是可以被静默吞掉的废料

如果拒绝退款,就必须公开规则依据、例外情形和可执行的剩余处理方式。不能一边切断服务,一边让用户余额在账户里悄无声息地死掉。

这不是请求特殊照顾,这是最低限度的消费者待遇

号码可以停,流程不能黑;规则可以执行,余额不能失踪。giffgaff 不能用一句“最终决定”把解释义务、退款责任和账户安全风险全部甩给用户。

Why this matters

这不只是一张卡的纠纷,
更是一套失衡的处理机制

01

切断的是号码,砸掉的是账户安全

银行、邮箱、Telegram、WhatsApp、二次验证和长期联系人都可能被一起切断。损失远不止几条短信。

02

规则可以执行,黑箱不能接受

警告、限制、人工复核和携转时间都可以做。直接一刀切,只是把运营成本和安全风险粗暴甩给用户。

03

余额属于用户,不该被困死

既不能退、又不能正常用、还不给明确去向,这不是“处理完成”,而是把用户的钱关进黑箱。

号码可以停,公道不能停

要么给出透明、可执行、有人负责的处理方案;要么别指望用户安静接受号码被切断、余额被困死。拿得回就拿回,拿不回就捐掉——一英镑也不留给黑箱。

Consumer petition on giffgaff overseas disconnections

Disconnecting service is one thing trapping customer credit is another

Policy is not a shield for opaque treatment. If giffgaff chooses to disconnect a number, it must state the basis, provide manual review, explain PAC and refund routes, and allow a real buffer period. If it refuses to return the credit, do not leave a pound trapped in the black box—send it to charity instead.

Open petition

To giffgaff:stop hiding behind a “final decision”

A fair usage policy is not a free pass. You may enforce rules, but you may not bury the warning at purchase, cut the number off without meaningful review, and then scatter PAC, refund, complaint and ADR information across obscure pages.

1

Put the risk on the purchase page—not in the post-disconnection fine print

First use abroad, long-term roaming and their consequences must be stated prominently before money changes hands.

2

Stop letting an automated verdict kill a number

Permanent disconnection should come only after warning, proportionate restriction and genuine human review of the individual case.

3

State PAC, refunds, complaints and ADR in one place

Customers should not have to crowdsource emergency instructions. The notice must list the route, conditions and deadlines clearly.

4

Give customers enough time to evacuate their accounts

Banks, verification systems and important services cannot be moved instantly. A real buffer period is essential.

5

Customer credit is not dead money to be silently trapped

If you refuse a refund, publish the rule, the exceptions and the remaining options. Do not cut the service and then let the balance quietly die in the account.

This is not a request for a favour. It is the minimum standard of fair treatment.

A number may be disconnected; the process may not be hidden. A policy may be enforced; customer credit may not simply vanish. A “final decision” does not erase the duty to explain.

Why this matters

This is not one SIM dispute.The handling process is broken.

01

The number is cut; account security takes the hit

Banking, email, messaging apps, two-factor authentication and long-term contacts can all fail at once. The damage is not “just mobile service”.

02

Rules may be enforced. Black-box treatment may not.

Warning, restriction, human review and porting time are all available. Sudden disconnection simply dumps the cost and risk onto the customer.

03

The credit belongs to the customer. It should not be trapped.

No refund, no normal use, and no clear destination do not amount to “case closed”. They amount to money left inside a black box.

Service can stop. Accountability cannot.

Either provide a transparent, workable process with someone accountable for the outcome—or stop expecting customers to quietly accept a dead number and trapped credit. Recover it if possible. If recovery fails, donate it. Leave nothing in the black box.