ntl Service Charges new!

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Thanks for that Neil.

I assume you are talking about the case of Stephen Hone who won back all of his late payment / penalty charges for the last six years from the Abbey and walked away with a very tidy sum in damages.

Stephen's case is just one of several dozen successful actions which we are currently dealing with / advising on.

Originally Posted by Neil

Stephen Home is the man that took the banks to court & won.

Yes m8-Stephen Home is clearly the man when it comes to taking on the banks!

Originally Posted by LBC 97.3

Last week, James also spoke to Stephen Hone, who successfully sued his bank over unfair bank charges. Click here to download a copy of the sample letter written by Stephen to his bank. As he suggests, you may find this useful as part of a dialogue with your bank over disputed charges. Don't forget though that all individual cases are different, and if you're in any doubt do please seek your own legal advice. You can find more about his campaign against unfair bank charges at www.bankactiongroup.com

Taken from here.

[SLM]

I agree with you both about the charges but....

Considering that ntl are only going to charge £10 I think quoting banks that charge £30+ is going over the top a bit. Why should people get away with late payment, if you where late with paying your mortgage you could lose you house!

[Mr Angry]

Irrespective of the amount it has to represent liquidated losses - that's the law.

NTL's proposed charges (based on their own press release) do not.

End of story.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"Changed their minds" is company legalese for "sorry, we thought we'd get away with it".

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not privy as to whether or not NTL's legal team were consulted during the drafting of the proposed new charges, I very much doubt it

I don't.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Irrespective of the amount it has to represent liquidated losses - that's the law.

NTL's proposed charges (based on their own press release) do not.

End of story.

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.

[Mr Angry]

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.

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 ----------

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

No need for an apology as I have not claimed anything. What I stated is factual, not a claim - if you have a problem believing it, thats your own hard luck.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

It wasn't proposed - it was going to go ahead- which part of this do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

And because of your blatant ignorance - you would quite rightly deserve to lose it and lose it you would. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that I and another member of the team held a meeting with the chief exective of ntl last year. Since then, we have been having follow up meetings and ntl monitor this forum and take into account the feedback posted and if and where possible ntl will make any necessary operational changes.

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=27095

For instance - last year ntl re-opened a fault service on Sunday - this was again down to feedback posted on this forum as customers were fed up of waiting until Monday morning to report a fault.

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...ow-open-sunday

Another change of policy which CF helped to change was ntl's returns policy on equipment - Customers now have a definitive 3 choices on what to do when they remove and or cancel all their services.

See http://www.home.ntl.com/page/equipmentreturns

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

http://www.home.ntl.com/page/charges

The above page is live - those charges are going ahead (Except as I have already said - downgrade charge). - they are not proposed charges!!! That's how! That page is not a press release - its a live page.

[Chris W]

ntl charging a downgrade fee is not in any way illegal- i've done some detailed research.

The charge can be made on the grounds of the cost that ntl face as a result of the change. Many ADSL companies used to (and i'm sure still do) charge for a change of service level. Although there are more costs involved in ADSL service regrading, there are costs involved in doing so on cable as well- one example:

Customer calls CS to downgrade. Ntl have to pay for:
1) cost of call to 0800 number
2) cost of member of staff to handle call and perform change
3) call centre overheads

It is not unreasonable, and certainly not illegal to levy a charge for this.

However, as ntl have now dropped the fee that is largely irrelevant. ntl take feedback from this forum seriously as it is representative of their customers opinion (although admittedly, only a small percentage of customers).

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Interesting, it was going to be a £4.00 charge for each downgrade of service. I suspect it would be very difficult at court to prove that ntl did not infact incur that cost in real terms for each downgraded service, for labour - just the CS operator's wages, plus the ntl freephone charge, together with loss of prospective profit (which is not excluded based on the above definition). If services such as TV were removed (where a STB then had to be physically disconnected and collected) the £4.00 seems cheap to me.

Bottom line though, for the reasons clearly stated throughout this thread, the £4.00 downgrade charge was badly thought out. I have no doubt that Mick's efforts, on behalf of Cable Forum's users, will have been a major factor in heading off this charge.

Well I don't care who got NTL to change their mind, I'm tired of their poor CS and constant price increases so I have chosen to use my feet!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mick

No need for an apology as I have not claimed anything. What I stated is factual, not a claim - if you have a problem believing it, thats your own hard luck.

"I myself contacted ntl on a personal level and asked for this to be reconsidered and as a direct result of this and feedback posted, ntl have notified me this afternoon that they have had a change of heart and will be cancelling the downgrade service charge." What part of that, your own quote, do you not understand as a claim?

Originally Posted by Mick

It wasn't proposed - it was going to go ahead- which part of this do you not understand?

You still haven't explained. What is the difference between "not yet implemented" and "proposed"?

Originally Posted by Mick

And because of your blatant ignorance - you would quite rightly deserve to lose it and lose it you would. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that I and another member of the team held a meeting with the chief exective of ntl last year. Since then, we have been having follow up meetings and ntl monitor this forum and take into account the feedback posted and if and where possible ntl will make any necessary operational changes.

Hooray!! for you and "another member of the team".

Originally Posted by Mick

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=27095

For instance - last year ntl re-opened a fault service on Sunday - this was again down to feedback posted on this forum as customers were fed up of waiting until Monday morning to report a fault.

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...ow-open-sunday

Another change of policy which CF helped to change was ntl's returns policy on equipment - Customers now have a definitive 3 choices on what to do when they remove and or cancel all their services.

See http://www.home.ntl.com/page/equipmentreturns

Again, Hooray!! for you. It may, quite possibly, have escaped your notice - but I'm not in the least bit interested in these issues. The reason I entered the discussion on this matter was to highlight the illegal nature of a proposed "late payment" charge (a legal fact). I'm not interested in your self effacing trumpet blowing - I deal with facts - legal facts.

Originally Posted by Mick

http://www.home.ntl.com/page/charges

The above page is live - those charges are going ahead (Except as I have already said - downgrade charge). - they are not proposed charges!!! That's how! That page is not a press release - its a live page.

Again, I don't see the point of me having to reiterate the fact that these proposed charges are illegal (the law and respective jurisprudence in this jurisdiction has already proven that they are illegal). Which part of this do you not understand?

Since you seem to be so well connected, and seem intent on espousing this forum as a direct catalyst for decisions made at the highest echelons of NTL, why don't you invite the Company Secretary to come to this forum and debate his interpretation of the the legalities of the proposed charges with me?

Without wanting to appear ignorant I also extend the same invite to Mr MacKenzie in respect of the matters raised by Chris W and Rob C.

[Martyn]

Can some one please confirm for me.

I am an existing ntl customer and would like a second set-top box; will there be a charge for this?



There will be a one off £25 charge to have your second set-top box installed. This charge will appear as "Install TV Add SetTop" on your next bill.

Does this mean there is no more monthly fees.. e.g the old 15£ a month?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"I myself contacted ntl on a personal level and asked for this to be reconsidered and as a direct result of this and feedback posted, ntl have notified me this afternoon that they have had a change of heart and will be cancelling the downgrade service charge." What part of that, your own quote, do you not understand as a claim?

Erm - That is not a claim - it is a fact-end of.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You still haven't explained. What is the difference between "not yet implemented" and "proposed"?

I have. Look at that page!!!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, Hooray!! for you. It may, quite possibly, have escaped your notice - but I'm not in the least bit interested in these issues.

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. They have in the past and have done on this occasion. 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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The reason I entered the discussion on this matter was to highlight the illegal nature of a proposed "late payment" charge (a legal fact).

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

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not interested in your self effacing trumpet blowing - I deal with facts - legal facts.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, I don't see the point of me having to reiterate the fact that these proposed charges are illegal (the law and respective jurisprudence in this jurisdiction has already proven that they are illegal). Which part of this do you not understand?

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

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Since you seem to be so well connected, and seem intent on espousing this forum as a direct catalyst for decisions made at the highest echelons of NTL, why don't you invite the Company Secretary to come to this forum and debate his interpretation of the the legalities of the proposed charges with me?

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

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

Originally Posted by Martyn

Can some one please confirm for me.



Does this mean there is no more monthly fees.. e.g the old 15£ a month?

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

[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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Hardly correct.

Very correct.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

[Mr Angry]

Mick,

You really are starting to make yourself look a bit foolish and childish now.

If you want this forum to continue to be taken seriously, and for NTL to continue to take you seriously, then I suggest we just move on.

Please let's just leave it there.