Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Barclays 83.28 N 1.00 PRA Group 837.93 N 3.04 Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd 746.61 N 2.73 Robinson Way & Company Limited 660.82 N 2.42 Lowell Financial 12,235.40 N 44.17 1st Credit Ltd 7,554.04 N 27.27 Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd 287.10 N 1.05 Cabot Financial Ltd 855.83 N 3.14 Cabot Financial Ltd 200.48 N 1.00 Cabot Financial Ltd 608.08 N 2.23 Cabot Financial Ltd 609.30 N 2.23 Robinson Way & Company Limited 66.77 N 1.00 NCO Europe LTD 883.67 N 3.23 Capital One Bank 582.80 N 2.12 Wescot Credit Services Ltd 9,251.99 N 33.74 Cabot Financial Ltd 6,765.31 N 24.80 Lowell Financial 323.92 N 1.17 Idem Servicing 170.69 N 1.00 Idem Servicing 122.30 N 1.00 Cabot Financial Ltd 626.10 N 2.29 Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd 248.08 N 1.00 Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd 86.58 N 1.00 Anglian Water 670.43 N 2.42 Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd 125.76 N 1.00 Lendable 10,000.00 N 0.00 Vanquis Bank Ltd 4,000.00 N 0.00 Vanquis Bank Ltd 4,000.00 N 0.00   sorry its all condensed,  thats how is on the paper, , far as know that is it apart from his car, he is currently in a hotel as needs find somewhere to live    
    • I suggest that you write to the breeder immediately with a copy to the court and concede the cost of the puppy and also concede the excess costs for bringing that element of the claim. you will simply be conceding two points which frankly I don't think you can possibly win and it means that you're left with claims which are entirely winnable. Moreover the gesture of having written to the breeder making these concessions will show that you have tried hard to avoid litigation  and trouble and inconvenience to the court. even if the breeder refuses it, it will go to your credit that you have done this.    
    • Thank you. At this point I'm not sure how right or wrong I am.    But based on our conversation this evening I have gone back to the breeder via message and pointed out to them that I offer them one final chance to settle at 900 pounds.    They informed me their vets only said this treatment would cost 500. The same vets who don't notice a puppy who cant open his eyes.    And they are willing to settle at 500 as a gesture of good will. Ha! And this is why they wanted to mediate  to put this offer over. I advised that we wouldn't take less than 900 as a settlement. They arent interested.   I had to be quick as the money we used is our savings for some private health treatment we need to back in our banks by next month so really left me no choice but to bite the bullet and try and get this solved sooner rather than later     I appreciate your advice and hope the courts understand the full picture. 
    • Sorry for the additional post, I couldn't edit.   In Nolans letter uploaded in post #48, is that sufficient NOA? or does it have to be provided by the OC or Cabot?
    • After a brief consultation, the Financial Conduct Authority has now confirmed the tailored support measures for overdraft and consumer credit users affected by Covid-19. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Ahmed Alwaheeb's firms sold cars riddled with faults – and which sometimes had government recall notices. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427369-ahmed-alwaheebs-firms-sold-cars-riddled-with-faults-%E2%80%93-and-which-sometimes-had-government-recall-notices/&do=findComment&comment=5071860
      • 3 replies
    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 8 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .

Virgin Media restricted my landline due to "excessive use" advise please


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4084 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I've been a customer with virgin media for several years ( to be clear the account is in my mothers name and I am a named person on their records). I have landline, basic tv package and minimum speed broadband, and my monthly bill is usually around £65 which I pay by debit card.

Last month we made a lot more calls than usual, mostly to mobile phones. Yesterday evening Virgin's credit dept called and asked to speak to the account holder, and as she wasn't there and I was busy with my kids, my husband asked them to call back. This morning I found that I am no longer able to call any mobile phone number.

I called 173 (as advised in the telephone call) and was told that they had restricted calls to mobile phones from my landline number as there had been an unusually high volume of calls to mobile phones. They explained that their policy was to protect customers from unexpectedly high bills and that it was in the interests of the customer and the company to do this.

I was then advised that I could have the restriction removed if I paid a minimum of £95 of my current bill. I asked when the bill was due. I was advised that as I was not paying by direct debit payment was due as soon as the bill was sent out. So I asked when payment for the bill became late ie overdue, and was told that it would become late on the 23rd July. I then queried why it was necessary for me to pay any amount of my bill immediately when the restriction to my landline was not due to nonpayment. They said that this was their policy and that they were unable to lift the restriction until I had paid £95.....

I then spoke to the manager in charge who gave me exactly the same line. After that I found their head office number and phoned them. They also gave me the same treatment.

I really don't understand why I should have to pay any amount of my bill immediately to get this restriction lifted since it is purely down to an abitrary decision on their part and not due to nonpayment. I feel that I am being held to ransom, blackmailed, and that this policy amounts to extortion. I am sure that their actions....restricting the landline service and demanding payment to have it restored....in this case must be illegal, or at the very least unfair, but I have no idea what to do about it. And frankly, I'm livid.

Any comments or advice on this matter would be very welcome!

Respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They explained that their policy was to protect customers from unexpectedly high bills and that it was in the interests of the customer and the company to do this.

 

What rubbish! Protect customers! - that's a new one.

 

Absolutely agree with you. Put in a formal complaint to Virgin Media -send it recorded delivery. Send a copy to the boss - I cannot see him turning down extra business and risking that you change companies.

 

Complain to the regulators - Oftel.

 

I suppose for a while you will save on making calls to mobiles for a few days!

 

If you do not get immediate satisfaction change to someome else and make sure you tell the boss why you have done it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common practice in all telecoms companies. It is not unknown for a third party to be running up an account holder’s bill without their knowledge or consent.

 

How would you feel if you received an enormous telephone bill unexpectedly? You would then be demanding to know why your phone provider had allowed the unusual usage to continue without notifying you about it.

 

Similarly the request for a payment upfront is common practice in this situation; essentially they want proof that you can afford this level of consumption.

 

I am the last person to defend Virgin Media having had far too much experience of their appalling customer service however in this instance they are not doing anything wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you feel if you received an enormous telephone bill unexpectedly?

 

The customer has already made it quite clear that a larger bill won't be unexpected because they know they've been using their phone. I can think of situations where 'usage' changes - the most obvious being some sort of family crisis. Exactly the time you don't need this sort of ridiculous reaction from a company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly Virgin Media are only concerned with one thing and that is whether or not the customer will be able to pay the unusually large bill - expected or otherwise.

 

His refusal to pay a portion of it upfront, whilst understandable, will have only served to suggest he cannot.

 

He could route his mobile calls through BT by using the prefix 1280 but any unusual usage would be picked up and handled the same way.

 

Would it not be less hassle just to pay the £95.00?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure it would be a lot less hassle if we all rolled over and did what these companies want us to. That is not the point of my complaint, nor is it the point of this forum as I understand it.

The contract we have reads:

"I. Suspension of services

1. We may suspend the Services immediately upon giving you notice if:

a) we are entitled to terminate this Agreement; or

b) we need to carry out any maintenance, repairs or improvements to any part or the System; or

c) we are legally required to do so; or

d) any credit limit on your account is exceeded; or

e) in our reasonable opinion it is otherwise necessary or desirable to do so;

2. If the Services are suspended as a result of a breach of this Agreement by you, we may make a charge to reflect our costs incurred in connetion with suspending and/or recommencing the Services. In normal cucumstances the charge must be paid before the Services will be recommended."

 

My points are:

This clause requires that they give notice before suspending services, they did not do so.

Does this place them in breach of contract.

I am not in breach of the contract.

They already have measures in place to deal with circumstances where customers have difficulties paying bills, where payment history has been good (which mine is) they will agree to accept smaller payments over a period of time whilst the customer continues to receive full services.

This being the case is it fair or legal/lawful to insist that part of the current bill be paid before the restriction be removed.

Is this even a legal/lawful clause regardless of whether they have acted within the clauses of the agreement or not.

I would be grateful if these points could be discussed.

 

Respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the complaintant, from what I can see and previous experience it is not the suspension but the manner of it.

 

Why couldnt they call and check with the account holder that the phone was not being used fraudently?

I'm worse at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed

Link to post
Share on other sites

This clause requires that they give notice before suspending services, they did not do so.

Does this place them in breach of contract.

 

 

No because that was the call you were not there to take, they made a reasonable attempt to contact you by their definition.

 

e) in our reasonable opinion it is otherwise necessary or desirable to do so

 

And this bit means they can do anything they like whenever it takes their fancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
so what the warrior hailing from zazen is saying is "put up or shut up"

 

 

Lol, not at all, please don't shoot the messenger; I don't speak for Virgin Media, I loathe them if truth be told. It is entirely up to the OP what he does. I can only unravel where they are coming from having previously worked in the industry.

 

I have seen the £1000.00 overnight telephone call more than once and this is why telecoms companies are so ‘forthright’ in their response to the ‘unusual.’

 

Try not to take it personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This clause requires that they give notice before suspending services, they did not do so.

Does this place them in breach of contract.

 

 

No because that was the call you were not there to take, they made a reasonable attempt to contact you by their definition.

 

e) in our reasonable opinion it is otherwise necessary or desirable to do so

 

And this bit means they can do anything they like whenever it takes their fancy.

 

 

 

Making a telephone call is not the same as giving notice. I understand that legally, notice has to be given in writing, with a timescale for a response before the stated action is taken. If they had done so the issue could have been resolved without inconveniencing my family.

Contractual clauses must be fair, a clause which allows them to do whatever they like 'whenever it takes their fancy' is not fair.

 

Its all very well saying their actions are reasonable from their point of view, of course they are; so are non direct debit admin fees and late payment charges. Virgin Medias definition of reasonable is not the same as the legal definition of reasonable. Are their actions actually, legally, reasonable and fair. I maintain that they are not.

 

What is even more objectionable is the implicit assumption of guilt by Virgin Media the moment they were unable to speak to the account holder by phone. The restricition of only part of the service makes it obvious that an individual within the company has looked at the account and made a decision either that the unusual use was fraudulent or that there would be difficulties obtaining payment. In the second case they already have other policies in place which would resolve the issue without restricting any services. Given that there are many legitimate reasons for unusual use of telephone services, and many legitimate reasons why an account holder may not be available at the time of a single phone call, there is no legitimate reason to assume fraudulent use. To do so is against the account holder's human rights, and their family's and amounts to libel.

I'm not talking about a £1000 overnight call here, I'm talking about an extra £100 over a month. Thats not unreasonable use of the service they provide in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'The restricition of only part of the service makes it obvious that an individual within the company has looked at the account and made a decision either that the unusual use was fraudulent or that there would be difficulties obtaining payment'

 

Yes, this is exactly what has happened.

 

I'm afraid life isn't fair. :oops:

 

Just out of interest, how have you chosen to resolve this?

Edited by zazen.warrior
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree with me that their actions are unfair then?

 

 

For your interest I have written a letter detailing exactly what I think is wrong with how they have dealt with my account. Someone from VM has tried to call today but my phone doesn't ring when its in the back room and their CS department said that they would call back later, so I'm waiting for that.

I paid my bill in full on the day I had always intended to, got the restriction lifted; I also asked for an increase in my broadband speed and got upgraded for an extra £5pm, they then offered me the xl tv package for an extra £5pm, the cs explained that I was being given a loyalty offer and the full price of both those upgrades would normally be £22 increase on my bill. After I took the upgrade he phoned back to say that actually since I'm now on the xl tv package I no longer pay £5pm to rent the v+ box so I got both upgrades for just £5 pm.

Nice:).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...