[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

However the company does have the legal right to charge a fee to cover its costs in enforcing the payment of the bill, and these costs must be reasonable.

Enforcing the payment of a bill is entirely different from awaiting payment of a bill. Should a company elect to engage a third party to enforce the payment of a bill then they are within their rights to pass the associated cost to the debtor.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

You'll notice the credit card companies have started using £12 as a ballpark figure after the recent rulings, therefore it's a fair bet that £10 would be equally deemed reasonable to cover the increased costs involved in chasing a debt.

The £12.00 is not "deemed reasonable" in law - nor was it a ruling. It is simply the opinion of the OFT who mooted it as a threshold charge. The OFT further go on to state that "a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold."

Of all the banks and credit card companies who have been challenged on this matter not one has felt confident enough to offer a settlent based on deductions made for "a reasonable" £12.00 per charge. That, in conjunction with the aforementioned legal reference made by the OFT, tells us something.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Having said that, as has already been pointed out, if the charges DO turn out to be illegal, there is only one alternative...doing what the credit card companies do and printing a "payment must be RECEIVED by" date on the bill, which would be 14 days after the bill date (it did used to appear on them at one time). If payment is not RECEIVED and CLEARED by that time - the services go off, no warnings, no negotiation, and will NOT be reinstated until the money is received.

That would certainly be a much more logical procedure to follow. However, based on consumer ignorance as far as their rights go, NTL are quite happy to continue charging and banking monies accrued on the basis of an illegal "Late payment fee".

I say "illegal" because until such time as NTL provide a factual breakdown of the costs they maintain late payment cost them to administer we can only assume they have something to hide. I mean to say, if someone at NTL has actually sat down and figured out that it cost them £10.00 (exactly, strangely enough) for each late payment then why don't they just agree to have that breakdown scrutinized in a court of law the next time someone threatens them with court action? Perhaps that's just a bit too logical for NTL?

Originally Posted by scrotnig

At the end of the day, people should pay the damned bill and stop trying to take the mickey. If they can't afford to pay, then cancel the services. Late payments simply put up MY bill, which I object to! Why should I subsidise loafers and shirkers?

Your issue at the end of the day is with NTL, not late payers. As you yourself have pointed out above there is an easy remedy to this - no payment, no services. It would appear, however, that the prospect of making a legally dubious ten pounds extra from late payers is more important to NTL than providing you or me with value for money.