MARTIN3030 Virgin Media charges ROUND 3

[emmaf01]

Sticky threads.... no.... why is it I never notice them! Someone gave me that address in my thread...

[brett48]

Stikky/Emma, I sent mine to Customer Concerns in Swansea and got the SAR back about a week later. The contents of the data was a bit messy and all over the place. VM only provide detail charge data from when they took over and all previous NTL/Telewest/Cable & Wireless reincarnations are only in a summarised format. However, with a little detective work and assumptions, I managed to pick the bones of non DD and late payment charges out of the mix. One unexpected bonus was the credit of my SAR fee to my account as a normal payment.

I am now ready to continue battle with N1 when my budget allows for the court fee, hopefully at the end of this month.

Brett

[stikky62]

I sent my S.A.R off to the London address about 2 hours ago, and a letter of complaint to Swansea about something else.

 

I'm wanting details going back to 1997 so god knows how im going to work out all the late payment charges if VM are only going to provide detail from when they took over.

[brett48]

Good luck!

[legalpickle]

I sent my S.A.R off to the London address about 2 hours ago, and a letter of complaint to Swansea about something else.

 

I'm wanting details going back to 1997 so god knows how im going to work out all the late payment charges if VM are only going to provide detail from when they took over.

 

 

You can't claim back ANYTHING beyond 6 years [except in certain professional matters]. It's called the Limitation Act 1980. Sorry to disappoint you but anybody who does know something about law will tell you the same and any judge will chuck it out.

 

They are also not obliged to retain the information that long back. I know that some phone companies only retain the amounts billed and that's it. Every company has different procedures.

[emmaf01]

Legalpickle, check out the arguments about the Limitation Act regarding bank charges, in the FAQs I think?

[legalpickle]

Please post a link?

 

Even if there are arguments for charges beyond 6 years, unless they are proven as a precedent - which I say without seeing them - a court is unlikely to accept them. I would not stake any part of the claim on it and be more comfortable just claiming within 6 years.

 

Just my recommendation.

 

CPR [Civil Procedure Rules] 27.14 deals with costs in events of unreasonable behaviour by either party. If the other party gets smart and decides that by trying to claim beyond 6 years you're being unreasonable they may get pro-rata costs for dealing with that matter. Similar things have happened before.

 

Rule of thumb: If it's something not tried and tested and you're not experienced - and I mean real experienced - and have a lot of money - in case costs do get awarded against you - do not deviate from standard protocol & procedure. This is my recommendation, from experience. I have been in very sticky situations before and would recommend that people don't try to get smart.

[emmaf01]

Hope this works.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31575-important-things-you-really.html?garpg=6

[legalpickle]

Thanks emma, I am aware of that part. I however disagree that it is likely to succeed and until it is proven as successfully doing so by somebody experienced I would recommend to err on the side of caution.

 

All that needs to happen is that one member of staff within Virgin or a bank decides, 'Ok, I don't like this bloke, we're going to mess them right up', and you're done. Unless you have the relevant experience don't try anything new - just my recommendation.

[emmaf01]

I got my bank charges refunded for more than the six years using this argument and my SLC charges, which went to court but was settled in full before the hearing.

[stikky62]

I'm a complete newbie at this so 6 years will do me fine,,,,and if i can stop them adding any more in the future, then great!

 

thanks

[legalpickle]

I got my bank charges refunded for more than the six years using this argument and my SLC charges, which went to court but was settled in full before the hearing.

 

Well done, but it was settled BEFORE the hearing. If it went to hearing, I'm not so sure you would have been as successful. I repeat therefore that I would err on the side of caution, till it has been proven in court in a transcripted hearing.

 

If you don't have evidence that it was proven in court, a judge may be loathe to accept it based on your word. Therefore you would need the transcript or if a precedent [not only within County Court, hence persuasive precedent] the citation [details of the case, and paragraph of specific point]. I may be wrong but as far as precedents go [and not persuasive precedents] this hasn't been tried, tested and worked.

[emmaf01]

I wouldn't be asking a judge to accept my word- just the case I was arguing - with the case law I was presenting with it. See the link I posted earlier. If the judge was not happy he could have disallowed the charges over six years old.

 

It is up to the individual to see if they are confident about their case.

 

I gave my case law and the bank and SLC solicitors were not confident enough and so settled.

[legalpickle]

Point made. But the judge would - normally, and from my extensive experience - want to see a case where another judge ruled in a similar way where this was disputed.

 

It isn't all about being confident of your case. Confidence quite often comes with experience, and confidence of your background to claim and cause of action are different confidence of chances.

 

It is up to each person to make their own choices. I however would err on the side of caution. Emma has tried and succeeded, but until there is a precedent - or at least persuasive precedent - I who have taken quite a bit of experience would not do so.

[stikky62]

How far are you going back with your claim Emma?

 

After reading this thread, i was hoping it wouldn't actually make it to court anyway, and VM would pay out before it went that far?!?!

[emmaf01]

Luckily for VM, we only got involved with them/Telewest in 2002.

[legalpickle]

Emma: It was within 6 years then. So you did not try testing the boundaries of the Limitation Act. Even if it was a couple of months out, they are not going to fight so hard over an extra £30 or so.

[emmaf01]

If you have read this thread, you will see that it is only in the last fortnight that I have turned my attention to the late payment charges on my husband's VM account. Therefore, I have only recently sent my SAR to VM.

 

Now if on my or my husband's accounts there are charges which are dated over six years ago, I do not feel constricted by the Limitations Act and will claim back these charges. In fact I have an ongoing claim with the Halifax for some charges which are all over six years old, as they only came to light after my original claim with the Halifax was concluded.

 

I do not feel constricted by the Limitations Act because I believe that as I did not become aware of the unfair nature of these charges until October 2006, due to the deliberate concealment of the true nature of these charges.

 

I do not think everyone should go for charges over six years old- you need to feel confident enough in your reasoning and ready to stand up in court and argue it if the time comes. I am. If someone else is not- that is up to them.

[legalpickle]

Point made.

 

It's up to each and every person on their own case, but I who have a lot of experience and have issued claims for myself and all my friends for over 30 breach of contract claims against internet service providers besides for my own bank charges and some other claims would not do so.

 

Make your own decisions on the basis of the evidence available.

[emmaf01]

Its great that you have been so successful, LP. I'm not too much of a slouch myself in the banks/financial areas, but VM is a foray into the unknown for me so I'm sticking to charges where I'm familiar with the general rules.

 

I'd love to know more about ISP breach of contract though- where can I find out more? Is it related to traffic shaping(?) or other issues?

[legalpickle]

Its great that you have been so successful, LP. I'm not too much of a slouch myself in the banks/financial areas, but VM is a foray into the unknown for me so I'm sticking to charges where I'm familiar with the general rules.

 

I'd love to know more about ISP breach of contract though- where can I find out more? Is it related to traffic shaping(?) or other issues?

 

 

The basis of my claims against Tiscali, BE [O2], UK Online - and the one being issued today against Demon [Thus PLC] is that the service promised was not provided;

 

If you are promised 'up to 8mbps' as you can easily find services of 'up to 2mbps' and most providers offer both, it is definitely reasonable to assume that the speed given would be between 2mbps and 8mbps, not below.

 

SO if the speed reaching your computer is less than 2mbps, you are being charged for a service not provided. Therefore you should be able to claim the difference in cost between what you paid for and were provided.

 

Additionally, if you work from home and require the internet for work then it is unreasonable to expect that you would depend on a "service" that was unreliable and cut out frequently. Therefore I ordered a subscription service - as it was cheaper - on my T-Mobile business contract. I am also demanding Thus PLC refund that as it was as a backup service from their non-existent service. This was my duty to mitigate losses, rather than losing money in business I lost £7.50/month on this. Had I not done anything they may have been able to claim I wasn't mitigating my losses which is a duty on each and every party to proceedings.

 

There are a lot of other claims I have put in previously but they apply specifically to my case and are confidential. The above are the ones that are commonly found with a lot of ISP's. Incidentally I am now with Nildram [which is associated with Tiscali] and it works excellently - let's see how long that is for though, I said the same about BE.

 

Breach of contract claims are a lot more enjoyable than bank charges and the like, they vary from case to case and are a lot more interesting because you see a lot more varying ways of parties working - just my opinion.

[stikky62]

Originally Posted by havinastella

Do you have a copy of the N1 you submitted Webbs?

 

Many thanks

 

Jogs

Yeah Sure its somewhere I'll dig it out tomorrow and post it, cheers

 

 

Any chance of posting it then?

[webbscatering]

Any chance of posting it then?

 

Could You PM me a fax number Thanks

[havinastella]

Webbs, I still need that!

 

JOgs

[webbscatering]

Webbs, I still need that!

 

JOgs

 

Send me a fax number now, i am still in the office and I will send it over, cheers