Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
|
I don't need to - Those charges exist and are happening - they aren't proposed or charges to be planned - They exist and are going to happen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Hardly correct.
|
Very correct.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
In your opinion they would be. BTW - It's not proposed, the charges are going ahead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
See above - and you would accuse me of arguing black is white.
|
Spot on because you are. Your wrong that ntl doesn't take notice of feedback from this forum - I have shown you examples why you are wrong and you are still saying ntl don't. Pfft, whatever.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
You haven't explained anything to me - I don't need anything to be explained.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you regarding the late payment charge - This little debate between me and you started because you pointed out to me, quite arrogantly - that you think ntl don't take any notice of some of the feedback posted on this forum - I have shown you incidences where they do and you still dismiss it as rubbish-Clue it isn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
It's not my opinion, it's a matter of law.
|
Regardless. the fact of the matter is - ntl have changed their minds on the downgrade charge, a change in decision that happened because I asked ntl to reconsider by highlighting the feedback posted on Cable Forum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
Regardless. the fact of the matter is - ntl have changed their minds on the downgrade charge, a change in decision that happened because I asked ntl to reconsider by highlighting the feedback posted on Cable Forum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
but I really don't want to get into contractual interpretation with you.
|
In the words of Catherine Tate.....
Am I bovvered? Ask me if I'm bovvered. Go on, ask me if I'm bovvered. Ask me. Ask me if I'm bovvered.
No, I ain't even bovvered!!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
Regardless. the fact of the matter is - ntl have changed their minds on the downgrade charge, a change in decision that happened because I asked ntl to reconsider by highlighting the feedback posted on Cable Forum.
And....
BTW - It's not proposed, the charges are going ahead.