Originally Posted by popper (Post 34245951)

ROFL ,your so funny LostintheNW :D

you make the statement about your UK? 'law degree' and imply to the readership your degree is in consumer contract law/Civil Law(i.e generic consumer T&C text) but dont seem to have read the current T&C and so have seen several clauses there that are open to question.

did you forget your oath ?,
"The oath states: "I (Member’s Name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law. So help me God."
The affirmation states: "I (Member’s Name), do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law.""

while i am the only one so far to mention 'small claims' so you apparently are refering to me, in the 'spouting words', 'google search'
and in your opinion 'think they know it all'.

ill just point out it is you that is spouting your elitist 'MY law degree'
and how that somehow makes you better than the average reader here.

its interesting to note however that given the average peoples willingness to learn, and in doing so might use google or any other form of reference to gain insight and true facts as related to a given subject, they dont usually feel the need to spout elitist dogma.

"Please note that Roman Law/Civil Law, Conflicts of law and Notarial Practice are not usually studied on a standard law degree course or in the course of training to become a solicitor or barrister, hence most applicants will need to study these subjects. It is of course open to any applicant to seek exemption from these subjects too, should they have the relevant experience. "
http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/more_notaries.asp

as the holder of your (whatever?)law degree, is it not your place to take your clients claim/court action and place that before the court (to the best of your ability?), and its the courts and the magistrates/judges place to determine IF the client has a case OR NOT,and rule on that, not yours.

interesting that even judges, use reference books to look up the law as they are wise enough to realise they can not ever know all there is to to know about the given subject..., but perhaps your special and you have a photographic memory. :dunce:

Originally Posted by andyr2005 (Post 34245917)

Hi,

I believe I am on UBR 1, Northeast Gateshead.

Originally Posted by clarkey (Post 34247421)

Hello all, just a view from someone who's been dealing with courts for years (and I'm not claiming to be an expert in anything, so that saves me re-taking my exams on this forum)

I think there are some reasonable arguments on both sides here, and some universal truths - like the only people who will really benefit (financially) are the solicitors, should this go to court, whoever runs it - trading standards etc.

As an observation, I get the feeling that there's an element of "If you don't like it move on" and all this talk of terms and conditions feels pretty defeatist.

Yes I'm sure Virgin Media et al have paid some very expensive solicitors to write their terms and conditions, which customers do indeed sign up to. I'm also sure that the major high street banks paid some expensive solicitors to draw up their terms and conditions, which a lot of us signed up to also. Yet now we see hundreds (if not more) of people reclaiming the charges imposed upon them by the banks, as they have now been deemed to be unreasonable.

The point I'm making is that just because something is in the terms and conditions and just because you signed up to them doesn't always mean you're on a hiding to nothing. Because something is in the terms & conditions it doesn't make it right (beyond reproach) and so therefore is not always a fait accomplis.

For me it's about:

A customer has signed up for 10mb but consistently getting 1mb.

Now we can (and have) go all around the houses arguing about how much evidence there is/needs to be and how much Virgin Media have done to compensate the customer. That's a matter to consider if pursuing an action.

For me it's all about reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a customer paying for (up to) 10MB to expect to get close up to 10MB on a consistent basis. I think so.

Is it reasonable for a business to provide a tenth of the service they led you to believe you'd get (and the advertising does influence this expectation) and then claim that it's OK because it's covered in the T&C's. I really don't think so.

For me, you have to think in terms of the type of service being offered when it comes to the T&C's. Mission to mars - it's fairly reasonable to include you might not come back in one piece. Whilst providing BB no doubt has it's troubles (hence the 'up to'), it's not an untested science or a risky mission and therefore one can expect to pretty much get what you pay for. If you don't you should be able to get redress from the supplier.

I whole heartedly agree with the friendly method of resolution (letter/calls etc) and tend to think this would resolve the matter. Virgin knows the real cost of negative publicity and to be fair may really want to resolve the issue anyway.

That said, if they don't/won't resolve it, should we as customers challenge that or simply accept it was covered in the T&C's. Personally I'd challenge it.

There have been lots of things in history that have been legal. Attitudes change and so does the law.

Hope you get a satisfactory resolution. :)

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34245514)

Would a publican sell beer in volumes of "up to one pint"?

Originally Posted by LostintheNW (Post 34246045)

Sorry but if the T&C's were in anyway ambiguous then they are not legally binding and therefore anyone can walk away

Originally Posted by andyr2005 (Post 34244695)

Hi,

I am just posting this cause I am in the process of starting legal proceedings against Virgin Media, basically, I have been paying for the 10MB broadband service since July 2006, and since then have had nothing but problems. I have since been made aware, that a problem was reported on the UBR I was connected to in June 2006, and since then, to this present date has not been checked/repaired or upgraded, yet I have had several engineers out to my house and re-wire the premises and even change my modem as I was always told it was down to a fault on my end.

After this time, and many many complaints sent to Virgin Media's head office, and no responses, I am now going to under take legal action under their own Terms and Conditions and Code of Practice, both of which they have broken since I joined their service back in July 2006. At the end of the day, I am doing this not only for myself, but it seems that Virgin are so contempt at breaking their own rules, and providing the customer with lac-luster services.

Please, let me know of any problems and the length of time you have been suffering, just so I can get some more information on this, as it seems the only way to get something done, is for someone to take legal action and give them a swift kick in the balls.

Thanks, Andrew Robinson.

Originally Posted by irish beauty (Post 34509091)

hi andrew. i really fo hate to say this but your dates are all wrong. first things first 10mb bbnd was not rolled out across the country until late 2006, so up until then you would only have been receiving 4mb. to agree with everyone else why not disconnect, if you have had ongoing problems with your broadband and your telephone then why keep keep the service you do not like.

this may sound really obvious, have you come to a deadlock situation with Virgin media. if not you will be unable to take them to cisas. if this is not reached whereby you and Virgin media do not come to an agreement then they will refuse the case. they will decide whether to take on your case.

you can receive upto 10mb depending how far you live from the junction boxes. i highly doubt you will win. good luck

Originally Posted by Zeph (Post 34244714)

lol