Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

BT reconnection fee. Beware!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5425 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Telecoms: BT gets its lines crossed with a fee for all | Money | The Guardian

BT gets its lines crossed with fee for all

November 10 2007

 

People moving home are being charged a £125 reconnection fee by BT - even if the previous owner was a customer of the telecom giant. Those who call BT to complain have been left waiting on hold for hours.

Two weeks ago, Guardian Money told how BT was penalising people moving into a new home where the previous occupant had switched their landline to a rival supplier.

Now it appears the former monopoly provider has been taking advantage of consumer confusion, and its dominant position, by applying the same charge randomly to thousands of customers moving house.

The £125 fee, which, some might say, makes a mockery of Ofcom's attempts to bring down the cost of phone and broadband services, came about because it seems no one at the regulator considered what would what happen to "movers" under its new regime.

It does not help that the BT department responsible for connecting new customers appears to be in chaos. People are complaining it is impossible to contact - and those that do get through are often given contradictory information.

Some customers told Guardian Money they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone trying to resolve the problem, while others complain the £125 fee was "absurd" and "exorbitant".

Meanwhile, engineers are not turning up to appointments. In 2005, Ofcom insisted that BT create a separate company (now called Openreach) to manage the engineers who connect homes to the exchange. The split was intended to give all the telecoms companies equal access to the exchange network, to stimulate competition.

However, one of the unintended consequences of the decision appears to be much higher reconnection charges when a customer moves house.

BT's residential arm is allowed to charge the £125 fee if the previous occupier switched their landline to a rival supplier, through what is known as local loop unbundling. It appears to have plucked this unregulated figure out of the air, as it pays Openreach considerably less for the switch.

The problem is occurring when someone informs their telephone provider they are moving and that they want to terminate their contract.

After extensive questioning this week, BT revealed that the imposition of the charge largely depends on whether the house is near a busy exchange, where demand for lines is high. In that case, lines freed up are being quickly offered for re-use. In quiet areas, they can sit undisturbed for up to five years.

New occupiers are automatically charged the £125 fee, regardless of who used to supply the phone service. However, BT said this week that the charge should not be payable if the previous occupier was with BT. This has been refuted by readers' experiences.

Police officer Fred Trott contacted Money after reading our original article. He said he and his wife had been charged £125 when they moved into their home in Haslemere, Surrey.

The previous owner had been with OneTel, but had agreed to switch their service back to BT before they moved out. The Trotts moved in but faced an endless battle to make BT see this - its staff insisted the £125 fee was payable.

The pair, loyal BT customers for many years, say they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone to various BT departments trying to get the charge repaid - but to no avail.

A spokesman for BT says the current position regarding the £125 fee is "not ideal" and that it is looking at how it can be changed. "Where a working line exists, our intention is that reconnection should be free - but a charge of £125 applies where we have to involve an engineer.

"Where a customer is returning to join BT from a local loop unbundled competitor, our systems default to charging £125. We do intend to change this as soon as possible. It is one of a number of complex changes arising from BT Retail's adoption of a new IT system to comply with its commitment to the regulator, Ofcom."

It also confirmed that it has now refunded Mr Trott's £125 charge.

Ofcom says it is aware of the situation and that it is working with the Office of the Telecoms Adjudicator (OTA) to rectify this problem. "The matter should be resolved by next spring," says a spokeswoman. "It is important that customers are confident in the switching process and it is essential that there are no obstacles in the way. We are working via the OTA and industry to have all telecoms providers on the new system by spring 2008."

Anybody who is moving their BT service to a new billing address should check the pre-existing status of line at that address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...