A rant about Virgin Media!!

[JenniBee8]

They have made me sooo mad!!

 

I started a thread a few weeks ago about how I was annoyed they had charged me a £10 late payment fee. I phoned them about it and they advised to put it in writing. Which I did, and about 2 weeks later I received a reply stating that they were 'Sorry to hear you're unhappy' and that they would get back to me within 5 days. So five days came and went. Today I'd just had enough. As I am moving house at the start of May I decided to phone them and cancel my account. If I am honest I would have considered staying with them if they refunded me the £10 and offered me a good deal. Some friends of mine were going to cancel their subscription when they moved but Virgin offered them the sports and movie channels free for 3 months if they stayed.

 

Was I offered anything? Nope! Not a thing, oh, there was the offer of £14.99 p/m internet access at my new address with no installation fee...no thanks. She said she would have liked to refund me the £10 but unfortunately was not in her control. I didn't have a problem with the girl, she was really nice it's just the whole organisation I am annoyed with.

 

I wasn't even aware that I had to give 30 days notice so it's perhaps my fault, but as I have given them 11 days notice I will still get billed for the other 19 days...but she said she would sort it out so I'd only be charged basic rate.

 

So that's my relationship with Virgin Media finished...I will never go back to them and certainly wont be recommending them to anyone. I decided to go for getting the £10 back because another poster on here (Sorry the name of the poster escapes me) said he threatended to cancel his account unless they gave him the late payment fees back, and they gave them back to him in order for him staying. I just feel like my 3 years of service with them has meant nothing and I'm not a valued customer, or they would have fought to have me stay there.

 

Ah well, rant over

[MollieUK]

Easy way round not having to pay the 19 days, don't pay it and they will cut you off, so they then have to refund you the 19 days of non service, absolutely ridiculous really but they bill you in advance.

 

I think you will still have to pay something but do it just for the hell of it!!

 

I have also claimed back my DD and late charges but got an email saying 'sorry we are very busy etc' and it could be 5 days before a reply, needless to say it is now 7 days!!

 

No problem, will just get back even more!

[buzby]

A shame really, but they do have a knack for putting people's backs up. I've managed to obtain an email address of someone who deals only with my area and matters are resolved within 48 hours, along with compensation (usually unasked) for billing errors. It all depends on who you speak to, if you don't get the answer you want or expect, ask to speak to a Supervisor, and avoid the Indian call centre, even if it means redialling.

[Guest Bert52]

But surely you were charged a late payment fee for being, errr, late?

 

£10 doesn't seem to be a huge amount in comparison to other fees and it could well be below what the OFT consider a fair fee anyway.

 

Why sign a contract, knowing these fees, then whinge when it is enforced?

 

I'm on this site because I'm a consumer who wants a good deal. If you miss a payment the cost would pass on to us, who don't miss our payments, if there was no late payment fee.

 

Why should I subsidise you because you didn't pay?

[patdavies]

Well the easy answer is because that is the law.

 

£10 does not (cannot) represent Virgin's costs and losses; the late payment fee is designed to be a penalty for paying late.

 

English law does not allow such penalties; this is the crux of the case against the banks and others.

[JenniBee8]

But surely you were charged a late payment fee for being, errr, late?

 

£10 doesn't seem to be a huge amount in comparison to other fees and it could well be below what the OFT consider a fair fee anyway.

 

Why sign a contract, knowing these fees, then whinge when it is enforced?

 

I'm on this site because I'm a consumer who wants a good deal. If you miss a payment the cost would pass on to us, who don't miss our payments, if there was no late payment fee.

 

Why should I subsidise you because you didn't pay?

 

I know £10 doesn't seem a huge amount, but it's not the amount that bothers me, it's the fact I was charged this in the first place.

 

I don't really have much to say to that really. Penalty charges are unlawful. Doesn't matter how low an amount they are.

[rory32]

Quite right jennibee8,

Penalties charges no matter how small (in virgin media's case they even penalise you for not paying by DD) are illegal not just in English Law but in Scots law too. Companies have choosen to ignore the laws for far too long in order to bolster their profits not so they can provide a better service to those who pay on time (in advance) or those you choose not to pay by DD.

Rant over.

[Guest Bert52]

Penalty charges are not unlawful at all.

 

When has a court ever ruled they are?

 

The campaign against financial institutions is that the amount being charged might be illegal due to disproportionate high charges being levied by them. They shouldn't profit from them.

 

Until this situation becomes subject to a ruling then it will simply just remain a matter of opinion.

 

However, a £10 late payment fee, in my opinion, wouldn't be considered excessive.

 

Banks etc already have 'Late Payment' sections within their business and therefore obviously have people employed just to deal with late payers.

 

Depending on the size of the organisation then £10 may be seen as a fair charge.

 

If there were no late payment fees at all then the likes of me, who pays on time, would have to subsidise those who don't pay there way on time.

 

How is that fairer? There would be chaos and no business would be able to operate properly.

 

Ever run your own business, as I do, and customers keep you waiting for 6 months or so to pay a bill?

 

Why should I go out of business because people are late paying their bill?

Why should I waste my time writing letters, buying postage, going to the post office etc and not be able to charge for that?

 

Every time I have summonsed a late payer I have won because I gave enough written warning on my invoice that I would charge for late paying and it seems that £20 has been acceptable by the court as I am a sole trader and it takes up my time when I should be working or relaxing after finishing work.

[sidvicious]

The campaign against financial institutions is that the amount being charged might be illegal due to disproportionate high charges being levied by them. SORRY BERT BUT THE CHARGES OR PENALTIES ETC ARE UNLAWFUL AS ILLEGAL WOULD MAKE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, WE ARE DEALING IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND PROFIT MAKING AND FAIR PLAY.

[Janet-M]

Penalty charges are not unlawful at all.

 

When has a court ever ruled they are?

 

The campaign against financial institutions is that the amount being charged might be illegal due to disproportionate high charges being levied by them. They shouldn't profit from them.

 

Until this situation becomes subject to a ruling then it will simply just remain a matter of opinion.

 

However, a £10 late payment fee, in my opinion, wouldn't be considered excessive.

 

Banks etc already have 'Late Payment' sections within their business and therefore obviously have people employed just to deal with late payers.

 

Depending on the size of the organisation then £10 may be seen as a fair charge.

 

If there were no late payment fees at all then the likes of me, who pays on time, would have to subsidise those who don't pay there way on time.

 

How is that fairer? There would be chaos and no business would be able to operate properly.

 

Ever run your own business, as I do, and customers keep you waiting for 6 months or so to pay a bill?

 

Why should I go out of business because people are late paying their bill?

Why should I waste my time writing letters, buying postage, going to the post office etc and not be able to charge for that?

 

Every time I have summonsed a late payer I have won because I gave enough written warning on my invoice that I would charge for late paying and it seems that £20 has been acceptable by the court as I am a sole trader and it takes up my time when I should be working or relaxing after finishing work.

maybe you should read some case laws before you post unhelpful and misleading posts

 

you may have won on your court summons as many have , and still do .Reasons being the defendent has not realised the law that they can use in their defences .If you where to summons any user from this site I think you would quickly realise that the penalties you are claiming will not be won so easily , unless of course for some reason it did actually cost you that and you could prove it.

[remus]

Bert52 seems to want to start debates on a couple of threads i've noticed:rolleyes:

[rory32]

Really remus which ones would those be?

[buzby]

I thought having debates was what this Forum was all about? Penalties raise blood pressures in everyone, but as I've pointed out before, CC companies have successfully charged these for years - it is not a recent phenomenon. When you realise not only to they charge you interest on the debt, then the late fee, then the interest on that I've chosen NOT to have those products for those very reasons. I vote with my wallet. As to being 'illegal' they have been accepted as part of the CCA so whilst individuals have the right to challenge them should they wish.

 

As for Janet-M's response to Bert52's post, I stand aghast - it remains fair comment, and for a Mod to state it is somehow unhelpful and misleading is in itself unhelpful and misleading. Read your own message tags and lighten up.

[Guest Bert52]

Bert52 seems to want to start debates on a couple of threads i've noticed:rolleyes:

 

It is what a forum of opinions is meant to be.

[Guest Bert52]

maybe you should read some case laws before you post unhelpful and misleading posts

 

you may have won on your court summons as many have , and still do .Reasons being the defendent has not realised the law that they can use in their defences .If you where to summons any user from this site I think you would quickly realise that the penalties you are claiming will not be won so easily , unless of course for some reason it did actually cost you that and you could prove it.

 

I am merely giving an opinion which is based on fact-my own experiences.

 

I have had late payment charges that I impose challenged and the ruling, time and time again, is that my T&C of trade are clearly stated and good time is given by me for the settlement of invoices without incurring any late fee. These T&C were drawn up by a solicitor and are used as a device that compensate me for extra work I have to undertake.

 

I can earn £20 in one hour, or more, yet it may take that long, or longer, to go through my late paying client's records, construct a letter, pay for postage, ink, envolope, paper, maybe walk two miles to the post office as I live in a rural area and the wife may have the car in the day, walk two miles back......etc

 

Why shouldn't I charge for wasting my time on people who can't be bothered when I can be earning instead?

 

And ignorance of the law is not an excuse or defence as you suggest.

 

This is what it costs my business and I have proven it to be the case on at least 30 different occassions.

 

My posts are not unhelpful or misleading either. They are fact.

 

If banks are charging too high a payment fine then that is wrong.

However, some people on here think that any charge is unlawful when this is not the case.

 

My posts are meant to give an explanation why some of us in business have to levy such a charge or we would go out of business if we couldn't.

[Guest tlusnoc]

I am 100% with Bert52 on this. Why should those who pay on time have to subsidise those who don't? There is a cost involved with paying late, and by phoning up to complain about the charge you are incurring yet more additional costs for others who pay on time to subsidise. It really is about time people took full responsibilty for their actions instead of whinging about them and expecting to be let off.

 

I also agree with buzby that Janet-M's post is totally out of order and ought to be removed or an apology given.

[Guest Bert52]

I am 100% with Bert52 on this. Why should those who pay on time have to subsidise those who don't? There is a cost involved with paying late, and by phoning up to complain about the charge you are incurring yet more additional costs for others who pay on time to subsidise. It really is about time people took full responsibilty for their actions instead of whinging about them and expecting to be let off.

 

I also agree with buzby that Janet-M's post is totally out of order and ought to be removed or an apology given.

 

Thank you for that.

 

I think Janet M thinks I'm being provocative when I am not.

 

If somebody has an issue with something, as in unfair bank charges, then it is logical to look at all sides of the arguement to see what a likely outcome will be.

 

High late payment fees are unfair but a reasonable late payment fee is fair.

 

The OP of this thread is moaning about a £10 late payment fee which, I'm certain, would be ruled fair in court.

 

It seems people just want a service and pay when they like, if ever!

The country would become bankrupt because it would be chaos!

[JenniBee8]

The other reason I was so annoyed that I was charged the £10 was because I didn't actually receive a bill from Virgin Media that month! Maybe wasn't their fault but certainly wasn't mine either! I would only remember to pay the bill if I had the actual bill in front of me, as I am a busy person.

 

Don't tell me £10 equates to the actual losses they incurred? it's total crap and I don't agree with any of the people who have said this charge may be deemed fair. It is far from it

 

ETA - Bert, I think you are being really rude. Please do not say I was moaning, ok? I was TWO DAYS LATE in paying! I hardly think that makes me a bill dodger!!!

[Guest Bert52]

Forgive me.

 

But you did state in your original thread that you were having a 'rant,' which is about as much as a moan is it not?

 

And just two days late could as well be two weeks late-it was still late and there was a need for extra work to be done on your account.

 

And £10 is hardly excessive and I'm certain that a court would agree with that.

 

I apologise but I wasn't being rude to you.

[JenniBee8]

What would be the extra work? They had to send me a another bill with some RED ink on it? Wow, that must definitely cost in the region of £10.

[Bookworm]

I am 100% with Bert52 on this. Why should those who pay on time have to subsidise those who don't? There is a cost involved with paying late, and by phoning up to complain about the charge you are incurring yet more additional costs for others who pay on time to subsidise. It really is about time people took full responsibilty for their actions instead of whinging about them and expecting to be let off.

 

I also agree with buzby that Janet-M's post is totally out of order and ought to be removed or an apology given.

 

Ah, that old chestnut! The "subsidy" mirage...

 

All those companies are feeding you a line that the "bad" people are costing them thousands and that if it wasn't for them all your charges would be lower, and you swallow it hook, line and sinker... We've heard it by the banks, now we're hearing it by the telecoms companies, and the self-righteous nod along in agreement. Oh dear, oh dear...

 

Bert52, with respect, your circumstances are different. You seem to indicate that you are a one man band, or small business, and I would think that the amount of time involved in dealing with late invoives etc, would result in you incurring extra costs, and in your case, it may be that £10, or even £20, depending on your line of business, may be warranted.

 

However, in the case of a huge company, with systems already in place and fully automated paraphernalia, the cost associated in dealing with a late payment is minimal, and the recent evidence unveiled suggest a sum in the region of £2-£2.50, and that is including general running costs, which in law, really shouldn't be included, as it is ONLY the transgression cost that should be counted. (However, I think that it is unlikely that any judge would quibble on what amounts to a fairly small amount, and ask for an even more detailed breakdown).

 

"excessive" is an interesting word. If VM's costs in dealing with a late bill are indeed in the £2.50 area, then 75% of what they levy is pure profit. Is that excessive? Well, considering that contract law states that they can not make a profit out of a breach of contract, I believe it is.

 

As for Janet-M's post, it is spot on and not out of order at all.

 

Bert52 has stated that penalty charges have not been deemed unlawful, which is incorrect. If anyone is in doubt about that, please go to the CAG Library, go to my sticky "Basic Court Bundle" and download the .zip file. I have put together a list of cases with brief summaries of the salient points relating to contract law and penalties.

 

Janet-M has also stated that Bert52 might find it harder to win his case against a user on this site, unless he could prove it cost him £20, and in this, she is absolutely correct too. A judge would not accept that £20 is fair or reasonable on simply his say-so. Although, as previously stated, I believe that he would stand a better chance to win than a huge company like VM or a bank, because of the size of his business.

[buzby]

Just for clarification - VM tell me that when a £10 charge appears on a bill, it is NOT for the preceding month, but the one before that. It took me ages to sort that out, but they credited the fee back because of them charging me incorrect amounts and adding phantom equipment.

 

Should the charge appear on your APRIL dated bill, is because the computer says you didn't pay your FEBRUARY bill by the date shown on THAT monthly bill.

[Bookworm]

Ah, well, that clarifies something which you and I have discussed before, which was the how can they charge a late payment when we pay them in advance.

[Guest tlusnoc]

The other reason I was so annoyed that I was charged the £10 was because I didn't actually receive a bill from Virgin Media that month!

 

Your not going to like this post but here goes anyway.

 

Isn't it funny now that one or two people have said it was your fault therefore you deserve to be charged the late payment fee. That you now come back and say that it was because you didn't receive a bill that month. Why didn't you make that point originally? Sorry it just makes me laugh when people appear to try and get away with avoiding their responsibilities in life.

 

As for you BOOKWORM, that old chestnut as you call it, well I am sorry but there is a cost involved and therefore everyone has to pay for it, therefore those who pay on time are in effect subsidising those who don't. Also the mere fact that the OP called them to complain actually increased the costs, therefore in my opinion £10 appears to be a fair amount.

[Bookworm]

But if they hadn't imposed the fee, she wouldn't have had to call them to complain, so that particular cost is self-created!!!

 

Ok, so there is a cost involved. I don't think I denied that. But is that cost £10? In other words, does it cost VM £10 if you pay your bill late? If it does, then we have no argument, and the charge is fair.

 

But what is included in that charge? The employee sitting at the phone is going to be there anyway to deal with other calls and stuff. So is the computer, and the lighting, electricity, general overheads. They would be there to run the everyday business of VM. And unless the late payer calls in to complain, there are no additional manhours involved. So actual costs to VM? Pennies, if that.

Late reminders: A fully automated system, computer generated, machine franked, etc... That's where the real cost comes in. Envelope, letter, ink, franking the letter, etc... Does that cost £10? Ermm.... I think not...

Now comes the hardest part to quantify: It could be argued that while we are not paying our bill, VM doesn't have the money to invest and get interest on, etc... True enough, but again, is the interest lost going to come anywhere near the £10 mark? Again, I don't think so.

 

So. The law states that they can not make a profit out of our breach of contract. The law states that in order to be fair, a charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of their loss, and not levied "in terrorem", in other words, as a deterrent.

 

As I said at the beginning, if VM can quantify their loss to show that it cost them anywhere near £10 when we pay our bill late, then we have no case. If however, as most of us suspect, they can not, then it is a penalty and unlawful.

 

If somewhere in there you can show me where the person who pays on time is subsidising those who don't, then show me. Your opinion that £10 is a fair charge, at the moment, is neither substantiated nor plausible. I have demonstrated how IMO, it is not a fair charge. Looking forward to reading how you plan to support your assertion that it is.