MARTIN3030 Virgin Media charges ROUND 3

[emmaf01]

I'm writing the latest prelim tomorrow- round 2 here we go! I have non-DD/PH charges back to 2003. It all adds up!

[MARTIN3030]

Good.

If there are charges that fall outside the 6 years,cover yourself by adding ....For the purpose of clarification,I acknowledge that there are some charges that fall outside 6 years.Should this matter proceed to litigation,I will seek to rely on Section 32 c of the limitation act in my submissions.

[emmaf01]

Luckily we joined Virgin/Telewest six years ago this week.

[MARTIN3030]

Ah ok.

[MARTIN3030]

Have filed mine at court today.

It is less than I thought,having gone over it again.

But with interest just over £250.

A wasted costs order should take it to around £350-which makes it all worthwhile.

 

I have addressed the limitations act in my pocs just to cover myself should that be raised.

[emmaf01]

My husband is wussing out with VM at the moment. He doesn't want to go for a second claim in case we get the chop!

 

And after I'd done the letter, spreadsheet, schedule, written the envelope, etc.

[MARTIN3030]

They darent give you the chop.

[havinastella]

Sent my LBA last week, b@stards have been phoning all week. I tell them I want that in writing or will not discuss.

 

N1 WILL be submitted on the 14th day

 

Jogs

[MARTIN3030]

Ha Ha-Yes I thought so.

The amazing thing is that each time my claim has been in Court,calls have continued from call centres asking me to sort out the account.They do not appear to understand what litigation means.My services have been restricted since the end of January no phone TV or internet-I wanted my charges reconciling to the bill outstanding but they didnt listen.

I now have 2 or 3 months advance charges for which I have had no services.

But I warned them against adverse action...

[havinastella]

Ha Ha-Yes I thought so.

The amazing thing is that each time my claim has been in Court,calls have continued from call centres asking me to sort out the account.They do not appear to understand what litigation means.My services have been restricted since the end of January no phone TV or internet-I wanted my charges reconciling to the bill outstanding but they didnt listen.

I now have 2 or 3 months advance charges for which I have had no services.

But I warned them against adverse action...

 

 

Funny that

 

That turned my services off early last night, I normally get until the 5th to pay, it went very silent last night.

 

I pay another £119 this morning, I have the full works, VIP, phone, XL broadband. They WILL lose me, as soon as they pay my court claim, I'm using the money to get sky+, with another 2 extra boxes.

 

If they just paid up, I'd stay. Idiots

 

 

JOgs

[emmaf01]

I think my other half will change his mind when he stops being so stressed with the flu.

 

We also get the works from VM, but as we are paid 4 weekly, we can't do DD (and I only have two DD's- don't give my bank details to anyone I don't HAVE to).

 

They did threaten to chop us during negotiations during the last claim, until I mentioned regulatory bodies frowning on that and compensation. If they hadn't syarted giving us more late payment charges, when they said due to circumstances they wouldn't, I wouldn't be going for it again. And adding all the non-DD charges too.

[MARTIN3030]

Wow superfast-looks like my Court is working overtime.

Claim served 31.March they have until April 16 to acknowledge-which will be done by Legal affairs.

[MARTIN3030]

VM credit management called me offering to take off £130 right away !!

I told them to ask their CEO why they could not offer anything when I was writing letters ?

So all too little too late.

Its a pity that these people dont talk to eachother.....considering this is a communications company they should be tidying up in their own back yard:rolleyes:

[what_todo]

i have had virgin phone net telly now for 6 months now. after reading whats been said the £5 for not paying via DD is a unfair charge.

 

does that give me grounds to end my conrat with virgin as i am, looking for a way out. Also, i was sent a paper conrat to signed but, it never got returned.

[buzby]

Martin - not that old joke about a communications company not communicating... again! It's just incompetence,and they ALL suffer from it to varying degrees!

 

What todo - your problem is who SAYS it IS an 'unfair charge'? Not OFCOM (yet) not the courts (for BT, anyway - still awaiting info on VM). It's only classed as unfair if it isn;t avoidable or you weren't told, and they're squeaky clean on both those. We need court ruling that ensures consumers are NOT held responsible for supposed costs of remitting.

 

What's next - employers telling staff of a pay cut, to help pay for the costs of paying their salary?

 

It's not a reason to beak a contract, as it is one of their T&Cs and shown accordingly.

[what_todo]

Martin - not that old joke about a communications company not communicating... again! It's just incompetence,and they ALL suffer from it to varying degrees!

 

What todo - your problem is who SAYS it IS an 'unfair charge'? Not OFCOM (yet) not the courts (for BT, anyway - still awaiting info on VM). It's only classed as unfair if it isn;t avoidable or you weren't told, and they're squeaky clean on both those. We need court ruling that ensures consumers are NOT held responsible for supposed costs of remitting.

 

What's next - employers telling staff of a pay cut, to help pay for the costs of paying their salary?

 

It's not a reason to beak a contract, as it is one of their T&Cs and shown accordingly.

 

 

fair point.

 

after reading virgin Terms and conditions for residential customer service agreement from Virgin Media: Company Terms and Conditions (On Cable)

and reading part F

 

 

F Paying for your services

 

 

1. You must pay the charges for the services as set out in our price guides or as otherwise notified to you, together with any value added tax or other applicable taxes. We can change the charges as set out in paragraph H3, but if we do so, this may entitle you to end this agreement. You can read more about this in paragraph J3. All payments by you should be made to Virgin Media Payments which will provide you with all necessary payment handling services. Virgin Media Payments agrees to collect and process all payments made by you to it promptly and ensure that they are applied in settlement of the charges to which they relate. Virgin Media Payments may charge you a separate service fee for collecting and processing such payments as provided in paragraph F4© below.
   
2. We may ask you to make initial payments and/or a deposit, either through a Virgin Media sales representative in person or over the phone through a Virgin Media telesales representative.
   
3. You must ensure that your payments are received by Virgin Media Payments by the due date for payment shown on your bill. If you do not pay your bills on time, you will be liable to interest or other charges for your default. We may also charge you the full amount of any bill and you may lose any discount we have given you. We will also suspend or cancel the services and charge you the costs of debt-recovery proceedings to recover any debt you owe under this agreement.
   
4. Bills


1. Under this agreement, if you ask for any changes to the services we provide, these changes will be reflected by adding proportionate amounts to your first bill after the change and to your payments every month after that.
   
2. You may choose to pay your bills by cash, cheque, credit or debit card, or by Direct Debit.
   
3. Virgin Media Payments will provide you with payment handling services and unless you pay by Direct Debit you agree that Virgin Media Payments shall charge you a separate payment handling charge each month for processing your payment.
   
4. If any cheque or Direct Debit of yours is cancelled or is not cleared by your bank or building society, we are entitled to charge you a default fee and the provisions of paragraphs F3 and F4© will also apply.
   
5. You may choose to receive an E-bill instead of a paper bill. If you choose a paper bill, you agree that we may charge you a separate charge each month.
   
6. You must provide us with a valid and current e-mail account to use E-billing. The accuracy of that e-mail address is entirely your responsibility. You shall remain fully liable for any bills of which notification has been sent to your e-mail address.
   
7. We reserve the right to refuse use of the E-billing service to anyone for any reason whatsoever in our absolute discretion. Further, we reserve the right to modify or discontinue (permanently or temporarily) the E-billing service to you or all recipients at our discretion.
   
8. You shall remain fully responsible and liable to pay any bills of which notification has been sent to the e-mail address you have specified regardless of whether or not you access that e-mail account and read the relevant e-mail, are disconnected from your e-mail account (for any reason and whether by us or otherwise) or for any other reason (other than our negligence) fail to read the relevant notification.
   
9. We cannot guarantee uninterrupted and/or reliable access to the E-billing service and make no guarantees whatsoever as to its operation, availability, functionality, that it will be free of error or disruption or otherwise.
   
10. You agree to use the E-billing service responsibly.
    
11. We normally send reminders for late bill payments. We may charge interest at the yearly equivalent of 4% over Barclays Bank plc's base rate for the whole period of any late payment. The interest is worked out daily.
    
12. If you want to change any of the services agreed to, we may charge you an administration fee. We will notify you of the amount of any such charge when you request the change.
    
13. We may ask for any deposit at any time (as we believe to be reasonable in the circumstances) as security for the equipment and in case you do not pay our bills or return our equipment. All or any part of this deposit may be used to pay any charges you owe under this agreement. We may (but do not have to) return your deposit after six months if we believe that you have a good payment history. We will usually (but not necessarily) consider you to have a good payment history if you have paid your account for six months in a row without your services having been restricted, suspended or disconnected and you are not having to pay under a payment plan.
    

 

also part F 4.C says

 

"Virgin Media Payments will provide you with payment handling services and unless you pay by Direct Debit you agree that Virgin Media Payments shall charge you a separate payment handling charge each month for processing your payment"

 

but it dose not say on how much this charge is.

 

martin3030, does this help you??

[emmaf01]

And didn't the banks put a bit in their contracts about charges?

 

I thought that was why we had UTCCR? Plus T&Cs have changed frequently over the last six years with Telewest/VM. I never agreed to traffic shaping either. Or Phorm.

[Bookworm]

Absolutely, Emma. It's not "only classed as unfair if it isn't avoidable or you weren't told", there are plenty more things which would make terms unfair:

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

 

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

 

 

• (a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;
   
  (b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;
   
  © making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;
   
  (d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;
   
  (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
   
  (f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;
   
  (g) enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;
   
  (h) automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
   
  (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;
   
  (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;
   
  (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;
   
  (l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;
   
  (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;
   
  (n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;
   
  (o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;
   
  (p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter's agreement;
   
  (q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
   
  

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

bearing in mind that these are NOT exhaustive terms, so there is plenty of scope for more terms to be unfair. ;-)

 

 

 

 

.

[buzby]

However, regarding the matter at hand, none of those points mentioned additionally have any real relevance to the OP. Whilst it is quite possible to provide copious amounts of (largely) irrelevant information, I've often found cutting to the chase instead of irrelevancies pays dividends, but I suppose you would disagree.

[Bookworm]

No, I have found that providing correct information actually gets results. Then again, I suppose you'd disagree.

 

Non-exhaustive means that. Saying that the charges can "only" be unfair if they fall within the short 2 parameters you describe is misleading and potentially will lead people wanting to challenge VM down a path where they think they can't reclaim. That would be a shame, as most of us by now know better than that. ;-)

[emmaf01]

I think we will be claiming for Non-DD fees as well as the late payment fees as for us the non-DD fees are unavoidable. We cannot do DD due to circumstances and don't see why we should be penalised for not giving VM access to our bank account whenever they wish. If they consistently charged us the same amount or we received a bill on time to tell us what we supposedly owe it might be different.

 

This new paper bill charge will also be unavoidable as we tried their e-billing service(?) and couldn't get access to our bills for over a year. Cue late payment fees out the wazoo. Either way VM wins.

[MARTIN3030]

Raymond you mention OFCOM ?

They might have said that they were satisfied with the fiver non dd charge-but lets look at the OFT who said they were ok with credit card issuers fixing their charges at 12 quid.

That does not mean its not open to challenge....they are still not prepared to show their cards.

Can I ask you just to clarify if you personally think that a fiver is what it DOES cost them ?

You seem so defensive of these charges its time that you put your cards on the table-are you FOR or AGAINST ?

[MARTIN3030]

Going back to my claim....I have had more calls inviting me to sort things out and pay something.My account has been levied with more and more charges even since it was in dispute.

My claim was issued only AFTER a final response from the ppl that it was passed to from CEO level.

I get a phone call today from their credit management team threatening me with doorstep calls from Moorcroft and terminating my account.

I reminded the person that since it was in Court already they should refrain from such action.

They were having none of it.

I then sent an email to the CEOs office asking why they had told their credit management that the matter had been resolved ?

Shortly after I had a phone call on my mobile advising them that it was out of their hands.

So my understanding is that they are not familiar with OFT guidelines.....Let them send Moorcroft to my house and see what happens-I will be very happy to report them as well.

Meanwhile I will now be filing an injunction against VM in court to prevent this action.

They have picked on the wrong one here.

As you will appreciate-my updates here will now be restricted,I will report when able but for now its not appropriate to comment further.

I believe VM are now active on this forum and their behaviour in my case is quite intimidating.

I will use all available avenues to put a stop to that I dont care how big or powerful they think they are.

[buzby]

That does not mean its not open to challenge....they are still not prepared to show their cards.

Can I ask you just to clarify if you personally think that a fiver is what it DOES cost them ?

You seem so defensive of these charges its time that you put your cards on the table-are you FOR or AGAINST ?

 

I think if you have to ask that question, you are not paying attention! I'm against DD's (always have been) as it removes financial control from the consumer, yet when push comes to shove - they are the first to be wrung out to dry when it goes wrong.... no consequential loss, no right of rejection of a debt because the supplier had a valid DD to take payment, but didn't, exposing the consumer to a wrecked credit file that cannot be 'cleaned' because the information was a 'true reflection' of the account status.

 

Why am I defensive? A fiver for a non DD payment is wholly unreasonable - even the amount they actually charge me (after rebate) at £1.50pm is marginally better (£13.50pa instead of £60) but this makes my point. I - personally - will find it difficult to challenge them in court, as the amount they charge ME could be deemed 'reasonable'. The fact they charge others £60pa places them in a better position, but as we've seen with the 2 publicised BT decisions, they have worked against us.

 

As for OFT being 'higher' than OFCOM, again this isn't an issue. OFCOM has said it is dealing with the matter, so the OFT isn't going to take on any additional workload, as it can defer to OFCOMs ongoing 'consultation' in the matter.

 

Look at the current pantomime regarding the bank charges case. If you seriously think - after the recent bank collapses - that the taxpayer is going to fund the repayment of fees said to be overcharged in the past for O/d and late fees, I'd eat my hat (if I had one). There will be a 'compromise solution' where the fees will be reined in, but no liability to repay for past indiscretions. Just watch!

[MARTIN3030]

The remainder of the Test case is the decision as to whether the OFT should be allowed to test the fairness of bank charges.

Its expected that the banks will again lose on appeal-surely if any deal was on the table then it would have been sorted by now.The banks have until mid April to get in their defences,so that leaves little time for compromise.

The reason that the schedule of appeal has been moving so quickly in my opinion is that the Lords want this sorted before the October recess.

That would seem to tie in with the OFT announcements that they expect to be making some decisions/announcements later this year.

So since the Courts will not be deciding on the rates of what could be deemed as fair,then just like credit card claims,it will still be open for customers to demand disclosure in the Courts,since any OFT decisions or guidance will have no real statute in law.