Being charged for a service not requested or used

[Somebody Told Me]

Hey there,

 

I've just discovered that my mobile provider has been charging me for a service for over three years which I neither requested or have used.

 

Now I realise that I should be a lot more diligent with checking my bills and after this I certainly will be but I'm wondering whether without any proof that I didn't agree to the service if I'm within my rights to request a full refund of the charges which total over £400.

 

I've so far been offered just over £100 as a goodwill gesture which I'm not happy to accept as I don't see why I should pay for something I didn't agree to and have not benefited from.

 

Any advice welcome.

 

Thanks.

[buzby]

Take the gesture.

 

You share the responsibility with the supplier, and as they billed for the services made available to you (whether you used them or not) the information was there for you to query and object. Normally, you'd be left without any room to manoeuvre, but they have made a goodwill offer. Refusing it means that you won't benefit from their offer, and no guarantee they will make a better one.

 

In your situation, I would write to them, stating that you accept you should have been more diligent, but as you can find no evidence of requesting the service, you feel they should at least meet HALF the cost of the proposed repayment - and trust they will agree.

[Wethers82]

I agree.

 

I had a dispute about my bill with orange and it was also partially my fault too. They offered me £100 as a good will gesture and said if I wanted to get the full amount re-incompensated I'd have to put my complaint in writing. I took the £100 as

a) - Though I'm reluctant to admit it, it was my lack of (as you say) diligence.

b) I knew there was a possibility they could refuse my claim and leave me empty handed.

 

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but look at it this way. You've spent that money and its in the passed. You now know whats been happening therefore you can ensure it doesn't happen in the future, also at least you've got £100 back which you didn't originally have.

[goodwill]

You share the responsibility with the supplier

a customer does not 'share' the responsibility of a company adding or allowing to be added a service the customer did not legitimately request.

 

@Buzby link to the consumer law(written) that backs this up.

link to any company's terms and conditions that states this.

 

I will agree with you that 'industry' funded arbitration will probably use this arguement....'well because you noticed you were being ripped off we will give you some back'

[buzby]

Afraid you misunderstand. When a customer provides (as is assumed) the method to automatically obtain payment for services provided, then there is no defence of clkaiming after-the-event that the supply of thise services were not agreed.

 

The company can say it is not their practice to add unwanted services to a consumers contract, and with 3m (say)customers, if this was a problem it would have been evident before now. What also works against the OP is that by divesting responsibility of their financial affairs to a third party, it would be (and has been) held that said customer cannot rely on blaind faith that the bills provided are fair and accurate. They should be, of course - but there is no defence months later that 'I didn;t agree to it', you need to ensure anything you are paying is correct.

 

Consumer law (written) is kicked into touch when modified by a DD or card mandate. It is often best to look at the full pcture, not a small sub-set of it. As for industry-funded arbitration, actually no - I didn;t even consider them useful in arbitration, as the requirement for the consumer to at least take a passing interest in the money they pay out remains paramount.

 

We do live in a 'nanny state' but what you are proposing is taking it to a ridiculous degree.

 

Where have you beeen, BTW?

[goodwill]

Consumer law (written) is kicked into touch when modified by a DD or card mandate.

buzby, consumer law that protect the public from unsolicited goods and services and unauthorised billing are not kicked into touch and or modified depending on what method of payment is used.

 

DD is purely a method of payment in the same way as paying by credit card or cash in a shop are methods of payment.

 

That fact that each method of payment can be abused by unscrupulous companies has no bearing on the law.

 

If somebody went into a shop and asked for a tin of beans it doesn't mean depending on the method of payment the shop keeper could also slip a tin of soup into your bag and charge you.

It doesn't mean that if you didn't notice then that represents a legal sales agreement.

[buzby]

You are most welcoime to your opinion. But the responsibility to check an CHALLENGE (within a reasonable time) remains - whether you like it or not.

 

As to the tin of soup, if it was 'slipped in', then you take it back for a full refund. This would apply whether you paid at the time, or be a debit from your account. Expecting a refund months after the 'sale' is laughable - and the consumers contributory negligence would certainly need to be taken into account.

 

As for non-tangible goods, to let the situation continue for THREE YEARS (that is 36 billing periods) is tantamount to dereliction of fiscal responsibility. Expecting to pass on the blame to the company after this time period would never be upheld.

[Somebody Told Me]

Hey guys,

 

Just thought I 'd come back to the thread to let you all know that I decided to accept their goodwill offer and draw a line underneath it.

 

This is certainly taught me a valuable lesson.

 

Thanks to everyone for their advice.

[buzby]

Great news. Always keep your powder dry for those occasions where you've at least got a 60% chance of winning - it makes it all the more satisfying!