[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have. Look at that page!!!

Have a look in the dictionary

proposed
adj : planned for the future; "the first volume of a proposed series" [syn: projected]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proposed

Originally Posted by Mick

Tough - I brought these to your attention whether you was interested or not because you are ignorant to the fact that ntl do take notice of what is posted on this forum and make operational changes where they can.

Hardly correct.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...715#post679715

Originally Posted by Mick

I am not trumpet blowing, just merely proving to you that you would have lost your money, putting it on the law regarding the downgrade charge being cancelled.

Irrespective of how you look at it the proposed (now abandoned) charge, had it been implemented, would have been illegal under current consumer contract law.

Originally Posted by Mick

Everytime you say proposed I am going to correct you - It's not proposed the charges are going ahead.

See above - and you would accuse me of arguing black is white.

Originally Posted by Mick

If you say so.

This may surprise you but it's equally boring for me having to explain the same thing over and over again to someone who cannot, or does not want to, grasp that late payment charges are illegal.

Originally Posted by Mick

It hasn't proven anything to me - that case that was highlighted is a different set of circumstances, like any court case would be. In your opinion they are illegal.

Mick, this is a black and white issue. Stephen Hone's case is not unique - there have been hundreds of successful cases in the last twelve months alone and there are many dozens ongoing as we speak - none have lost their case. Stephen's case was highlighted because his was the first where a court not only found in his favour and agreed that late payment charges were illegal but they also awarded him several thousand pounds in compensation - my earlier post refers. If a ruling in law can't suffice in proving to you that late payment fees are illegal I don't see what higher form of authority can.

The circumstances of the origination of the charges (in Stephen's case a bank) are of no consequence. What was taken to task at law was the late payment charge elements which were disadvantageous to him as a consumer and contrary to the protection afforded to him under consumer contract law.

It's not my opinion, it's a matter of law.

Originally Posted by Mick

BTW - It's not proposed, the charges are going ahead.

You know what to do by now.

Originally Posted by Mick

I might well do that but I doubt he would want to waste time debating with someone who would argue that black is white.

The offer on my part still stands - and, for what it's worth, in our exchanges to date I'm the one who has provided factual proof and instances of consumers asserting their rights under consumer contract law. Call it "arguing black is white" if you wish. Some, myself included, refer to it as right or wrong, legal or illegal.

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

The one off charge is relating to an installation charge to have a second box installed.

I raised that very same issue in one of my first posts on this matter. You'd think that the legal affairs people, who you are so adamant were involved in the drafting, would have identified this particular issue as being a bit of a slip up. It still reads "There will be a one off..." but I really don't want to get into contractual interpretation with you.

Mick, lets just agree to disagree. The fact of the matter is that if NTL go ahead with this proposed late payment charge then there will be a backlash from consumers who know their rights under current consumer contract law.


FOOTNOTE for Rob C & Chris W.

NTL might well have been able to put forward a case based on costings, of that I have no doubt.

The matter at hand is the issue of whether it would have been legal for them to charge you money (even a one off fee) for a lesser degree of services received. Consumers have the right to determine what services they require from providers, it's called "elective choice".

The terminology is key. NTL proposed a "Downgrade" fee and also proposed charging customers for electing not to avail of certain services. Under current law this is restrictive and contrary to consumers freedom of choice in that it asserts that receiving less will cost you more.

Customers would have been well within their rights to contest that they were being punatively penalized for no longer wanting certain services - in effect a restriction of "free" choice in the consumer market place. Once someone charges you for making a choice it's no longer free - simple as.

As I mentioned earlier their own admission and publication of a proposed "late payment fee" will, if eventually implemented, be causing them headaches in years to come (internet cache and "save as" are wonderful things) as disaffected consumers present copies of that page along with their court filing documents and cite, by way of just one example, the case of Hone vs Abbey, 2005 on the matter of late payment fees and the subsequent legal ruling thereof.