Legal Action Against Virgin Media

[LostintheNW]

Originally Posted by popper

ROFL ,your so funny LostintheNW

you make the statement about your UK? 'law degree' and imply to the readership your degree is in consumer contract law/Civil Law(i.e generic consumer T&C text) but dont seem to have read the current T&C and so have seen several clauses there that are open to question.

did you forget your oath ?,
"The oath states: "I (Member’s Name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law. So help me God."
The affirmation states: "I (Member’s Name), do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law.""

while i am the only one so far to mention 'small claims' so you apparently are refering to me, in the 'spouting words', 'google search'
and in your opinion 'think they know it all'.

ill just point out it is you that is spouting your elitist 'MY law degree'
and how that somehow makes you better than the average reader here.

its interesting to note however that given the average peoples willingness to learn, and in doing so might use google or any other form of reference to gain insight and true facts as related to a given subject, they dont usually feel the need to spout elitist dogma.

"Please note that Roman Law/Civil Law, Conflicts of law and Notarial Practice are not usually studied on a standard law degree course or in the course of training to become a solicitor or barrister, hence most applicants will need to study these subjects. It is of course open to any applicant to seek exemption from these subjects too, should they have the relevant experience. "
http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/more_notaries.asp

as the holder of your (whatever?)law degree, is it not your place to take your clients claim/court action and place that before the court (to the best of your ability?), and its the courts and the magistrates/judges place to determine IF the client has a case OR NOT,and rule on that, not yours.

interesting that even judges, use reference books to look up the law as they are wise enough to realise they can not ever know all there is to to know about the given subject..., but perhaps your special and you have a photographic memory.

I am sorry you appear to have typed that with your ass, where do I imply my area of work is contract law? as its not consumer or civil law that is actually in question, i suggest you go away and read what I actually put.

And I claim to be elitist with my law degree? where again did I actually put this in fact?

Sorry but if the T&C's were in anyway ambiguous then they are not legally binding and therefore anyone can walk away - somehow I doubt NTL/Telewst/Virgin Media (add any other company plus ISP here) would allow the same kind of terms to be in their contracts as they wouldn't stand up in a court of law if anyone was to actually try and sue on them.

But sorry what do I know, nothing according to you - oh and sorry but google away and see exactly what you find, perhaps you should read the fountain of all knowledge on wikipedia as it appears thats where you have your knowledge from.

Thanks for making me laugh, brightened up my day after a hard slog in the office.

[setch]

When I had serious and I mean serious BB problems, I sent what could be called a polite email to Stephen Carter who was the CFO at the time I believe. He had his personal assistant contact me and the whole issue was sorted within a couple of days. I received a refund for the months I was without a service and a large discount for 12 months. The fault took a little longer to fix as it was not a localised problem, but once it was sorted out I have never looked back on the BB front. I honestly believe that for BB, Virgin cannot be beaten.

I would try the polite letter route before the legal one, I remember a year or so back when a lawyer sued Tiny computers for selling him a dodgy plasma, it was resolved but it took a long long time and probably lots of money.

Just my view.

Setch

[prawncocktail]

Originally Posted by andyr2005

Hi,

I believe I am on UBR 1, Northeast Gateshead.

hmm, interesting, i am in the same area as you but i dont seem to have the problems you have, i regularly get 10mb as do many people i know...

[clarkey]

Hello all, just a view from someone who's been dealing with courts for years (and I'm not claiming to be an expert in anything, so that saves me re-taking my exams on this forum)

I think there are some reasonable arguments on both sides here, and some universal truths - like the only people who will really benefit (financially) are the solicitors, should this go to court, whoever runs it - trading standards etc.

As an observation, I get the feeling that there's an element of "If you don't like it move on" and all this talk of terms and conditions feels pretty defeatist.

Yes I'm sure Virgin Media et al have paid some very expensive solicitors to write their terms and conditions, which customers do indeed sign up to. I'm also sure that the major high street banks paid some expensive solicitors to draw up their terms and conditions, which a lot of us signed up to also. Yet now we see hundreds (if not more) of people reclaiming the charges imposed upon them by the banks, as they have now been deemed to be unreasonable.

The point I'm making is that just because something is in the terms and conditions and just because you signed up to them doesn't always mean you're on a hiding to nothing. Because something is in the terms & conditions it doesn't make it right (beyond reproach) and so therefore is not always a fait accomplis.

For me it's about:

A customer has signed up for 10mb but consistently getting 1mb.

Now we can (and have) go all around the houses arguing about how much evidence there is/needs to be and how much Virgin Media have done to compensate the customer. That's a matter to consider if pursuing an action.

For me it's all about reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a customer paying for (up to) 10MB to expect to get close up to 10MB on a consistent basis. I think so.

Is it reasonable for a business to provide a tenth of the service they led you to believe you'd get (and the advertising does influence this expectation) and then claim that it's OK because it's covered in the T&C's. I really don't think so.

For me, you have to think in terms of the type of service being offered when it comes to the T&C's. Mission to mars - it's fairly reasonable to include you might not come back in one piece. Whilst providing BB no doubt has it's troubles (hence the 'up to'), it's not an untested science or a risky mission and therefore one can expect to pretty much get what you pay for. If you don't you should be able to get redress from the supplier.

I whole heartedly agree with the friendly method of resolution (letter/calls etc) and tend to think this would resolve the matter. Virgin knows the real cost of negative publicity and to be fair may really want to resolve the issue anyway.

That said, if they don't/won't resolve it, should we as customers challenge that or simply accept it was covered in the T&C's. Personally I'd challenge it.

There have been lots of things in history that have been legal. Attitudes change and so does the law.

Hope you get a satisfactory resolution.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by clarkey

Hello all, just a view from someone who's been dealing with courts for years (and I'm not claiming to be an expert in anything, so that saves me re-taking my exams on this forum)

I think there are some reasonable arguments on both sides here, and some universal truths - like the only people who will really benefit (financially) are the solicitors, should this go to court, whoever runs it - trading standards etc.

As an observation, I get the feeling that there's an element of "If you don't like it move on" and all this talk of terms and conditions feels pretty defeatist.

Yes I'm sure Virgin Media et al have paid some very expensive solicitors to write their terms and conditions, which customers do indeed sign up to. I'm also sure that the major high street banks paid some expensive solicitors to draw up their terms and conditions, which a lot of us signed up to also. Yet now we see hundreds (if not more) of people reclaiming the charges imposed upon them by the banks, as they have now been deemed to be unreasonable.

The point I'm making is that just because something is in the terms and conditions and just because you signed up to them doesn't always mean you're on a hiding to nothing. Because something is in the terms & conditions it doesn't make it right (beyond reproach) and so therefore is not always a fait accomplis.

For me it's about:

A customer has signed up for 10mb but consistently getting 1mb.

Now we can (and have) go all around the houses arguing about how much evidence there is/needs to be and how much Virgin Media have done to compensate the customer. That's a matter to consider if pursuing an action.

For me it's all about reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a customer paying for (up to) 10MB to expect to get close up to 10MB on a consistent basis. I think so.

Is it reasonable for a business to provide a tenth of the service they led you to believe you'd get (and the advertising does influence this expectation) and then claim that it's OK because it's covered in the T&C's. I really don't think so.

For me, you have to think in terms of the type of service being offered when it comes to the T&C's. Mission to mars - it's fairly reasonable to include you might not come back in one piece. Whilst providing BB no doubt has it's troubles (hence the 'up to'), it's not an untested science or a risky mission and therefore one can expect to pretty much get what you pay for. If you don't you should be able to get redress from the supplier.

I whole heartedly agree with the friendly method of resolution (letter/calls etc) and tend to think this would resolve the matter. Virgin knows the real cost of negative publicity and to be fair may really want to resolve the issue anyway.

That said, if they don't/won't resolve it, should we as customers challenge that or simply accept it was covered in the T&C's. Personally I'd challenge it.

There have been lots of things in history that have been legal. Attitudes change and so does the law.

Hope you get a satisfactory resolution.

[Web-Junkie]

Well put that man clarkey!

I would also like to point out this statement from the VM website here:

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/fairplay/faq.html

OK, this is about the Sky fiasco but this quote is interesting:

An award-winning broadband on cable service that's 4 times faster than Sky's service. Plus, it's reassuringly reliable and lets you download as much music and movies as you like.

Now how can it be reassuringly reliable when in the evening some areas speeds are like a yoyo? I suffer the same problems here in the NG17 area as other people in other areas with poor speeds in the evenings, so clarkey has a point as the service is not reassuringly reliable and should be addressed! If it was reassuringly reliable we wouldn't be seeing these problems with 10mb!

[RXP]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Would a publican sell beer in volumes of "up to one pint"?

There's legislation for that, measures Act or something. So the measure is taken away from the contractual terms and stipulated by Statute. Unless a similar Act exists for the internets, it's up to the contract.

At least I can recall seeing a "Measures Act" on a pub board.

---------- Post added at 13:25 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Originally Posted by LostintheNW

Sorry but if the T&C's were in anyway ambiguous then they are not legally binding and therefore anyone can walk away

Could you cite authority for that? I'd be interested in reading in researching into this area. Because a lot of consumer T&C's are absoultely rubbish.

Taking a macroscopic view of English jurisprudence, generally Courts are the final authority on ambiguities and it is there job to clear up, as so far as possible, any ambiguous terms.

[andygrif]

There is provision in law for unfair contracts to be deemed void - the OFT handles such things and you can challenge what you think to be an unfair contract in the courts.

In addition, there is the Unfair Contract Terms Act 2005 which can be seen here:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc292bill.pdf

There is a section of this that specifically refers to ambiguity in contracts and where the meaning of terms could be taken in more than one way, then the interpretation would be to favour the consumer.

Not sure what bearing this all has on what's being dicussed, but just to let you know that there is law that covers such things.

[rogerdraig]

this is an area ASA should play more of a part in

i can understand the up to idea but when you have a dial up offer a 2 meg ,4 meg and then 10 meg offer it would seem reasonable that the 10 would give you better than a 4 meg one

perhaps they should be forced to state what the minimum level of service they will provide before either downgrading your price to the lower level or letting you out of contract stated on adverts

here is an example my neighbor is on a 4 meg deal here is his speed test from this site

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:15:27 GMT

1st 512K took 2172 ms = 235.7 KB/sec, approx 1942 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2187 ms = 234.1 KB/sec, approx 1929 Kbps, 1.88 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2157 ms = 237.4 KB/sec, approx 1956 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 2140 ms = 239.3 KB/sec, approx 1972 Kbps, 1.93 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1950 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps


now here is mine on a 2 meg line

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:13:21 GMT

1st 512K took 2219 ms = 230.7 KB/sec, approx 1901 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2125 ms = 240.9 KB/sec, approx 1985 Kbps, 1.94 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2172 ms = 235.7 KB/sec, approx 1942 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1946 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps

now hes not about to moan just yet as he isn't paying any more than me but it they up the price he will
as those figures above vary very little no matter what time of day or day of week we have checked quite often i would defy any one no matter what the T&C's say to say that any company could justify charging him more than me for the service

[irish beauty]

Originally Posted by andyr2005

Hi,

I am just posting this cause I am in the process of starting legal proceedings against Virgin Media, basically, I have been paying for the 10MB broadband service since July 2006, and since then have had nothing but problems. I have since been made aware, that a problem was reported on the UBR I was connected to in June 2006, and since then, to this present date has not been checked/repaired or upgraded, yet I have had several engineers out to my house and re-wire the premises and even change my modem as I was always told it was down to a fault on my end.

After this time, and many many complaints sent to Virgin Media's head office, and no responses, I am now going to under take legal action under their own Terms and Conditions and Code of Practice, both of which they have broken since I joined their service back in July 2006. At the end of the day, I am doing this not only for myself, but it seems that Virgin are so contempt at breaking their own rules, and providing the customer with lac-luster services.

Please, let me know of any problems and the length of time you have been suffering, just so I can get some more information on this, as it seems the only way to get something done, is for someone to take legal action and give them a swift kick in the balls.

Thanks, Andrew Robinson.

hi andrew. i really fo hate to say this but your dates are all wrong. first things first 10mb bbnd was not rolled out across the country until late 2006, so up until then you would only have been receiving 4mb. to agree with everyone else why not disconnect, if you have had ongoing problems with your broadband and your telephone then why keep keep the service you do not like.

this may sound really obvious, have you come to a deadlock situation with Virgin media. if not you will be unable to take them to cisas. if this is not reached whereby you and Virgin media do not come to an agreement then they will refuse the case. they will decide whether to take on your case.

you can receive upto 10mb depending how far you live from the junction boxes. i highly doubt you will win. good luck

[shawty]

Originally Posted by irish beauty

hi andrew. i really fo hate to say this but your dates are all wrong. first things first 10mb bbnd was not rolled out across the country until late 2006, so up until then you would only have been receiving 4mb. to agree with everyone else why not disconnect, if you have had ongoing problems with your broadband and your telephone then why keep keep the service you do not like.

this may sound really obvious, have you come to a deadlock situation with Virgin media. if not you will be unable to take them to cisas. if this is not reached whereby you and Virgin media do not come to an agreement then they will refuse the case. they will decide whether to take on your case.

you can receive upto 10mb depending how far you live from the junction boxes. i highly doubt you will win. good luck

Thats not true for Cable.

In all this thread why hasn't any one mentioned contention!!!! Isn't it 20:1 on a cable connection. Which on a 10mb connection would actually only gaurantee you half a meg. the rest is bustable when other people arn't using there share of the connection.

[tweetypie/8]

Originally Posted by Zeph

lol

i think he is going to need it.

[popper]

did no one look at the original date of the OP ?

he didnt get back so i wonder what happened.....

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------

i think 20:1 is business, 50:1 is residental

[CardinalFang]

just a little aside, lots of talk about the veracity of virgin's T&Cs, eg:

...Yes I'm sure Virgin Media et al have paid some very expensive solicitors to write their terms and conditions...

it must be about 5/6 years ago now when I was working for ntl, and virgin net (as it was was then) was quite new. Virgin's "very expensive solicitors" didn't bother writing their T&Cs themselves, they used the good old sheep mentality and plagiarised the T&Cs from Pipex, mostly verbatim and omitting to remove one of the actual instances of "Pipex Internet" !! LoL.

didn't take them long to remove it but don't make the automatic assumption that just because they're a big company their T&Cs are 100% watertight and professional. not to mention that even if the T&Cs explicitly stated there was no service level whatsoever that wouldn't protect them from basic consumer rights legislation.