Thread: Discussion: Strategy and Direction... Your Input is Required Please

Morning peeps!

Having had a few weeks to reflect on the effect of the NoTW article - and after having had a few discussions regarding the forthcoming channel 4 item - I think it's time to formulate a specific set of "points" which we feel, as a consumer action group, BrightHouse should be forced to address.

Unfortunately, "shocking" articles (as seen in the NoTW) do tend to avoid the "real" issues, and often end up being somewhat exploitative and just invoke the "chavs on benefit deserve all they get" and "these people don't need a 50" plasma TV" brigade! It's a real shame, because the actual message gets lost, and BrightHouse end up "off the hook" as the wrong issues, once again, get highlighted.

Just reading through the 100+ comments again (on the NoTW website HERE) makes me realise one thing: People who DON'T shop at BrightHouse tend to look down upon those who DO! This is something that needs to be carefully addressed.

So, back to my point... We need a specific list of "points" (backed up with hard evidence) to present to the OFT in order to bring BrightHouse to task. Simply disapproving of the company's business model and operating practises is not enough. We need clear, concise and specific examples of wrong doings, unlawful contract terms, proof of mis-sold insurance policies, proof of operating outside of the law, etc...

I can liken this to how the criminal justice department finally bought Al Capone to justice… Everyone knew he was a crook, everyone knew his entire empire was corrupt, but nobody could prove it in a court of law. It was a simple paper trail that finally “nailed” him – tax evasion! Now then, I’m not for one minute suggesting that BrightHouse are guilty of tax evasion (perish the thought), but what I am suggesting is finding and focusing on a few SPECIFIC areas of contention that could, ultimately, lead to a successful prosecution.

I would suggest we concentrate on three main areas:

1 - OSC and DLC
2 - debt collection and unlawful methods used therein
3 - Irresponsible lending

What do you think?

Please feel free to voice your opinions on this thread. Let’s mull over as many ideas and opinions as we possible can.


Cheers
Lefty

Good thread Lefty.

Perhaps you ought to promote yourself to sticky status with this one, on the undersanding that it is used as you intend, as a collection zone for constructive points.

So to kick things off, and not wishing to steal your arguements, the very idea of including weekly services that are so called "optional" in any arrears, is ridiculous. As you have rightly pointed out, they are not in force if your account is in arrears, so why then are they still collected.

I have a big question I would like to understand, and I am an ex-manager, and I have difficulty with it.

Their put great emphasis in their PR, that if you're in difficulty, then with OSC you can use the service of Pick-up-and-hold, whereby having already paid for OSC, you can return your items with no penalty, then resume the agreement anytime in the next 12 months. Now you don't have to look that far on these forums to notice, that if you are not yet in arrears, but expect to soon as you have just lost your job for example, if you call BH, they are not interested in helping you! They only get interested when you are eventually late, just like you predicted.

Then you are late, and as they state, your OSC is now invalid. So the question is, at which point do you ask to invoke the right to use pick-up-and-hold? And how is a customer who is getting stressed and receiving bullying phonecalls supposed to know when it is? They didn't want to know when you predicted you were going to have problems, and now you are late, the OSC is invalid, so presumably are all the "benefits" of OSC, including pick-up-and-hold.

This arguement has, I am sure, many directions, but it does bring into question the legal stuff in their terms & conditions. They are supposedly proudly sporting and award for transparency in their wording. So it's about time they made it clear, how their customers are supposed to use these "benefits" that are "optional".

And as soon as they say to the customer that is calling to say they expect to have problems very soon, "sorry that's tough", then they are guilty of irresponsible lending, by allowing their customer to fall into arrears.

PJ

I still have copies of all my emails and letters sent to Brighthouse regarding all my issues.....and their replies. If these will be of any use, let me know and I will forward them on to you Lefty.

My emails concentrate on the unfairness of the OSC and DLC policies and how I was mis-sold (or rather mis-lead) into taking them (and Anne Healeys "great" replies )

The letters are just the standard ones asking for policies to be removed ( I think, will have to double check next time I am at my old hosue.)

This is a great idea though, the more evidence that can be gathered (as you say, only that which can be backed up), the better. I am disgusted at the attitude of people towards those who choose to shop at Brighthouse. Sometimes, some people have no choice. I felt I didn't and I only purchased necessities (fridge/freezer, washing machine and a tumble dryer). To be fair, I did then purchase a TV as well, but I do not consider myself to be a chav that needs all the latest gadgets......

I now know better, but there are still people out there (especially those that are vulnerable/low paid etc) that will also feel they have no choice. More so now, with the state of the economy.

Anyway, rant over, if I don't stop typing now, I probably never will.

The other major issue with BH is their apparent ignarance of and certainly ignoring of supply of goods legislation. Is that worth adding to the list or should we just concentrate on the 3 in Lefty's post.

And, under what legislation can we go for a 'successful prosecution'? Perhaps getting their Consumer Credit License revoked would be as good?

I had problems with them ignoring the Sales of Goods (implied terms) Act when my TV stopped working - I may actually have a letter about that in the house as well....and their reply.

Thanks for the input so far. You can certainly count on the CAG BrightHouse forum faithful...

Jon

Yep. A good point about pick up and hold.. Defintely a catch 22 situation. Unfair contract term, perhaps? False advertising?

I certainly think we're on to something with the weekly "pay-as-you-go" extra policies - and customers being charged for services they absolutely have not received. This point is possibly one that REALLY needs addressing:

(I'm going to paste something into this post now - it's something I added to Jon's "ex-manager available" thread - but it explains this point well...)

OSC and, for that matter, DLC both lapse if a customer's account goes late, and is not paid fully to its due date. They are both "pay-as-you-go" weekly agreements, for which their premiums are required in advance - otherwise, no service and no damage liability insurance.

Therefore, when a customer DOES bring their account up to date, it should only be the hire purchase element of the contract that's in arrears. They should NOT have to make back payments on OSC and DLC. A customer CANNOT get in arrears with OSC and DLC because they are simply "optional" pay-as-you-go services.

Technically, if a customer's account has gone into arrears, and it's bought back up to date - perhaps after two or three weeks - then there should no longer be OSC or DLC on the account, and the customer should be ASKED if they want to take up those services again.

Once again, OSC (and DLC) are WEEKLY policies. They are NOT annual policies split into instalments. They are simply just pay-as-you-go services. Customers CANNOT GET INTO ARREARS WITH THEM! Likewise, customers CANNOT (or certainly SHOULD NOT) be able (made) to make back payments on them. The customer is either covered for that period or they were not. If the customer hadn't paid the premium for a particular week, and their telly packs up, they weren't covered by OSC. Simple.

If, for instance, I allowed my car insurance to lapse through non-payment, continued to drive, then had an accident or claim, I would be in big trouble. I couldn't offer to pay the arrears, and then be magically re-insured for a period in the past. No. You're either insured or you're not. And - in the case of OSC (and DLC) - you're NOT - and by being forced to make back payments on the policies cannot mean you WERE! It's absolute nonesense...

Now then, OSC is a "non insured" service contract - it's not insurance - therefore the selling of it is NOT regulated by the FSA. DLC, on the other hand, IS insurance - and the sale of DLC IS regulated by the FSA - (but BrightHouse are not listed as an "insurance provider" on their database - DLC is underwritten by Caversham Insurance (Malta) Ltd.)

As DLC also lapses after 7 days once in arrears, perhaps the FSA would be interested to learn that Caversham Insurance (Malta) Ltd STILL continue to charge premiums on policies that have ceased and are, in effect, totally worthless?

Insurance expert required? Anyone?

Steven

The three suggestions I made are not cast in stone - just a starting point. Frequent and persistant disregard for the law, in particular the SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) ACT 1973, would defitely invoke swift action from Trading Standards. The following thread is a good example, and very typical of BrightHouse:

BrightHouse Monitor - Destroyed by Manufacturer

Clemma

Yes - I would be very interested to read some of your emails from BrightHouse head office. You have my email - zap 'em over!



Cheers
Lefty

Email sent - I will get those letters from my old house next time I am there. I am sure I have the one where they offer me the compensation because of mis-sold policies. I am almost certain it does not say "without liabiltity or admission" in it, nor "without prejudice".

Originally Posted by clemma

Email sent - I will get those letters from my old house next time I am there. I am sure I have the one where they offer me the compensation because of mis-sold policies. I am almost certain it does not say "without liabiltity or admission" in it, nor "without prejudice".

That sounds like gold dust to me! Go find it NOW!!!!



Cheers
Lefty

without prejudice!

They are the meaty ones. I got one of those framed on the wall from the solicitors acting for Lloyds TSB, when they paid me back all my bank charges with interest and costs!!

Sorry to digress,

PJ

It is at his house - I will be there on Monday and will dig it out

This thread needs bringing to the forefront again.

It might be quiet, but I can assure you, the enemy will be gathering their strength, so we should too!

PJ

Originally Posted by plumberjon

This thread needs bringing to the forefront again.

It might be quiet, but I can assure you, the enemy will be gathering their strength, so we should too!

PJ

Oh yes... the enemy are gathering their strength alright.... This is going to be a tough round, and I really need to keep a low profile at the moment.

Hold the fort, Jon.


Lefty