Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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

Vodafone unfairly cancelled contract. Next steps?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 378 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Back in late 2018 I took out a two year contract with Vodafone for a new smartphone plus calls, data etc.


In late 2019, due to an error after moving house and connecting my pc to run off my phones internet and not my broadband (yes really) I ran up a bill of several hundred pounds.


I called Vodafone, paid £100 and agreed to pay the remainder in November.


However, less than two weeks later they cancelled my contract for non payment and when I called to complain, and advise I had set up a payment plan and paid a large chunk already, they denied all knowledge and said I'd be forced over to PAYG and would immediately owe the full contract balance, plus the remaining excess data charge from my mishap.


Despairing of this, and numerous other customer service issues with them, I gave up and have simply used a PAYG sim with phones bought outright ever since.


I had a couple of letters from DCAs regarding the o/s balance (now approaching £1k) but ignored them.


I wanted to resolve it last year and put in a SAR, but never heard anything back.


Now almost 3 years after initial dispute I looked into it again and submitted another SAR request.


My luck is in as I actually got a response. It shows they refused my SAR last year due to 'incorrect details' and claims they tried to contact me. More importantly it gives account notes (partially redacted by me):


"[October 2019] Customer made a part payment of £100 Payment confirmation number: xx and set up a tokenised payment arrangement for the amount of £xx which will be
paid on November 10th.


[Slightly later in October 2019] What was the customer's issue?

customer called as he has been restricted when he paid £100 and set up an arrangement on the xx Actions taken by you.

I advised no arrangement has been setup the account has now been put on PAYG and we require the whole balance."


This proves they abandoned the agreed payment plan (presumably due to poor internal comms).


They even terminated the account before the agreed payment for the excess data was even due.


Not only has this damaged my credit file, but I now owe the full contract, even though I was denied the services of it and was also expected to PAYG for a phone I can actually use.


I will of course be complaining about this to Vodafone.


Does anyone else have a similar experience?


Is there an industry body I can also complain to?


The SAR was marked as partially redacted and, barring initial DCA contact, the total lack of any chasing for the balance suggests to me they know they're in the wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While one of the phone issues Team replies to you  might be a good idea go have a look at other Vodafone threads to see if any similar to yours, each case is different but reading around the Forum will help you place your issue within the quagmire that is Voda Customer Services, or lack thereof.

We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty STD for voda sadly 


Use written letters only from now on 


Write briefly telling them what you want to happen.


Ensure you get free proof of posting, give them 28 days to resolve 



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I spoke to them on the phone, because they insisted. Negotiation went something like this:


Vodafone: We'll give you £20

Me: No, you unfairly cancelled my contract and your own notes show it. I want 12 x the monthly contract payment waived.

V: Yes, we reneged on the payment plan, and terminated your contract, but you should just have paid the whole balance as soon as we reneged [even though my agreed payment wasn't yet due]

Me: Er...no. Also your notes show you were terminating the contract even before the phone call.

V: Ok we'll think about waiving what you asked for.

[2 day wait for response to this]

V: Ok, we'll give you £100 but not the amount you asked for because you still had the phone.

Me: No that's far too low.

V: ok how about £150? If you don't accept we will take further action.


A slimey response to any complaint. If their mistake is worth £150 to me, why only offer £20 initially. Straight up dishonest. Even with that. I want far more than £150 and will escalate to OFCOM if needed. I doubt, given they did nothing for 3 years, that there will be any further action and have told them they'll lose in court.


I recorded all of these conversations and I think this kind of lowballing is worth a complaint in itself.

Edited by Paydayhostage
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also check any harms to your credit files and demand corrections from Voda if they trashed them.as part of any resolution.

We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Update. Early January I received an update I couldn't believe:


"Thanks for getting in touch with us about your recent experience. I'm really sorry this led to your complaint on xx December 2022.

In your email you explained that you'd contacted us with regards to the outstanding amount but were told that the final amount above the £100 had been cancelled. This has led to your number moving from Pay Monthly (PAYM) to Pay As You Go (PAYG), and then disconnected. I looked into this and found the notes confirm you contacted us at the time, but the next day the payment arrangement was cancelled and a new one was never put in place. During the three years, there was no more contact from yourself with regards to this issue and therefore was a disconnection and an Early Termination Fee (ETF) applied to the debt and subsequently sent to a Debt Collection Agency (DCA).
In response to this, usually we'd ask you to contact the DCA and pay via them. However, I feel that this has been unfair, as there was no other payment arrangement given to you. As such I've raised a request in order to get this balance cleared as I understand that this wasn't your fault. In order to resolve this, I'd ask you to take out a new connection and then fill in a "Keep my Number" so the number you previously had with us can be used again.

I do really apologise for the way in which this has been handled."
Seems great, if delayed, right? From a balance approaching £1k to zero.
However, I grew more concerned as I didn't receive a final confirmation, despite chasing. Finally, in February I received another update, that they've done a U-Turn and cancelled the cancellation!
"To recap, you were previously offered £150 goodwill credit due to the payment plan being set-up incorrectly on your account.
We can see that you have requested for the overdue amount to be cleared, and your credit file amended, as it is currently showing negative marks from Vodafone.
I reviewed your complaint today, and I completed a thorough investigation into what was discussed with the previous case handler, Alex. When we reverse a write-off amount unfortunately, this doesn't bring the balance to £0 and I'm sorry you were advised of this. The overdue amount is from when you went over your mobile data in 2019, and these charges are valid. 
I understand that the payment plan wasn't set-up correctly but unfortunately, we didn't receive any correspondence from yourself. As per Ofcom guidelines, customers are required to check their bills every three months. Due to this, the overdue amount is still a valid charge and we're unable to waiver this amount for your complaint.
If you choose to accept the £150 goodwill credit, this will be deducted from the overdue balance. The overdue balance on the account is £xxxx, if you choose to accept the £150 goodwill credit, the overdue amount will reduce to xxxx
If you choose not to accept our offer, you can escalate your complaint to the relevant Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme if you wish (CISAS)."
I've replied expressing my dismay at this.
How can having an excess data charge (before the incorrect termination) lead to them the redress. Terminating the contract meant I lost all use of data for almost the entire contract! They could have cancelled the whole balance except the data charge, but didn't even do that (it was more than the £150 they're offering).
At worst I intend to challenge the data charge as a separate issue, although I think it should also be waived and I've let them know I will be escalating to CISIS. I'm glad the previous responder admitted their fault in writing.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...