I can't pay my bill!!!

[evandl100]

Originally Posted by orangebird

But that still isn't ntls problem....

True, but presumably NTL operate in the real world where these things happen, just as things can (and do) go not exactly according to plan from their side.

[evandl100]

Originally Posted by Mark B

As I said in my earlier post, the problem here is that people think these companies have some sort of obligation to work around a customer's cash flow problems, and the simple truth is, they do not.

I'm afraid it doesn't matter how justified a customer thinks their personal situation is, if the company DOES agree to work around it, it's because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

The sooner people realise this, the better the debt situation in the UK will be.

I don't exactly agree. Companies have to in order to avoid losing customers to competitors, otherwise why bother? Therefore a poor paying customer must in some way still be beneficial.
And surely companies have to be held account in some way for agreeing to provide services to those who cannot afford them. The debt problem in the UK is not solely down to individuals. Companies do have to take responsibilty too.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by orangebird

But that still isn't ntls problem....

What about ntls cashflow???

What about ntls cashflow, that certainly has not been something from Neils ideal world

ntls cashflow fits perfectly into the statement "if you owe the bank £100 it is your problem, if you owe the bank £100M it's their problem".

I'm sure 10 years ago when NTL were diggin up the country and being extended loans to do so their cashflow forecasts indicated lots of customers and lots of cash coming in from this shiney new network to fund these loans, that did not happen ntl fell behind in their payments and had to go to the banks to ask nicely to have more time to pay, and had to go to the banks to ask nicely to have more time to pay, and had to go to the banks to ask nicely to have more time to pay, and had to go to the banks to ask nicely to have more time to pay, and then the banks had enough and took the company over seizing the assets that their loan was secured upon, at a personal level this would be the equivilant of not paying your mortgage and being repossessed.

Whilst this is off topic to the thread, ntl is not a company that shows a shining example of good corporate financial management.

Originally Posted by evandl100

I don't exactly agree. Companies have to in order to avoid losing customers to competitors, otherwise why bother? Therefore a poor paying customer must in some way still be beneficial.

Any customer that ultimately pays is a worthwhile customer, it is the need to factor in the costs of chasing and account management and spread that across all accounts (or levy penalties to the defaultors potentially worsening their position) that means the revenue vs additional costs needs justification.

In the example i used earler in the thread of the large "prestigious" customer she still made a nice profit on the transaction, so this poor paying customer was still beneficial, it was just the profit was about £150 lower when the financing, phone calls to chase, letters, time to do this were all taken into consideration, and while doing all that you are not looking after your current / potential customers.

Originally Posted by orangebird

But that still isn't ntls problem....

What about ntls cashflow???

I never said it was.I was just pointing out to those that seem to think that having a cashflow problem is the fault of the individual not to plan ahead.I merely pointed out that sometimes life kicks you in the nadgers and you then have the problem.Then it becomes ntl's problem.So if one wants to find a short cut to pay a inadvertant overdue bill surely it is in NTL's interest that you pay it as quickly as you can if slightly later rather than much later when the whole process of chasing with letters,bailiffs and court cases comes into play.


Anyway ntl seems to being managing their cashflow pretty much like everyone else.Not brilliantly by all accounts and have just survived because at times they are the only choice of in one's town or street.

Incog.Off to unsubscribe from this thread.It's not worth raising the blood pressure any more.

[scrotnig]

It doesn't matter whether the cashflow problem is the customer's fault or not, it STILL isn't the fault of a third party company such as ntl that they owe money to.

A company MAY decide that they will accommodate customers in this position to prevent losing business. But equally, they may decide NOT to, and then it's just tough. End of story.

As to companies having a responsibility to ensure customers can afford the service when they take it out....claptrap! Companies like ntl do not ask details of income, so how would they know? Credit card firms and loan firms need to, yes, but not gas, electric, phones, cable TV, Sky, etc.

Customers of all companies need to start accepting responsibility for their own actions, rather than seeking to blame everyone and anyone when they find they are short of cash. Everyone is always full of their 'rights', but never their 'responsibilities'.

As an afterthought...pop down to Sainsburys, and fill a trolley full of shopping, then at the till tell them you have a 'cashflow problem', and therefore you want to take the goods home, but you'll pay off the debt at £5 a week or something.....tell them you are a valued customer and they have to fit in with your cashflow. See what response you get, and then understand that this is NO DIFFERENT to buying TV or telephone services.

[gazzae]

I agree that most companies are accommodating if your having problems paying as long as you let them know!

I ran up a large mobile bill a few years ago, mostly from roming charges in the States. When it came round to pay the bill, due to other things that had happened that month I did not have the money to pay for it. I called up O2 or BT Cellnet as they were then explained the situation and asked them if I could pay off £50 that month and then deffer the rest of the bill to the next month. They were very good about it. So if your having cashflow problems, let your supplier know they will usually help you out.

Originally Posted by Mark B

It doesn't matter whether the cashflow problem is the customer's fault or not, it STILL isn't the fault of a third party company such as ntl that they owe money to.

You know, I have read this sort of comment *repeatedly* throughout this thread, yet, having read back, I can see *NO* posts where anyone has actually *SAID* this.

A company MAY decide that they will accommodate customers in this position to prevent losing business. But equally, they may decide NOT to, and then it's just tough. End of story.

No, just the *start* of the story, because "Big company refuses little guy any leeway in paying his bills" is big story in the newspapers.

Yes, they're not *obliged* to do anything about it, but it would be an incredibly stupid and short-sighted act, not to mention a PR disaster, by a big company to do this.

Customers of all companies need to start accepting responsibility for their own actions, rather than seeking to blame everyone and anyone when they find they are short of cash. Everyone is always full of their 'rights', but never their 'responsibilities'.

Oh that is *SO* big hearted of you! Of course if the *company* would take its responsibilities seriously too ("oops, my e-mail, broadband, webspace, TV service is screwed up NTL, what are you going to do about it, NTL?" "Oh, we'll get around to fixing it eventually") it might not sound so hypocritical.

As an afterthought...pop down to Sainsburys, and fill a trolley full of shopping, then at the till tell them you have a 'cashflow problem', and therefore you want to take the goods home, but you'll pay off the debt at £5 a week or something.....tell them you are a valued customer and they have to fit in with your cashflow. See what response you get, and then understand that this is NO DIFFERENT to buying TV or telephone services.

RUBBISH! This is a completely nonsensical comparison.

You have no contract with Sainsburys, they have no obligation to supply you. The transaction is "ad hoc" not an ongoing service, they have no idea who you are or where you live etc etc etc.

We are *NOT* talking about someone walking out of a supermarket without paying for a service, we are talking about someone who *WILL* pay for their service, but just wants a large company to not be arrogant and inconsiderate, but to exercise a simple bit of compassion and understanding because *real people* in the *real world* have *real problems* and rather than saying "I don't care about your problems, pay up now or else" the large company shoudl think about how it will look if they do this.

It's a good job you don't run a company like that, otherwise you'd probably very soon find that the loss of large amounts of PR goodwill massively outweighs the small amounts of cash you'd get from a few tardy payers.

Originally Posted by Graham

You know, I have read this sort of comment *repeatedly* throughout this thread, yet, having read back, I can see *NO* posts where anyone has actually *SAID* this.



No, just the *start* of the story, because "Big company refuses little guy any leeway in paying his bills" is big story in the newspapers.

Yes, they're not *obliged* to do anything about it, but it would be an incredibly stupid and short-sighted act, not to mention a PR disaster, by a big company to do this.



Oh that is *SO* big hearted of you! Of course if the *company* would take its responsibilities seriously too ("oops, my e-mail, broadband, webspace, TV service is screwed up NTL, what are you going to do about it, NTL?" "Oh, we'll get around to fixing it eventually") it might not sound so hypocritical.



RUBBISH! This is a completely nonsensical comparison.

You have no contract with Sainsburys, they have no obligation to supply you. The transaction is "ad hoc" not an ongoing service, they have no idea who you are or where you live etc etc etc.

We are *NOT* talking about someone walking out of a supermarket without paying for a service, we are talking about someone who *WILL* pay for their service, but just wants a large company to not be arrogant and inconsiderate, but to exercise a simple bit of compassion and understanding because *real people* in the *real world* have *real problems* and rather than saying "I don't care about your problems, pay up now or else" the large company shoudl think about how it will look if they do this.

It's a good job you don't run a company like that, otherwise you'd probably very soon find that the loss of large amounts of PR goodwill massively outweighs the small amounts of cash you'd get from a few tardy payers.

so if you were an employee of a company you would find it acceptable if your employer paid you a few weeks late one month? They have a contract with you, they have had the services and they want to pay late. Sounds the same to me but i bet you would moan like hell.

[LostintheNW]

Just wondering would those sticking up for NTL be the same if the banks who NTL are in debt up to the high hilt with turned round and said " its not out fault your customers dont pay we want paying now or we shut you down!"?

Oh and I've never been in a bad paying problem with NTL but I have noticed they are quick to charge you extra and then say they will give it you back in a month or so time....don't see why us customers can't do that as well...works both ways!

Originally Posted by gary_580

so if you were an employee of a company you would find it acceptable if your employer paid you a few weeks late one month? They have a contract with you, they have had the services and they want to pay late. Sounds the same to me but i bet you would moan like hell.

Well firstly there have been examples of workers for some companies willingly accepting such situations when the company is having cashflow problems.

Secondly it would depend on whether I could afford it, but somehow I don't think that "Large Company )TM)" is going to go bust if "Joe Littleguy" doesn't pay his bill for a few weeks...

Originally Posted by LostintheNW

Just wondering would those sticking up for NTL be the same if the banks who NTL are in debt up to the high hilt with turned round and said " its not out fault your customers dont pay we want paying now or we shut you down!"?

And the banks have a right to do that. They can call in a loan when ever they want.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gary_580

so if you were an employee of a company you would find it acceptable if your employer paid you a few weeks late one month? They have a contract with you, they have had the services and they want to pay late. Sounds the same to me but i bet you would moan like hell.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

This is getting a bit out of hand & heated, so let's all (me included ) just take a deep breath for a mo

The bottom line is that Fred Bloggs signs up for his ntl/BT/Sky service & agrees to pay for said service (not unreasonable IMO)

The point that I made ages ago, was that it is still Fred Bloggs' responsibility to pay for that service that he signed up for, & if a cashflow situation arose-Fred should contact ntl/BT/Sky to discuss the situation, & make alternative arrangements (perhaps pay it next month & also downgrade for a month to reduce next month's bill for example?)

But at the end of the day, there is no excuse for not paying a bill & expecting ntl/BT/Sky/whoever to be totally ok with it.

Fred knows what hise DDs/outgoings are each month (let's say it's £500.00 ), so Fred should have a 'slush fund' sitting dormant somewhere to cover some of those in case one month he receives £xxx less than he should do from his customers (I do appreciate this happens) & as Fred is clearly aware that sometimes he doesn't receive all he should from his customers, he should have a 'Plan B' in place to pay people he has agreed to pay for services he receives.

Someone not paying being able to pay their bill is one thing, & I'm sure if Fred rang up xxx LTD & explained the situation, they would just let Fred pay some/all of it the next month.

But someone just not paying the bill simply because they have cashflow problems & expecting xxx LTD to be totally ok with it is simply wrong IMHO.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well firstly there have been examples of workers for some companies willingly accepting such situations when the company is having cashflow problems.

Secondly it would depend on whether I could afford it, but somehow I don't think that "Large Company )TM)" is going to go bust if "Joe Littleguy" doesn't pay his bill for a few weeks...

Yes some companies have ASKED their employees and in some cases the employees refused (not unreasonable imho).

Agreed that in this case the company is not going to see much impact. However it does set a standard and if they allowed that it would do a number of things.

Delay cashflow
increase customer calls
increase user interaction on accounts
increase the number of times an account has to be looked at monthly

all of these things cost money and someone has to pay for that.

You could go to the other extreme and have a system that automatically says, no pay then no play (ie disconnects you automatically and you ar charged to be reconnected, aggreed its inflexible but its cheap to run!!)

Originally Posted by Neil

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Dont sit there with your gob open then

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>
It's a good job you don't run a company like that, otherwise you'd probably very soon find that the loss of large amounts of PR goodwill massively outweighs the small amounts of cash you'd get from a few tardy payers.

Or moreso a small company where your customers have choice and word of mouth is a key element of marketing.

Originally Posted by gary_580

so if you were an employee of a company you would find it acceptable if your employer paid you a few weeks late one month? They have a contract with you, they have had the services and they want to pay late. Sounds the same to me but i bet you would moan like hell.

Aaah, but you can bet that the first thing that company would do is pay it's employees and then turn around to it's suppliers and ask them if it is acceptable to be paid a few weeks late.
The company knows of course that its employees are a key resource, while the bank / suppliers can sweat for a few weeks.
This is why companies that ask ees this normally get a no. For such a question to be asked means suppliers and banking facilities are exhausted and unless there are some significant recievables, when the bank would probably factor against them and loan the writing is truly on the wall for that firm.