Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mick
Not in this case it isn't - ntl have changed their minds on the downgrade fee because of the feedback received and comments posted on this forum.
|
Mick, I'm really sorry to burst your bubble here but if you want to claim that you, or comments (numbering less than seventy at the time of your announcement) on this forum, useful though it is, were the catalyst for NTL backtracking on one of their proposed (yes, I said proposed) charges then you are welcome to do so.
The more rational / logical users of this forum, having read my previous post on the matter, will, in all probability, realize that a director at NTL, acting on the basis of legal advice received from an independant third party on February 8th, instructed NTL's legal affairs to look into the matter, which they did, and continue to do. Their initial finding was to immediately scrap the proposed (there, I did it again) downgrade charge for the reasons which I previously cited.
If you think that some "feedback", sixty odd posts by less than a dozen users of this forum and a nod and a wink from you would swing the collective mindset of the NTL board of directors then good on you. Me, my money is on the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mick
I don't.
|
That being the case then I'd like to think that NTL are currently seeking to engage new counsel more adept, in fact even basically competent, at understanding the fundamentals of consumer contract law.
---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mick
What press release? Proposed charges? The page you have seen is not a press release or set of proposed charges - it is a page that consists of actual charges that exists now and some new from April 1st, except now the downgrade fee will now not be going ahead.
|
Ah, I see, now you're opting for pedantic rather than factual. Since perhaps
you didn't see the Press Release let me entertain you. If we can agree that today's date is February 25th 2006 and that there are new charges intended to be implemented on April 1st 2006 I fail to see how (given that they are as yet unimplemented) they are not proposed (oops!) charges.
The facts of the matter still stand.
Penalty and late payment charges which do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated losses are illegal under current consumer law. No one who has ever challenged these charges on that basis in a court of law, as evidenced by the links provided by Neil, has ever lost their case or not been reimbursed. These are facts.
I've been (perhaps too) clear on this matter since its announcement and I know that NTL are currently seeking their own counsel on the matter but I would offer the following.
Irrespective of the outcome of the advice they are currently receiving should they elect to apply a £10.00 "late payment" charge they will invariably be met with a substantial number of county court claims for reimbursement and costs from their slightly more "clued in" customers.
They can dress it up as they like but (and this, to my mind, is proof of the non involvement of legal counsel prior to the time of publication) they clearly identified this proposed charge, in their own terminology, as a "Late payment fee". What solicitor in his or her right mind would allow a client to shoot themselves so clearly in the foot by advocating the publication of such a self defeating statement? It beggars belief.
In the long term NTL needs to decide if the potential short term profits from such an exercise outweigh the potential costs, bad publicity and legal overheads in trying to overturn an already established tenet of consumer law. They would do well to take stock of the rather nasty predicament that the eight major banks in the UK now find themselves in as a result of their indifference to, and abuse of, consumer rights as far as "late payment" charges go.
It's not rocket science.