You owe us four hundred quid......pay-up now..? - Page 4

Flyboy · 15-10-2009, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well said.

Anyway, it's all dead academic - we haven't heard from the OP since he got dissed!

Don't you just love people who pay attention to threads. It wasn't the OP who enquired about VM owing them five hundred pounds.

Sephiroth · 15-10-2009, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Don't you just love people who pay attention to threads. It wasn't the OP who enquired about VM owing them five hundred pounds.

Brilliant! Damn!

Kymmy · 15-10-2009, 18:10

Guys, you'll probably find that the Â£500 post was a spam post that went wrong, so don't worry about it

bb7crap · 19-10-2009, 14:02

Wow.....I put the thread out a week or so ago...! Im trying to type right,so i dont
get shouted at...
Thanks for all the advice and im sorry i called you an "idiot" I thought you were just taking the **** outta me...you know people.
Last week i tried via the web to sign-up again,50mb broadband,xl tv,and phone line,I got two e-mails back,one saying everything was ok and istalation would be saturday.The other asked me to call 0800 444 1111 is it...customer svs,which i did several times.Aparantly they had no record of me or the new order...? What are they on...?
Can you point me to somebody who works for them,and can help...thanx 2 e1....steve

BenMcr · 19-10-2009, 14:11

If Virgin say you owe Â£400 there is no point trying to place a new order unless you have resolved the issue

Sephiroth · 19-10-2009, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If Virgin say you owe Â£400 there is no point trying to place a new order unless you have resolved the issue

That is the sort of callous reply that completely explains why bb7crap is having this problem.

Taking his (bb7crap) first post at face value, it is for VM to prove that HE is the liable party and not be given anything but priority tratment to find a resolution.

webcrawler2050 · 19-10-2009, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is the sort of callous reply that completely explains why bb7crap is having this problem.

Taking his (bb7crap) first post at face value, it is for VM to prove that HE is the liable party and not be given anything but priority tratment to find a resolution.

Ben is right though, they *may* reject any new orders from him / that address. Or they might just ask for a deposit..

Sephiroth · 19-10-2009, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

Ben is right though, they *may* reject any new orders from him / that address. Or they might just ask for a deposit..

Ben may well be "right" but not in the right. This sort of nonsense is unfair and unprincipled and, if it were me, I'd consider it a form of extortion.

webcrawler2050 · 19-10-2009, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ben may well be "right" but not in the right. This sort of nonsense is unfair and unprincipled and, if it were me, I'd consider it a form of extortion.

Maybe / maybe not - i wouldn't imagine it to be a mistake to be fair.

BenMcr · 19-10-2009, 17:07

Virgin think the OP owe them money. They are not going to risk accepting a new order until it is either paid or proved it is not owed.

Do you know any company that would?!

webcrawler2050 · 19-10-2009, 17:17

Nope I know of none. I'm sure it will get sorted out

Sephiroth · 19-10-2009, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Virgin think the OP owe them money. They are not going to risk accepting a new order until it is either paid or proved it is not owed.

Do you know any company that would?!

The onus is on VM to prove the OP owes the money. Taking this to an eventual step, the acid test would be a court summons under, say, the small claims procedure. There is no doubt that VM would have to prove their claim. Their onus.

Now put yourself in the OP's shoes and you're the victim. Would be overjoyed and sympathetic to VM when you're being wrongly accused over something and provision of service held against that?

How indoctrinated are you?

BenMcr · 19-10-2009, 19:37

Look at from a companies point of view (Any company) They have accounts that say the person on the phone owes them money.

Are they just supposed to ignore it and risk them owing money all over again.

Or do they ask for proof that the person doesn't own the money (Proof of residence or similar), make sure there is no risk to the business and then proceed as normal?

This isn't VM indoctrination, but standard business operation. No company will risk dealing with a person or company their accounts say owe them money without first resolving the debt

Sephiroth · 19-10-2009, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Look at from a companies point of view (Any company) They have accounts that say the person on the phone owes them money.

Are they just supposed to ignore it and risk them owing money all over again.

Or do they ask for proof that the person doesn't own the money (Proof of residence or similar), make sure there is no risk to the business and then proceed as normal?

This isn't VM indoctrination, but standard business operation. No company will risk dealing with a person or company their accounts say owe them money without first resolving the debt

I disagree totally. There's ethics involved here. On the face of it from post #1, the person on the phone, a VM customer at address x, says he's moved from address x to address y. VM know him and know he's not the previous inhabitant of address y.

The proof of past residence is there. They DON'T have accounts to say the perosn on the phone owes them money. They have accounts that says someone else owes them money. VM must prove otherwise as they would have to in court. You're dodging my questions.

Simples.

I repeat my question. What your attitude be if it happened to you?

Flyboy · 19-10-2009, 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Look at from a companies point of view (Any company) They have accounts that say the person on the phone owes them money.

Are they just supposed to ignore it and risk them owing money all over again.

Or do they ask for proof that the person doesn't own the money (Proof of residence or similar), make sure there is no risk to the business and then proceed as normal?

This isn't VM indoctrination, but standard business operation. No company will risk dealing with a person or company their accounts say owe them money without first resolving the debt

No they don't. They have accounts that say that someone else, who lived at that address, owes them money. Not the OP.