Virgin Media, reclaiming late payment charges

[MickKane]

So are you saying I wont be able to claim charges that were applied by Telewest before Virgin took over

[buzby]

Sort of... Virgin didn't 'take-over' anyone - Two UK cable companies undertook a legal process to combine their respective businesses, you may remember for a short time they were called NTL-Telewest Ltd before becoming Virgin Media Ltd.

 

What I'm saying is it will be easy to pursue Virgin Media or their predecessor NTL-Telewest Ltd as the change between these two was simply a trading name alteration and corporate branding. The issue is with the previous companies, NTL Ltd and Telewest Ltd. If any of your dispute or claim refers to a period in which either of these companies were running the network, it would easily be rejected as erroneous, as that company doesn't exist.

 

You can certainly list all the name variations in an action so that you have all bases covered, but as Telewest Ltd no longer exists, VM Ltd is under no obligation to deal with these issues It's not just the changing of the A/c number, but the fact there is a completely new supplier,.

[MickKane]

Thanks Buzby I will see what they eventually send me then come back for a little help.

 

Thanks again

 

Mick

[Bookworm]

Mick, I implore you, read more on the forum before deciding to listen to Buzby.

 

People have successfully got their charges back from VM whatever they were called before. Pursue the lot.

 

Martin has already told you he reclaimed the lot from them. Unless I have missed a thread somewhere, I am not aware of anyone who has failed to regain their charges because of the T/west/NTL rebranding and if someone has, maybe Buzby would be kind enough to post a link? Because at the moment, I see no evidence that what he's saying has any subtance while we have plenty of successful reclaimers to attest to the contrary.

[MARTIN3030]

I am disappointed to read Raymonds response here.

For a minute I was wondering if he is actually working for VM now ?

Whether a take over/merger/buyout....call it what you will,

Virgin media took the helm 100% lock stock and Barrel of the old Telewest/NTL.

In doing so,they took over all their liabilities assets and customers.

Raymond if you want any evidence that VM are indeed liable for the past conduct of Telewest that are now finding their way into Court....look no further than CAG.

I can give you one specific example in the form of a certain credit card called Associates....in 2001 they were taken over by Citigroup.

I personally have a claim ongoing in litigation against Citigroup,for my former Associates card.

Citi have recognised they are liable.

 

When we have members here,looking for some guidance,I think its best to rely on not what we think we know-but on what we DO know based on our own experiences.

 

For the last time Mike-I say again...ask for all statements going back to when you want to claim.

If you appear to VM to be confused as to whether they have any responsibility to send them,or ask them if you can claim Telewest charges-what do you think they will think ?

I rest my case.

I hope we dont hear any more negatives here.

Raymond-I will be the first to apologise if it turns out I am wrong-but I am 100% certain that I am right.

I dont profess to know all there is to know in the telecoms threads-in fact to be fair to you,you are more knowledgable than me across the board.

But I am quite passionate about Virgin Media and therefore ask you to respect advice given is based on experience and success.

[MickKane]

Thanks for that, Im going to claim for the last 6 years through Virgin Media

[buzby]

Unfortunately I don't wear the rose tinted specs Bookworm and Martin3030 appear to be looking through. I had thought CAG was supposed to give sensible advice and not flights of fancy.

 

Naturally, I wish you well with your claim - and if you are successful I'll be the first to cheer. But just like the solicitor who took BT to court for Late Payment charges and lost, providing BT with their subsequent 'justification' to continue charging - that did more damage to the cause than anything else to date.

 

What Bookworm is hoping you'll believe, is that a newly formed company will somewhow become responsible for the inherited errors (if these are eventually deemed to be so) and yet myseriously become liable to you even they they were not the service provider at the date of your action. Morally, I agree there is a case, but legally? I think not.

 

I remain breathless as to the nature of such ill-advised and one-sided encouragement of an action that has no reasonable chance of success - because it has nothing to do with interpretation, but the cold hard fact that the corporate entity you plan to pursue does not currently exist , or as an alternative, chase company B because of the actions of company A.

 

Just because they should - doesn't guarantee they will - so if you're happy at possibly losing £50, in court fees ask those vociferous supporters to contribute to the cost.

[MARTIN3030]

Raymond-The BT case was flawed,in that the woman did not put her case very well.It was not a high court ruling either-and so is perfectly up for challenge.

I didnt need and Rose tinted spectacles in my claim-and if I had to buy them-they would have been added to my wasted costs order.

 

Theres even an another ace card that could be used if needed-that of Limitation and "Mistake"...if VM were to go all the way,my thoughts are that they would try to use the limitation arguement for older charges-but we have that addressed too.

 

Additionally-the BT loser did not have the benefits of being a member of CAG,whilst I cant say whether she would still have lost,I think I can say that she would certainly have been more prepared.

[MARTIN3030]

For the benefit of "Vociferous supporters".....heres what it means;

 

vo⋅cif⋅er⋅ous

 

   /voʊˈsɪfərəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [voh-sif-er-uhs] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. crying out noisily; clamorous. 2. characterized by or uttered with vociferation: a vociferous manner of expression.

 

 

If crying out noisily,is needed to assist someone to get back a couple of hundred quid they are entitled to-then in my book thats justified.

[Bookworm]

Unfortunately I don't wear the rose tinted specs Bookworm and Martin3030 appear to be looking through. I had thought CAG was supposed to give sensible advice and not flights of fancy.

 

Naturally, I wish you well with your claim - and if you are successful I'll be the first to cheer. But just like the solicitor who took BT to court for Late Payment charges and lost, providing BT with their subsequent 'justification' to continue charging - that did more damage to the cause than anything else to date.

 

What Bookworm is hoping you'll believe, is that a newly formed company will somewhow become responsible for the inherited errors (if these are eventually deemed to be so) and yet myseriously become liable to you even they they were not the service provider at the date of your action. Morally, I agree there is a case, but legally? I think not.

 

I remain breathless as to the nature of such ill-advised and one-sided encouragement of an action that has no reasonable chance of success - because it has nothing to do with interpretation, but the cold hard fact that the corporate entity you plan to pursue does not currently exist , or as an alternative, chase company B because of the actions of company A.

 

Just because they should - doesn't guarantee they will - so if you're happy at possibly losing £50, in court fees ask those vociferous supporters to contribute to the cost.

So in other words, you have nothing to show that supports your theory, whilst on CAG alone, there is plenty of evidence that one can reclaim the lot? Hmmm. Ok then.

 

Instead of yet again putting words in my mouth, why don't you re-read my post? I haven't smeared you, I haven't used demeaning words towards your (which is more than you have done, as per usual), all I said is that Mick should read more threads instead of following your "advice" blindly and decide who's more likely to be right: you with no evidence of failed claims through reclaiming from the start or the many CAGgers who have recorded their successes on here. As always, the person seeking advice should then make up their own mind. And you should really learn to chill a bit more, your attitude really does nothing for your credibility. ;-)

[MARTIN3030]

quote

 

"Just because they should - doesn't guarantee they will - so if you're happy at possibly losing £50, in court fees ask those vociferous supporters to contribute to the cost."

 

 

Ok Raymond....heres a proposal for you.

 

If he loses-I will personally give him £25.00 towards his costs.

 

If he wins-you donate £25.00 to CAG.

 

I am confident enough to wager on it-I wonder if you are confident to agree to it ?

[buzby]

Bookworm [sigh]

 

Defending the indefensible now?

 

There is no 'theory' required - how many times does it have to be stated that a company is not responsible for the actions of its predecessor? I can happily cope with you stating I'm supposedly wrong.

 

Am I to understand that we should suspend logic because there 'may' be the opportunity of spending £50 on raising an action and not even getting to the starting grid? So as not to put words in your mouth, you are of the opinion that an action against company B for the errors of company A would be competent...? This is certainly the impression that is being given.

 

Now, if you support this view, give me a few days and I'll provide you with any amount of actions that were deemed incometent for this very reason and were struck out before a word was spoken by the pursuer. But in any event, the OP has all the facts, and will be aware of who to blame should the proposed action fail for the reasons stated.

[buzby]

Ah, but Martin - you'd think VM would actually care? So far we've not heard of them actually turning up in court, so the veracity of their possible defence might never be tested, as a no-show could be classed as a 'win' and the original claim upheld without any merit, because it might cost the firm £600 to send a solicitor to represent them at the action, but lesser amount to make it just 'go away'. Hardly the vindication of a serious issue that would by no means prove that firms have no valid protection against the actions of their previous corporate administrations!

 

As for out BT woman who lost - sure, she wasn't a CAGger (more's the pity) however, she WAS a solicitor and that should have provided her with a bit of nous to keep her ahead of the game, yet from the description of the action hardly 20 words were spoken, the judge fully accepting BT had provide notice that the charges would have applied, and was part of their T&C's. Some pursuit!

[Bookworm]

Defending what indefensible? :-? Who are you trying to convince now?

 

Mick, it's quite simple: You can read up for yourself the success stories on this forum and choose to trust a respected moderator who has himself claimed and won on the very issue being discussed, or someone who so far has bandied words about with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

It is of course entirely up to you, it is after all your money these people have taken. Whatever your decision, I wish you luck and hope you will let us know the outcome.

[MARTIN3030]

Ah, but Martin - you'd think VM would actually care? So far we've not heard of them actually turning up in court, so the veracity of their possible defence might never be tested, as a no-show could be classed as a 'win' and the original claim upheld without any merit, because it might cost the firm £600 to send a solicitor to represent them at the action, but lesser amount to make it just 'go away'.

 

 

 

This is the point of telling claimants they should go for it.

Its extremely unlikely that any of these claims would go outside SCT and so the prospects of a LIP suffering costs is negligible.

You have the right idea and I am glad that its something that we can agree on-Its not cost effective for them to defend.Whether a case went to trial or not makes no difference-a win is a win if the other side have to repay back the charges(or choose to do so )..after a claimant issued a summons.

 

And one more point-according to all the media business reports-it was actually a rebrand by NTL after it bought Virgin offerings.

My Telewest claim was made against Telewest,but it was settled by NTL I still have the letters of settlement and comms all on NTL headed paper.

Therefore it adds more weight to the arguement that the Telewest Charges are still claimable-albeit under the VM brand name.

Edited January 31, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[MickKane]

Thanks for all your points on both sides, I have decided to go for the VM adn TW charges, I will update you all along the way to let you know how its going. Hopefully it will be as easy as the two credit cards I had refunded.

 

Thanks to you all

 

Mick

[MARTIN3030]

Good.After you have recd a response to your LBA from VM,

I will give you the direct email for the VM legal chap who will undoubtably be sorting things.

[havinastella]

I'll ask for more info when I sober up tomorrow

[MickKane]

Hi recieved my list of charges today from virgin. Do you add intrest at 8% as you would with bank charges.

 

Also there are charges on there for non direct debit handling fee and payment handling fees which when totalled together and interest added comes to just over £600. Is it possible to reclaim these and does it make it anymore difficult.

 

I am just going to send the letter off that I would when asking for the charges to be repaid that you would for credit card charges. Is this also right.

 

Thanks

 

Mick

Edited February 16, 2009 by MickKane

[MickKane]

Anyone help with the above?

 

Thanks

 

Mick

[Bookworm]

Only add the 8% when you file at court.

 

What are the payment handling fees? Is that the non DD fees by another name?

 

And yes, adapt the c/c template, or ask Martin for his.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes payment handling fees are now what they relate as non DD.Theres a temp in my thread.

[MickKane]

Hi again, does this letter look ok for my first request for payment.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re. Account number:

I am writing to request that you repay all the default charges that have been applied to my account. I do not believe these charges reflect the true cost to Virgin Mediafor late payment fees or non direct debit and payment handling fees.

 

The charges total £532, plus as I believe I have been unlawfully deprived of the money I have calculated £78.47 interest at the statutory rate, the amount the court will award.

 

I therefore ask that you repay me the full amount of £610.47. I have attached a full schedule of the charges and interest with this document.

 

I look forward for a full response to this letter within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,

thanks

Mick

[davethorp]

Take the interest off. You can only ask for interest if/when you have to file a claim at court

[MickKane]

Thanks, I thought you could do it before. I have added interest in the first and LBA letters on credit card charges before.