Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

ntl would not charge for a faulty box but they would charge for a scart lead not plugged in if you had called them out for no pics, for example.

Also where they are saying about the remote, it is for a replacement (as in you have lost the original 1) or you have abused it.

I think the down grade change is a little silly.

Also it cost about £50 for a tech visit (up to the knock on your door) so £10 for you not being in is acceptable IMO.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

I would argue its acceptable as long as the tech turns up when they are supposed to or someone from NTL has the decency to inform you that they will be late.

if the you wait in all day and then someone turns up a day later and they then tryed to charge you £10 then that wouldn't be acceptable.

Oh and charging for a scart lead being out.etc is ok becuase thats customers equipment, if the box is prooved to be faulty and they don't charge that is ok but that wasn't how it reads on the charges page (at least it wasn't when i last read it don't know if its changed since)

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Yes, you are absolutely correct, the current claim period is six years.

Moneyclaim online is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming for illegal charges.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Thanks for advice will contact them about this tommorow.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

All,

The downgrade service charge seemed to have hit a raw nerve with mosts folk when this thread started and I myself contacted ntl on a personal level and asked for this to be reconsidered and as a direct result of this and feedback posted, ntl have notified me this afternoon that they have had a change of heart and will be cancelling the downgrade service charge.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

:clap: :clap:

Well done Mick

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

I think you'll find that there'll be a lot of their new "service" charges being "reviewed".

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

nice job mick, I think that is one of ntl's strengths in that their is flexibility to change packages and that charge would have seriously reversed that.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Why is that? All the other charges are fair enough!

And Mick I agree with Bill :clap:

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

I've explained this previously on this thread.

The reason why they have / will have to review elements of their "proposed new charges" is because penalty charges, such as "downgrade charges" or "late payment" charges are illegal under existing "common" and "consumer credit" laws in that they do not represent liquidated or pre-estimated losses.

This is a matter of proven law, not a matter of debate (unless of course NTL, unlike any of the major banks or credit card companies in the UK, is prepared to disclose / quantify the breakdown of their liquidated losses per failed transaction in a court of law should a customer elect to challenge them to do so).

Some of the charges may seem "fair enough" given the circumstances outlined in their Press Release. However, I can assure you that the "late payment" and "downgrade" fees ,as mooted originally, are unenforcable under common law.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

You don't know that for sure - If you have a degree in law - I'd be happy to agree with you, but until then - I am sure ntl's legal team would of looked at all the avenues and would of advised ntl what is and what is unenforcable.

Regardless. the fact of the matter is - ntl have changed their minds on the downgrade charge, a change in decision that happened because I asked ntl to reconsider by highlighting the feedback posted on Cable Forum. :)

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Some replies to posts here.
Had a few glasses of wine so please excuse the format/spelling

@slef2003 post #51
I was stating that ntl always are responcilble for repairs to modems where as my adsl modem is my property and if found faulty after 12 months would a)be my problem to fix or b)incur a cost if a bt tech called and it was proved the modem was at fault.
@Chrysalis post #52
Genuine faults are always free to repair with ntl. However if:
Someone states they have washed the reomte its chargable.
Someones bunny/dog/cat damages the feed cable iot chargable.
Someones kid removes the scart card and they cannot be bohered to find it its chargable.
You will not be charged for genuine faults with the equipment but if you trip and pull the stb off the tv and it breaks you really should be iable for the cost of the call-out to change the equipment at the very least.
(all above are genuine examples taken by myself on the phone at ntl)

@Mr angry post #53
The charges do not in any way cover the cost of the credit control people hired to chase outstanding payments.
you quote £10 = 1 off dump of data not formatted at all.
£12 = 12 itemised bills posted seperatly.
I cannot see what you Are trying to say here :erm:
@Mr angry post #55
Ask your solicitor to write you a letter then try to attack whatever ntl charge for chasing late payments.
@dragon post #60
ntl faults will at all times try to resolve non box faults over the phone. They will only apply a charge where it is the fault of equipment owned by the customer. Regardless of how bad some of the guys and gals in faults are the techs that call will be able to make the call.
I spent 100's of hours researching different tv's/dvds/vcrs. I could talk a blind person through tuning there own tv to ntl and setting up dvd etc. Yet many able bodied lazy people decided that they though it was ntls job to come and set up there new dvd/tv? Always used to defeat me that one.
It costs more than £50 to send a tech to sort a problem at a customers house.
@Mick post #64
Well done :clap: customers should be able to chop and change services with out penalty.
@Mr Angry post #70
You assume that the computer automatically send a out a letter. What if as is more likely the case there is a collections department charged with contacting customers and chasing payments. Say the call with out usccess on 5 occassions then send a letter. What are the cost invloved by ntl in recovering that amount and do you think that people should be able to pay late?
And if you pay in advance for ntl are you using a'credit' facility?
I welcome anyone to try take a £10 charge through the courts. I can't see it getting anywhere. What lawyer would do that? What court would accept the escalation of a £10 charge into £1000's legal fees?

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Mick, with all due respect, I do know that for sure.

As I stated - it is a proven fact of common & consumer law that late payment and penalty charges are legally unenforceable if they do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated losses.

"Changed their minds" is company legalese for "sorry, we thought we'd get away with it".

I'm not privy as to whether or not NTL's legal team were consulted during the drafting of the proposed new charges, I very much doubt it, but I can confirm that they were contacted by an individual at Director level from NTL on Feb 8th who asked them to review the legality of certain proposed charges "as published". As a result it appears that the downgrade charge is the first of these proposed charges that will eventually be disposed of / waived.

Under the current legislation any information provided under the 1998 DPA must be provided to the applicant in a "legible" and "understandable format". Additionally - the current retention period in the UK is such that any previous 12 month period of statements ought to be available in their "standard format" at the push of a button. Any data controller who would be stupid enough to give out an unformatted response is asking for trouble.

What I'm saying is that NTL appear to think that it's entirely acceptable for them to charge you £12.00 for something as "a service" when it is available to you as "a right" under current law for £10.00. Multiply the £2.00 differential by the number of customers who are not aware of their rights under the DPA and, hey presto! some bean counter in business affairs has just generated millions in profits and got themselves a promotion.

I'm assuming nothing. What you outline above is an interesting analogy, but a poor defence. In a technological environment such as NTL's the prerequisite for the issuing of "reminders" is a moot point. Generally speaking most people "get the message" when their services are cut off. If they want their services reinstated they know exactly what they have to do. No need for telephone calls or letters on the part of NTL. In their defence they could possibly state that they send out reminders as a "courtesy". This falls under the gambit of "services", not liquidated losses and, as such, is not chargeable beyond the agreed terms of the contract.

Additionally, NTL themselves make no mention of the need for telephone calls or letters but simply state "If your bill is not paid in full when the subsequent bill is generated there will be a late payment fee of £10. These charges will become effective on 1st April 2006 and will appear as "Late Payment Fee" on your bill." This statement makes no distinction, where there quite obviously is a distinction, between those who only part pay a bill and those who pay nothing at all. Are NTL asking consumers to believe that they incur the exact same losses in both scenarios?

If it were a point of law then any court or lawyer would do it. There have been many thousands of cases where fixed penalty notices for sums varying from £10.00 and upwards have been contested in the courts at great expense (sometimes running into the tens of thousands). The fact of the matter remains that the law is there for everyone - irrespective of their financial standing. From a plaintiff's perspective they would need to be absolutely sure that the charge was legal. If a respondant felt that the charge was illegal it is then up to the courts to decide. As the current law stands late payment or penalty charges are illegal if they do not accurately reflect the liquidated losses of the party claiming them.

In light of this, and the fact that the previous quote from the NTL page makes no mention, whatsoever, of any attempt on their part to recover an outstanding balance or cost associated with doing so, then one can only assume that what they are proposing is that they were intent on charging customers ten pounds just for noticing, not for recouping or attempting to recoup, a shortfall or non-payment of their account. That is entirely unenforceable.

The legal affairs people currently studying this are affording consideration to the "in terrorem" (in lay persons speak a "warning" or "deterrent") nature of the proposed charge as detailed above. In its current wording, and for the reasons outlined above, it is unenforceable.

Thankfully I won't have to do that.

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

FWIW-I think Mr Angry is absolutely spot on. :tu:

There was a case recently wherby the banks were taken to court over high 'late payment' charges as the charges were in excess of what it actually cost the bank.

Basically, no one is allowed to charge excessively for a late payment & would lose in a court of law if challenged. :tu:

I have some info somewhere that I'll dig up shortly.

[Edit]

http://www.bankcharges.info/

http://idigital.vm.bytemark.co.uk/bag/

www.BankActionGroup.com

Stephen Home is the man that took the banks to court & won. :)

[Edit 2]

[Edit 3]

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...2&page=1&pp=10

Re: ntl Service Charges new!
 

Thanks for that Neil.

I assume you are talking about the case of Stephen Hone who won back all of his late payment / penalty charges for the last six years from the Abbey and walked away with a very tidy sum in damages.

Stephen's case is just one of several dozen successful actions which we are currently dealing with / advising on.

[Edit]

Yes, I see you are.