Update: Claim requested on MCOL at 3.30pm yesterday - guess it will be issued today. Will keep you posted.

No, not yet. I thought I'd post the details on CAG and wait a little while first, in case someone here came up with something I hadn't thought of.

OK then here it is - the story of my claim... appearing soon at an MCOL near you, but today, an exclusive CAG preview showing... In 2009 my contract came up and I called VF's retentions team and negotiated another 12 months, on about the same deal, my usual contract plus an add-on that officially had a £10pcm RRP, and no new handset, for a total of £12pcm, little different from almost every year for the last 8 years. I'd been burnt by a dodgy retentions rep the year before so this time I emailed the details through straight afterwards and asked for written confirmation, but they came back saying we'd agreed £25pcm and no add-on (or £35pcm and with the add-on, depending on which rep you listen to). This immediately didn't make sense because those prices were RRPs, so their notes were saying I'd agreed to pay the full RRP with no new phone and a 12-month lockin at no benefit whatever to myself! Heck, if I wanted a dreadful deal like that I'd have just done it on the website and saved the 30 minutes in the call queue and all the haggling... except I couldn't have done because there was a discount on the website at the time so renewing for 12 months via the website on that contract would actually have been cheaper than the deal they were claiming I'd haggled them down to! (or should that be "haggled them up to"?) ... Anyway I emailed and wrote back and forth with the Indian call centre a few times but all I ever got from them was what boils down to "here's a printout of your price plan details from the computer, if you don't like it you can cancel within 14 days". Since then they've been taking £35 off me by Direct Debit monthly. But a disembodied voice on the retentions phone call had said the calls were recorded, so I asked for the call under the Data Protection Act but they refused to release it as it "wasn't personal data". I said they should anyway, as it was vital evidence, and anyway how could they use it "for the prevention of fraud" if it was too anonymised to count as personal data under the Act? But they didn't release it, and now it's too late as they say they delete calls after 60 days anyway. The way I see it, refusing to release the recording makes it look like they didn't think it would favour them. Or, pursuing them for it makes it look like I thought it would favour me. Either way, I figure the call recording thing has got to help my case. But more importantly the fact that the price I reported was in line with the deal I usually get, and I have years of documentation to supoort that, whereas both the prices they reported are way out of line and I'd actually be cutting my own throat by agreeing to terms like that. That's got to make a big difference? If only I'd recorded the call myself I'd have proof and none of this would be needed. But I think between those two things above I've got a strong argument that it's my version of events that's true, and not theirs. In the end I was worried about refusing to pay the extra £23pcm as I'd lose my (valuable) phone number when they cut me off for non-payment, so I found it easiest to tell them I'd pay under protest and bring an action later. In the end it was 4 years later when I discovered the rules on number porting had changed and I made a quick getaway to another network and asked VF to repay the overcharging. It's actually built up to a lot of money - over the 4 years they've Direct Debited about £700 I owed at my price of £12pcm, plus another £1400 of overbilling to make it up to their price of £35pcm. They're saying I could have cancelled within some "14-day cooling off period" and "renegotiated". But I didn't because I had a perfectly good contract already and I didn't see any point renegotiating, what, probably the same deal and maybe even having it put into the computer wrongly again and being back to square one. The way I see it, everyone agrees there was a originally a valid contract, we just disagreed about the terms. I never asked for an out, and they never did either and never gave me 30 days notice, and they kept on providing service and I kept on using it so... surely... we still had the original contract, and the only question is what price we originally agreed I should pay for it? And they say I should have cancelled once the 12-month lockin was up, and gone over to PAYG. Well, there are reasons I never got around to that but yeah I'd have been a lot better off, that's for sure. But the way I see it, why does that affect the terms? If we had a contract, and they said blah it's £35, and I said blah it's £12, and everyone goes off and sulks but keeps on doing business for 4 years, then surely we're doing business on the original contract price that was agreed, whatever that was? After all, nobody's succeeded in getting the other to agree to change it. So that's good for me because I have a strong case that it was £12. Or is that not how contracts work? Could I have somehow agreed to their terms by continuing to use the service instead of walking away? But if so, then how come they didn't agree to my terms by continuing to provide it instead of walking away? I asked for interest at 8% too on the overbilling, although I think you can't actually add that until you get to MCOL. Comes to quite a bit extra over 4 years though.

Well, it took 2 weeks as we kept missing each other, but I spoke with Jenny for 15 minutes yesterday. She was very friendly but in the end it boiled down to her rebutting all the points in my claim with responses that were either legally or factually unsound and don't really impact on my claim. And there was a token offer of a few quid to make me go away. Not her fault I'm sure as she is just the piggy-in-the-middle passing a message on. I said to her that well there's not much point me rebutting all those points because she's not the legal department and there's no reason to expect her to follow the legal arguments. It's a shame to have wasted 2 more weeks just on the principle of making sure they're stonewalling me *as a matter of policy* rather than *by mistake*. But I thought it was worth a try. Off to MCOL next to file my particulars of claim. Anyone interested in me posting some details and keeping the thread UTD with how things go?

@rebel11: Just an update as requested to say that I heard from Lee very soon afterwards, seems he works on bank holidays, how's that for dedication! I missed the time windows he offered me on Mon/Tue because I was away, but I guess we will be speaking pretty soon. @silverfox1961: Wow, that's quite a thread. I skipped the middle pages. It was the early parts about the default being added onto the chap's account at least three times that reminded me most of my situation (although I did have a DPA issue myself in that their likely phone recording of a conversation would by itself have proved my case but we disagreed about whether it was "personal data" under the Act, so they refused to release it - to which my reply was that since it was vital evidence, how would they justify suppressing it anyway?) With hindsight I think in my situation it's a case of every single contact I've had having been with someone who doesn't speak good enough English to understand much more than "this is a message from a dissatisfied customer". I've queried, I've requeried, complained, recomplained, escalated it, dramatically escalated it, started using recorded delivery and eventually sent an LBA to their registered office, and every reply I've had has seemed much like a photocopy of its predecessor. I agree that court papers are a sensible next step and probably the only sensible one if I don't get any joy here on the forums. But we'll see how it turns out, huh?

@rebel11: Thanks! Took a while as the form on the VF site was down from 4pm yesterday, but back up now. I can't see how to edit the thread title or edit my first post, so I'll put the number here: [#6820006], letters ref C3905836 and CS00015837855 @citizenB, @Conniff: Thanks for the suggestions. Sure, I know I can just go to MCOL now and pay the £105 issue fee to get a summons out. It just seems wrong to start proceedings without at least *someone* at Vodafone taking a proper look at the situation and having a chance to settle. I don't *mind* if they have to pay more costs and fees, but I don't want that to happen pointlessly. Not if there's an easy way we might avoid it.

Is there a way to send an LBA to Vodafone and have it read by someone who might actually be able to say "oh dear this fellow actually has good cause for action, perhaps we should stop ignoring him?" Some name or address or department I could send it to? I ask because, after having legal advice that my claim is strong, last week I sent my LBA, to their registered office address, not addressed to anyone in particular. I've just had the reply and my heart sank as I read two pages of the usual rambling, uncomprehending waffle - padded with irrelevant statistics about my account and answers to unrelated questions I didn't even ask - that their customer services produces every other time I contact them. Yes, my LBA was dealt with by the same first-line customer support reps who drove things to this point in the first place, even though it was liberally plastered with handy pointers like "LETTER BEFORE ACTION - 14 DAYS NOTICE". I realise the next step can just be to go to MCOL and pay the £105 issue fee. But no matter how much I might blame VF for us being here, it just seems wrong to start proceedings without at least *someone* there taking a proper look at the situation and having a chance to settle. I don't *mind* if they have to pay more costs and fees, but I don't want that to happen pointlessly. So... any suggestions from someone better informed than me? Jason P.S. I've tried phoning, emailing, webchat and on their website... believe me, I've tried...