Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
A TV programme dedicated to busting rip off companies is hardly going to feature someone complaining to them, them investigating it and finding that the complainant was lying.
A woman who no longer needed broadband because she was moving house would hardly enquire about upgrading her speed.
I suspect that much of this could be down to the offshore call centre staff twisting what's been discussed in order to boost their commission.
It was these that offered me X service at Y price, which I agreed to. Then my bill came and it was completely different to what i'd agreed to. I always say that I want things to be summarised on my notes, but this strategy no longer works as when I complained they had written false information on there to cover their tracks.
I stood my ground and eventually got it corrected and received some extra channels by way of an apology, so people mustn't give up when this happens or it will only encourage malpractice.
---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------
This is essential when doing business with Virgin.
|
Where did I say either of them were looking to upgrade?
1st case:- If she had actually moved, then why did the ombudsman rule in VM's favour? VM wouldn't have contested it, if should could prove that she had moved and not simply
planned to move. No mention of her actually moving.
2nd case:- She asked to reduce her package by removing the landline. VM said that wasn't possible. She was issued with a new 18th month contract(letter was in the programme) including M250 broadband. She found prices elsewhere that were cheaper and decided to cancel. She cancelled via email, which is not valid. The programme made a big deal about that. BT and Vodaphone also don't allow cancellation via email.