I raised a point in another thread about the standard NTL policy of crediting back excess charges against future bills...
Ok - bear with me if I give a bit of background waffle first...In my case NTL issued a new unrequested 12 month contract to me 6 month into my exisitng 12 month agreement. I moved house at this point, but that should not have changed the contract as NTL specifically state that contracts and direct debits continue as usual. Interestingly, the new 12 month contract they sent had a 40% tariff increase. Unbeknown to me NTL also cancelled my direct debit.
When I phoned customer services to complain I was told the bill sent with the new contract would be rectified and a new contract would be sent reaffirming my exisiting agreement. However, before this occured NTL disconnected me for non payment.
A couple of points:
- NTL had debited my account under the terms of my existing (signed by me) contract only one month previous to the disconnection
- If I paid the bill relating to the new contract it would signal my acceptance of the new 12 month agrement with 40% price hike. Paying that bill would make that contract legally binding. Hence, I was not prepared to do that.
- I went to great lengths to pay for the month's services under the original contract terms but NTL made this impossible, refusing to resissue the bill and telling me I had to pay the incorrect bill in order to be reconneceted.
Now, in later weeks after I had been disconnected, NTL suggested that I must pay the original incorrect bill in full as the excess had been/would be credited against subsequent months service. So, what they wanted was for me to pay the initial overcharge, and then continue paying slightly reduced amounts for the months in which i was disconnected - despite the disconnection being due to their error! So they were trying to force me to pay according to the unrequested new contract
and pay for months of non-service too!
Q. What is this NTL policy of crediting back excess charges over time all about?
Is it simply that the company are refunding genuine errors and thus behaving responsibly?
Say NTL overcharge me or you £15, and return that £15 over 3 months in the form of phone services offered at a reduced rate.
- NTL are not returning the £15 as such, but telecom services valued by them as equivalent to £15. Meanwhile the obliging customer must continue paying for other services in order to receive the refund due. From NTL's point of view, this therefore largely cancels out the cost of issuing a refund.
- In the meantime NTL have your £15 - effectively on interest free loan. In 2005 NTL had an estimated 2 million active broadband subscriptions. If they overcharge 1 in every 20 customers £15 then we are looking at 100,000 x £15 on interest free loan. That is £1.5 million pounds.
- That £1.5m would not be static but earning interest. If NTL were to pay back the initial overcharge through services rather than direct refunds, the cost of repayment would be less than the £1.5 they earned from overchaging, plus there would be a significant profit on interest.
In civil cases hearsay is admissable before the court (in civil cases proof is about probability rather than beyond resonable doubt). I am sure there a fair few numbers of disgruntled customers with cases regarding overcharging against NTL. If complaints are collected (say on this forum) then they can be submitted before the court and presented as evidence backing up individual cases. Of course, it will be the merit of the individual case that counts, but my point is that a dossier of similar complaints may add weight to the individual case and show that consumer complaints placed before the court are not just one off occurances but a direct result of company policy.
Thoughts anyone?