[clarkey]

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.