sky/virgin defaults

[fergal71]

I know the exact amount just not sharing it on here prying eyes etc..., it is time someone made a stand... do you know who is likely to turn up at court for them will it be virgin bod or solicitor???

[buzby]

They use a network of Solicitors, nobody from the company itself will be there.

[fergal71]

do you think I could use sect 5 of utccr as this was not a negotiated contract?????

[buzby]

How? You approached them, agreed service then paid them. That's all negotiation is. Neither is it regulated under the credit acts (as no credit is involved). If you've already raised your action, you would have to make this claim as part of the action, you cannot bring it as an afterthought.

[fergal71]

hi I have just been told experian no longer process virgin media information do you know why?????

 

Also if virgin charges can be challenged for fairness in court as you have done surely if they are proven to be unfair and a default is placed for less than amount of charges then surely the default becomes unlawful?????

 

what do you think do you have you POC's you used in stating charges unlawful???

 

cheers

[buzby]

Probably, because they get a better deal from Equifax...? Or Call Credit...?

 

As to challenging in court... WHICH court? Since their disclosure is part of their T&Cs (which as a subscriber you would have agreed to by paying for their service), there is no issue of 'fairness' - only accuracy.

 

Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence.

[fergal71]

I am challenging their charges for missed/late payments etc ofcom have stated they can be challenged for fairness £10 disproportionate etc...

 

if the default placed is for less than total of charges and they are proven not to be lawful then surely the default is unlawful and as such inaccurate...as it is made up in part or whole of charges...

 

county court

 

I was asking when you took them to court for a refund of charges could I have copy of your Particular of claim???

[buzby]

Where have OFCOM stated that these charges are unfair? As I recall their only comment was that they were looking into the iniquities of paying higher amounts depending on the payment method chosen by the customer.

 

It was the OFT (not OFCOM) who were stating an opinion on the 'fairness' of overdraft charges (which they withdrew) and the fact credit card firms were charging excessive amounts for late payments and penalties, which they said should be no more than £10. Whilst Virgin isn't a credit card company, the charges are seen to be fair as they are not 'excessive' and are avoidable (by paying on time).

 

Next up, the 'default' is simply a default on your account - is had no relevant legal standing, and simply means you have not stayed within your agreement to make payments to clear your account 30 days after the bills are issued. Your room to maneuver; here is if the bills are somehow in error, then you can challenge the default on this basis, but not otherwise.

 

You are looking for a Small Claims Action PoC, and I'm unaware of anyone successfully challenging this for the grounds you state. I think Martin3030 got closer to it than most, and he'll probably respond when he returns from holiday. However, my action against VM was easily abandoned by them providing an ongoing rebate to the charges I could not avoid (by not paying by DD). However, trying to get money back because you paid late won't get much sympathy, as they'll refund it once on request, and similar actions (against BT) have failled.

[fergal71]

Hi here is site and a snippet same as banks if it can not be proven that is what it costs the company then it is likely to be unfair....

 

Ofcom?s final statement and guidance on extra charges paid by customers to phone, TV and internet companies | Ofcom

 

 

Ofcom’s final guidance is that:

 

these charges will not be part of the price of the service the customer is buying;

any charge that is higher than the actual costs a company incurs – for example in chasing a late payment - is likely to be ruled as unfair; and

customers who hold back an amount they are disputing should not be seen and charged as ‘late payers’.

And Ofcom does not accept that bad debts should be lumped in with any of these charges

[buzby]

thanks for the link. Oh dear - bad news for all consumers then. They slipped this one out in the middle of the snow blizzards and it got buried. I took a great interest in this Consultation, but the resulting conclusion (published 19th December) could have been completed in a fortnight, NOT the EIGHT MONTHS it actually took them, and the main complaints, whilst not ignored, were effectively allowed to continue.

 

The original premise was that differential pricing was to be blocked, but now (surprise, surprise) providing you are TOLD about it, that makes it OK. This has ramifications on your assertion that they cannot make late payment charges, this has NOT been outlawed. OFCOM has put forward its 'recommendations' (what they refer to as 'guidance') and this is simply wonderful. It has no legal significance so they can recommend away, but as it isn't law, cannot be used to make a court take your side of the argument.

 

On my second reading of the conclusions, I'm even more incensed, and will formulate a complaint to my MP as this exercise has actually brounght NOTHING to assist the consumer in any meaningful way. Mind you, following the OFT's balls up, I don't know why I held a Candle for OFCOM to do anything better.

 

HOLD THE PHONE - I've just noted the date on theat consultation. 2008?! This is an old issue, and as far as I can recall, being revisited for the points I outlined above. OFCOM announced in the Autumn (2009) that their look at the industry was to be published in the New Year (which would have been 2010). If you look at the 2008 document, much (all?) of the consumer complaints were deemed to be non-core issues - in which OFCOM could take no action. It was this wholesale non-responsibility we were complaining about, so I must chase this up to see where it is.

Edited January 5, 2010 by buzby

[fergal71]

yes but it does state similar to bank charges the cost of late payment or missed payments etc have to be proportiantate to their costs if they can not prove they are (unlikely to want to try) banks will be the same I bet!!!

 

then they are penalties not a true cost if a default is made up such charges then the default is inaccurate

 

"Penalty charges in any default balance will make the amount on the Default Notice unlawful and inaccurate, giving rise to a rescission of contract preventing the Court enforcing the debt"

 

got this somwhere trying to find out which legal basis....

 

I strongly believe my case is a test case for such charges and the fact experian no longer publish virgin media info gives me hope .... I bet other 2 dont either?????

[buzby]

Sorry - you're back in fantasyland again...

 

This is not a 'test case', unless you plan to raise it in the High Court. In the unlikely even of the case going the way you want it to, will have absolutely no bearing on any other, ever.

 

Similarly, as for Experian (if correct) only have VM as their customer. If Any other CRA offers VM similar services for a lower fee (and they probably do) then VM will be credit checking their new customers with this alternative CRA, and reporting the same defaults and consumer issues as part of the standard quid-pro-quo arrangement as before.

 

I'm bemused why you think it makes a blind bit of difference, as this is a commercial arrangement between commercial entities, and as a VM customer, not a concern or influence of yours.

[fergal71]

what about the charges being disproportiante ,

[buzby]

Disproportiante to what?

 

I'm not providing them with reasons to keep it high - but all they need to do is prove that it is 'reasonable', in many cases they charges may never be recovered... ever.

 

It allows them to outsource their collection to high charging DCA's on the basis that even if it costs £2 to collect every £1 actually owed, the charge would not be disproportionate - just the 'rate for the job'.

 

Since these firms will never disclose these costs publically (and nobody can force them to) consumers are not even on the starting grid to complain - ewspecially when they are told if you pay on time (like you promised to when you signed up) you get the service at the advertised prices.

 

And OFCOM will pat them on thr back for being 'fully transparent' becasue they did not hide these charges would be made.

[fergal71]

is your glass half empty ;-)

[buzby]

Nah... frozen solid!

[fergal71]

did you read ofcom decision saying charges can be challenged for fairness.....

 

if they can be proven to be unfair and ofcom say they can be challenged then any default containing unfair charges is also unlawful????? do you agree with this at least????

[buzby]

You'll note that they didn't specify WHO would be the arbitor? So you challenge them on fairmess, and they have a look and say 'we've checked, we think it fair. Pay up!'

 

Pretty pointless challenge, eh? And since OFCOM do not become involved in consumer issues, it's off to the courts at your expense...

[fergal71]

hi yes but surely the regulator has a big say in what is fair and unfair..and hopefully the judge would read their guidance.. I am already at court stage so they really need to prove their charges are not penalties and are proportiante to their costs????? if the judge agrees with me then the charges are unlawful and the default by virtue of this would also be unlawful????? are you warming up to this challenge buzby????? it might not set legal precedant but if I win and tell everyone on here then comms companies will be inudated the same as what happened with banks.....

[fergal71]

also unfortunately at the minute I am not working and all my court fees are paid by the government....I have paid enough tax so I feel vindicated in taking a little back...

[buzby]

The Regulator can only regulate based on established (written) ground rules. These are sometimes called 'recommendation' but they are not Law. THAT can only be decided by a judge, and even then only if in the High Court or abive be used as a precedent.

 

Anlawful is an absolute term - but nowehre have these charges actually been held to be actually this, just not 'recommended'. If you get the law to back you, it is a slam-dunk, if it doesn;t every action is a risk. As to the cosy, if you lose (even though the cost of raising the action was at no cost to you) if a costs order is asked for when you lose, you'll be made to pay this - and the bailiffs can enforce this. It's a gamble you need to think long and hard about ALL the eventualities.

[fergal71]

even if litigant in person bringing small claim???

[fergal71]

can you not help with me trying to get the slam dunk????

 

rather than as it seems put me off such action ??? I am there already and just need some advice on POC's and amending the ones currently with court as they were not clear enough??? charges for late payments not fair, you and I know they are not fair ofcom stated likely to be unfair... shouldn't be too difficult convincing judge, who may have had one or 2 himself, that they are unfair and a breach of any contract arrangement... doesnt matter what you sign it still has to be lawful... if you mistakenly signed contract to say I could slap you every month would this be okay if you had signed?????

[fergal71]

hi martin I am at court , need to ammend my POC's could you help my case relates to the damage a default cost me by virgin???? I would be happy to pm or even call you if possible? I will be happy to start new thread or you can take a look at my musings with buzby on my thread already started.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/digital-tv-services/232176-sky-virgin-defaults.html

 

sorry mo for the little hijack... I havent got long left and need to sort asap...

The default was for less in value than the charges they applied to my account.... I have also been informed that experian no longer process virgin on credit files???? can anyone else confirm if they report on equifax or call credit... ??? this would be interesting to know???? any help would be much appreciated

[MARTIN3030]

Ok moved here.I will take a look at whats happened.

So is it the Virgin media case you want help with ?