MARTIN3030 Virgin Media charges ROUND 3

[chrismc]

 

I sent in a Data Protection Act request and was advised there is not an office that deals with it, and i will be be lucky to get what i have requested as the person i was talking to had no ideal where to send my request?

 

Which was a full break down of calls bills, telephone conversations.

 

 

This month Telewest agreed to write Off the £33 as they obviously know they are in the wrong, im sure if I could get my hands on my full Data Protection Act they would actually owe me alot of money.

 

Hope everyone has some good results, this brick wall of a company needs some good ole CAG action.

 

BL

How can they say they have no one to take care of Data Protection Act/S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) requests, did you send a letter to them giving them 40 days to comply with the £10 max fee??, a proper letter I mean that follows the templates on here??? if you did and they are outside this time limit, they are in breach of the DPA, report them to the Information Commissioner.

 

They cannot just bury their heads in the sand...it is a legal requirement to provide copies of any data they have on you.

 

Chris

[breadline]

yeap, yeap, and yeap.

 

Recieved to date, a list of conversation and costings, sounds similar to what Martin got further back on this thread. The person who sent this to me did so as it was all he could action in his department, and was the same person who advised little chance of getting my whole Data Protection Act fullfilled as there is no one to over see the requests.

 

My biggest concern is i want a copy of all my bills and costings for 6 years as i want to challenge the over charging, I already have proof of 1 but its a very small amount of £3.76ish a small amount.

 

There has been others and i need a copy of all my bills and calls to get to the bottom of it all.

 

I have now been advised i may be charged £5 per copy bill. Reason is the costing, apparently all 0800 numbers have to be deleted due to data protection in case any one is ringing help lines.

 

BL

PS please dont think me rude, have to log off now as useing the library i will reply again as soon as possible.

[buzby]

Okonski They waive the Non DD charge if you advise you are leaving the company and disagree with the amount.

 

I did, and they did. I call them every 12 weeks and they give me a credit of £12 to cover the non-DDM charges on subsequent bills - they had wanted to arrange this in arrears, but since I suggested the charge itself was probably illegal, the credit was received in advance.

 

One thing just struck me, with TW and NTL always charging for services in advance, we shouldn't forget that they've a cheek 'fining' you for a service you have yet to consume......!

[MARTIN3030]

Yes they certainly dont get S.A.Rs very often.

They were late returning mine and only did so after I e mailed them....it came by courier next day followed by lots of apologies and excuses.

I was told that it was not attended to as it was sent to their registered office....I thought this is the normal place to send documents to ?

 

I must admit I am fairly certain that I have got everything they have on file and was amazed at the sheer volume of paperwork which is split into 3 groups.

 

I still have not managed to find time to go through it all.

[chrismc]

The person who sent this to me did so as it was all he could action in his department, and was the same person who advised little chance of getting my whole Data Protection Act fullfilled as there is no one to over see the requests.

 

So if they do not have a specific data manager to look after these requests, the buck must stop at the Chairman.

 

I would write to him direct, state on your envelope it is Private and Confidential and send Recorded Delivery. But to be honest if they are outside the 40 days they are in breach of the DPA anyway, so why should you give them another chance?

 

For a Company of this size, these excuses just do not wash....this company is pathetic. they need teaching a lesson about their responsibilities under the current laws and legislation.

 

Martin

Have you got the same problem with them?

[MARTIN3030]

I had already been liasing with Kate Mappin on a prev matter (She is in the office of the CEO.)

 

Its all in my thread.

 

But yes Chris ....for a large communications company they seem to suffer very badly from inexperience of the business they are in...........and quite frankly their own interpretations of communications is very different to the defenition in the Oxford dictionary.

[Bookworm]

Well, that's hardly surprising, look at the banks' definition of "fair" and "transparent", never mind "lawful", lol.

[buzby]

I took additional advice regarding the differences between expenses against the losing party which appeared to be paid in Scotland but not in England & Wales, and the response from English Court Services went to great pains to point out that ALL losing litigants are liable to pay costs, unless the defender choses not to exercise that right. The following might be of interest;

 

"Remember if you have had the opportunity to settle this out of court and haven’t, you may not get your costs back, even if you win your case.

 

Costs will not be awarded by the court unless the successful party asks for them. This should be done when the judge is giving judgment. If there has not been a hearing, the successful party will need to write to the court asking for costs.

 

If a claim for more than £5000 is allocated to the small claims track, the winning party will be able to claim costs including solicitors' costs against the losing party."

 

A chat with the online service folk in Northampton (apologies, I had previously assumed this was Chesterfield) revealed the bulk of cases where the Pursuer loses, the defender invariably claims. Therefore, I'd like to renew my warning that taking an action and losing does not mean the cost ends there.

[MARTIN3030]

"Remember if you have had the opportunity to settle this out of court and haven’t, you may not get your costs back, even if you win your case.(Quote)

I spent 2 months asking them and THEY flatly refused

[Bookworm]

]"Remember if you have had the opportunity to settle this out of court and haven’t, you may not get your costs back, even if you win your case.

 

Correct, that comes under the vexatious part I was talking about, and why we give them 28 days (2x14 days) as per CPR recommendations.

 

Costs will not be awarded by the court unless the successful party asks for them. This should be done when the judge is giving judgment. If there has not been a hearing, the successful party will need to write to the court asking for costs.

 

Also correct, that's why we ask for costs when issuing court claim.

 

 

If a claim for more than £5000 is allocated to the small claims track, the winning party will be able to claim costs including solicitors' costs against the losing party."

 

See highlighted.

 

A chat with the online service folk in Northampton (apologies, I had previously assumed this was Chesterfield) revealed the bulk of cases where the Pursuer* loses, the defender invariably claims. Therefore, I'd like to renew my warning that taking an action and losing does not mean the cost ends there.

 

*Claimant doon here, btw.

 

The Defendant might claim does NOT mean that the judge will grant it. I can't really keep on thinking new ones of saying it!

 

Don't assume that the service folk in Northampton know the rules, btw, they are invariably helpful, but not always that knowledgeable.

 

Finally, from the forum FAQ:

 

Q. Is there any limit to the amount that I can claim?

 

A. No. If you keep your claim value under £5000 then the case should stay on the County Court Small Claims Track. This way, if you lose, you shouldn't be liable for costs.

 

and

 

Q. I'm worried about costs if I lose the case.

 

A. If your claim is less than £5000 then it will most likely be conducted within the Smalls Claims procedure of the County Court. Costs are not awarded either to the loser or to the winner unless the case is highly exceptional. The only costs you might lose are the cost of your summons and the reasonable travel expenses of the defendant.

If you win, the only costs you will receive will be your summons fee and your reasonable travel expenses.

 

and

 

Q. Supposing I have a lawyer. Can't I get the costs of that legal help?

 

A. No, but neither can the Defendant

 

I'm sorry, but I can't keep on finding ways to convince you if you've decided I'm wrong.

[buzby]

[quoteI'm sorry, but I can't keep on finding ways to convince you if you've decided I'm wrong.

 

Noooo - I'm just not wanting you to find yourself at the wrong end of a thread where the Pursuer lost and had to pay the Defandant's (capped) costs of the SCA, and get hit with dark mutterings that you advised to the contrary! This only spung from the (aparrent) differences between the E&W & Scottish systems, where in the latter the loser pays. As much as I'm enamoured with the explanation you give, there's a heck of a difference between a Defender not claiming expenses, and the established principle of the loser paying. I've seen nothing in the Moneyclaim website either that would reassure me that by losing the case, all I'd forfeit was my 'stake' money.!

 

Comparing the information on both E&W and S websites, the similarities are legion, with only the cash limits making the systems diverge in any respect - so normal caution would dictate that paying a Defender's expenses is/can be a reality and should not be ignored or assumed it'll never happen!. As such, I've decided to take on Sky in the Scottish Courts, on the basis that should they lodge any defence to an E&W Moneyclaim, I'd have to travel to Carlisle (as would they) to defend it. The train fare woulde cost more that the monetary claim I make!

[Bookworm]

Ok, you made me do this!!!!!

 

From "Small Claims Procedures: A Practical Guide" by Judge Patricia Pearl, Chapter 6 , page108:

The no costs rule

 

Basics:

 

The basic principle is that in Small Claims cases legal costs are not recovered by the winner.

The rules allow for the winner to be reimbursed for

• court fees paid (including allocation fees)
  
• the fixed costs shown on the summons, if a solicitor issued the proceedings, or up to £260 if it is an injunction case
  
• expert fees up to £200
  
• expenses incurred by the party and witnesses, including the reasonable cost of staying away from home for attending the hearing
  
• loss of earnings for the parties and any witnesses (up to £50 per day)

Any award for costs is discretionary, and the Disctrict Judge has the final say on whether costs and expenses are allowed in any particular case.

Further sums may be allowed if the District Judge comes to the conclusion that a party has behaved unreasonably.

The no costs rule does not apply to appeals.

 

There's a whole chapter on costs and it very much confirms what I said, which is that it is to the judge's discretion to award costs, ("overall discretion") and that the defendant can not recover their solicitors' costs ("Fixed costs are only relevant where a solicitor has issued the proceedings").

 

Can't say more than that, really. If you're thinking of suing in England, I strongly suggest you buy PP, it is invaluable for any E&W litigant.

 

Oh, an as for the expert's fees, the judge would have to agree in advance that an expert is to be present, and the key there is proportionality (Is his presence necessary, and is the expense justified?).

[MARTIN3030]

Lets hope that this is the clarification that can be inwardly digested.

[buzby]

Lets hope that this is the clarification that can be inwardly digested.

 

They have been - and whilst we seem to be singing from the same hymm sheet, it is the interpretation that is varying wildly. The quoted passage confirms that the winner of the case (who may be the defendant) is entitled to costs within the stated limits. The 'discretion' of the judge is taken in its true sense, not that the winning defender won't get any until the judge exceptionally decides in his favour!

 

My case against Royal Mail failed, and as the defendant, the solictor asked the judge that they be awarded full expneses, their costs (I'm told) were far in excess of the limit because of the 3-day hearing, but with the cap this was limited to the the maximum of £80, which as loser, I would have to pay. The Judge asked my view on this request, and I pointed out that at each stage of the proceedings, the Royal Mail showed ongoing bad faith in even not admitting that other bulk mail stolen by an employee at the mail centre (who had already been dismissed and prosecuted by way of a criminal trial) when confronted with proof. The judge concurred and USING HER DISCRETION refused RM's claim for expenses, saying that she ruled both parties had to carry their own costs - the first time I have lost an action and did not have to pay the winner's costs.

 

From the piece quoted earlier, if the defendant on winning does NOT request an order for costs - even if it is for their day off work and bus fare, it is their error, and I have seen judges remind them to make this request, then rule in favour of it once made. So both the S & EW legistlation are on a par - it was the absence of any directive that stated E&W losing litigants are outwith the scope of paying the winners capped expenses, and the true definition of judicial 'discretion' that resulted in this costs/no costs (for losing defendants) debate!

[Stillborn Crisps]

Oooh guys... calm down!

 

I'm glad I found this thread - I got a £10 late payment fee from NTL (Telco) yesterday - I didn't even realise they did this sneaky trick. Just going through my old statements I've found two more from April & July 06.

 

I too pay £1 paid month for the privelidge of paying them at a convenience to me, however, they stopped charging me this in Feb 2005??? I never asked them to, but I'm not complaining. It's interesting that within a year my line rental had gone up by £1 though. But if you get all your £4s back I'll deffo be starting some action!

 

I've been reading the thread for 1/2 hour and was hoping there'd be a result at the end, but I guess I'll have to wait.

 

I'll be calling NTL tomorrow to drop this month's £10, plus the previous two. Will post results later.

[Stillborn Crisps]

Hmmm... that was unpleasent, but I got the 3x£10 fees refunded over the phone. I'll list here what I did in case anyone else has 1 or 2 they want to clear.

 

The first girl was just in the billing department and was 'computer says no'. She did admit to the fees being penalties to make the customers pay on time. If only I could've recorded that! :-/

 

When I threatened to leave she said fine, but I'd need to phone the Customer Care team, who didn't start till 9am.

 

So I tried a different tack when I phoned them by just saying I wanted to close the phone account and although the guy was about to let me do it he said nonchelently 'Is there anything we can do to make you change your mind or are you quite adamant?'.

 

I explained about the latest charge, and pointed out I was unhappy as the reason I didn't pay it was coz my phone line was down at the time for 2 weeks (true).

 

He immediately said he'd refund it, so then I said about the other two charges, saying they were unjust. He said lots of companies did that now and he himself had just piad one for his credit card. I said just because other companies do it it didn't make it fair - I asked if he'd heard about people taking their banks to court and getting their unjust fees repaid and he ummed and ahhd.

 

He said he could refund me 2 of the three but not all 3, and that he shouldn't refund any at all, coz they're told not to.

 

I said I still wasn't happy, as even if I hadn't paid that bill for a year, the interest they would lose and the cost of communications to me wouldn't come to £10. I repeated that it was an unfair ammount.

 

He said he'd refund all three fees, but that I'd have to pay my bill on time from now on and he'd have to put a note on my account explaining this, so if I tried to get it refunded again the member of staff would be able to see.

 

But, I got the result I wanted! So thanks everyone for the motivation and giving me the lingo I needed to use.

[buzby]

As you found out - if you challenge it, you'll have it refunded. As for needing to record the call where staff admit it is a 'fine', this is so commonplace they accept it for what it really is - a 'fine' for a service that you pay in ADVANCE, so they've really lost nothing.

 

As for noting that you've been refunded and that's the l;ast time they'll do it - next time you call if that becomes an issue you can state you never agreed to it, and as it has already been established as a 'fine' no court would uphold due dilligence in their trying to recover that fee.

 

The problem is one of apathy - and fortunately not a problem for users of this forum. When you stick your head in the sand, all sorts of unlawful charges get added, then moved off to a debt collection agency where the bottom line is the amount owed, not the fact many of the amounts charged were bogus!

[breadline]

I dont think Telewest stand a chance with Debit collection with anyperson who knows what they owe and has paid what they owe. Which will always be alot less than Telewest ask for.

 

As with my case by the time thier empty threats get to the debit collection time limit, they have had to correct thier enthusiastic grabbing at charges and future service costs.

 

Only then do you see what the true bill is, but it takes a pain staking 3 months to get there in which time you are abused on the phone by untrained rude people.

 

My main problem with trying to get some sense form Telewest was, to many departments and no communications.

You could hold an hours converstaion with customer care one day and have call centre ring you and rudely say well theres nothing on your records regarding that call and £75 is now over due how would you like to pay.

 

When customer services has just corrected the account with you which is actually only owing £34.

 

Its pathetic, and im much more relaxed with them out of my life.

[MARTIN3030]

I have heard nothing since returning my allocation questionaire.......ny guess is that they are takung their time sending theirs in........yet I think a date should be given very soon.

 

In fact I think I will call the court and see if theres any news.

[MARTIN3030]

Ok just called......apparantly its awaiting the Judges dierctions as Telewest have not returned the AQ within the time limits.

Hope he does not give them more time to file.......and its always a possibility that he could rule a strike out. ;)

[buzby]

I would think it unlikeley any additional time would be given - that would be unfair! Fingers Xrossed!

[MARTIN3030]

Will let u know as soon as !

[Bookworm]

I would think it unlikeley any additional time would be given - that would be unfair! Fingers Xrossed!

 

The overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. In layman terms, it means that the time limits can be stretched to accommodate either party. It would be nice to think the judge will strike out the claim, but the most likely scenario is that if they come in with late paperwork, it will be allowed.

 

It is, however, and yet again, at the judge's discretion. They do have really a lot of latitude, don't they, come to think of it...

[MARTIN3030]

I was told that they would probably contact Telewest to give them a further chance to respond.

 

I am extremely miffed because I recall having my business tax taken to court by my council and getting no such extra time.

 

In addition I do not recall the baliffs being held off for 48 hours while I arranged payments.......as I hear so often on here.

 

There are cases ongoing even now where the baliffs have still not gone in 5 days after being instructed !!!

 

talk about one rule for one ..............

[buzby]

Ah - this 'discretion' thing. The trouble with this - especially with litigants in person is that they feel intimidated and want to go with the flow. After my third action I always resisted attempts at additional procedural delays, and even used a sneaky back door to prevent this happening when I suspected extra time would be requested.

 

I would either (1) Explain to the Sheriff that my claim was just and fair, I had given them ample time to resolve the issue prior to litigation and got nowhere, forcing me to raise the action in the first place. The fact that they STILL want additional time to 'get their act together' means that they have continued to hold in contempt my efforts in resolving the issue, and have extended this to the court. Only by rulling against their failure to file on time will the Defendant learn to take the matter seriously.

 

Now, this was done face-to-face in front of a Sheriff so I was able to get the action decided in my favour. If decided by staff behinf the scenes it is more difficult if you only find this out by letter, but then you can respond by saying you hope the judge notes your frustration in this matter and disallows any further attempts at delaying a judicial decision.

 

(2) I'm sure there is a judicial equivalent in E&W but after serving papers, you can still lodge an 'Incidental Application' which takes precedence and can often wrong-foot the Defender. This effectively allows you to amend the claim in its entirety - or just a section of it - for example you could use an IA to explain to the court that the Defender has shown bad faith and continues to do so, therefore you amend the amount claimed (double it, say). The judge then looks at your evidence of bad faith first, and if he agrees the case is found in your favour without the original part of your claim being discussed. This also holds true even if the Defender is represented. It was only when a firm of solicitors used it against me that I realised how useful it was.

 

As to the current matter - I think a letter to the court expressing dissatisfaction at the delaying tactics being used, would weigh heavily in your favour when it does go to court OR if you subsequently have judgement in your favour.