Disconnection for abuse - Page 8

dev · 13-08-2008, 15:34

VM make the rules up, you didn't follow them, wheres the problem?

as for the dates, the 9th is a saturday so maybe there was no post collection and it was sent on monday, which was the 11th so they are hardly significantly different. As for the delivery, I suppose it's up to VM to deliver letters is it?

**Hugh** · 13-08-2008, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

Well the story has taken another turn becasue I got another letter from virgin today in response to my complaint to the ISPA.

This is the second letter i have from VM on this where the date on the letter and the postmark and day I received the letter are significantly different.

Essentially the letter i have is dated the same day I filed my compliant to the ISPA - Saturday 9th August. It is postamarked 11th August and I received it today.

It is from someone in their Wythenshaw office but the ydont include a job title tel number and their is no department.

Basically it just says I am in "clear breach of their Terms and Conditions - Section D in General and subsection 4 in particular. You were also in breach of our Acceptable Use Policy - Sections 2, 3 and 9 wit hparticular reference to 3.4"

I have writtne back (funnilty enough) and anyone who is vaguely interested can look up those clauses.

Substantially the yare simply citing their right to terminate if a breach occurs but not specifically detailing what has been breached. Notably Section 9 of the AUP deal wit hemail and this letter does detail a subsection or subsections of that email clause I have apparently breached - which you might reasonably expect them to do given this relates to an email.

Anyway I suspect this fella is going to the Small Claims court where i will be asking for someone that knows about the law to have a look at it and decide if it was lawful for VM to terminate my contract on the basis of this email, and whether or not they should have given me 30 days notice.

So it was produced on Saturday, posted/franked on the Monday, and Royal Mail delivered it on Wednesday - sounds fairly normal to me.

Or did you expect VM to hire a same day courier for it?

Thunderballs · 13-08-2008, 15:46

I would expect them to not have been able to complete an investigation from start to finish on a Saturday and write the letter.

I have another letter from them where a similar thing has happened.

Sending me postdated letters that they dont refer to in conversations i have with them after the letter is dated but before it is received.

I dont think I am being pedantic suggesting a complaint filed on a Saturday with the ispa and apparantly investigated and replied to the same day by VM and a different person and department to htose involved is a little circumspect.

The letter also disregards the ISPA process in so far as it says "the matter is now closed" and there is at least one more stage in the dispute resolution process before "deadlock" is declared and it goes further under the ISPA complaints procedure.

**Maggy** · 13-08-2008, 15:48

So Thunderballs what do you expect from this forum and this thread?

It's not going to resolve your position and you've been enough of a warning to those who use emails to anonymously abuse others as to consequences.

What do you hope to achieve here?Get VM investigated/or to change their minds...well that's not going to work because you haven't convinced enough of the members that you have a case and we have no influence with the Ombudsman.

All that is happening is that you have bounced your ideas/feelings around the thread and everyone is just bouncing the same few ideas back at you.

So what DO you want?

Thunderballs · 13-08-2008, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev

VM make the rules up, you didn't follow them, wheres the problem?

as for the dates, the 9th is a saturday so maybe there was no post collection and it was sent on monday, which was the 11th so they are hardly significantly different. As for the delivery, I suppose it's up to VM to deliver letters is it?

They dont make the rules up. The day we let companies make up the rules by which we are all governed will never come.

Can I suggest that some of your relatives gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy under the law of this great country of ours.

**Hugh** · 13-08-2008, 15:58

Well misinterpreted - so my relatives died so you (or someone who used your connection) could send an email containing an obscenity, and also a voicemail?

Is it me, or are we over-reacting a mite?

Thunderballs · 13-08-2008, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Well misinterpreted - so my relatives died so you (or someone who used your connection) could send an email containing an obscenity, and also a voicemail?

Is it me, or are we

Steady on. The guy said vm make up the rules"

Yes your ancestors did die to ensure companies dont make up the rules.

The fact they dont make up the rules doesnt mean I am right.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So Thunderballs what do you expect from this forum and this thread?

It's not going to resolve your position and you've been enough of a warning to those who use emails to anonymously abuse others as to consequences.

What do you hope to achieve here?Get VM investigated/or to change their minds...well that's not going to work because you haven't convinced enough of the members that you have a case and we have no influence with the Ombudsman.

All that is happening is that you have bounced your ideas/feelings around the thread and everyone is just bouncing the same few ideas back at you.

So what DO you want?

0.

Nugget · 13-08-2008, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

Steady on. The guy said vm make up the rules"

Yes your ancestors did die to ensure companies dont make up the rules.

The fact they dont make up the rules doesnt mean I am right.

Point of order (and vastly off topic), but didn't our ancestors die because a) the members of the Empire got a bit bored of British rule and we didn't take the hint quickly enough, or b) because our government at the time really didn't think that anyone who annexed Poland was very friendly?

WHISTLED · 13-08-2008, 17:16

I bet the guys on the Abuse Team are absolutely wetting themselves at this thread..

Richy99 · 13-08-2008, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

Steady on. The guy said vm make up the rules"

and for providing you with the use of an internet connection they do make the rules, isps state (not just VM) that you are liable for the content/use of the connection, regardless if it is an unsecured wifi conection for example

other companies make the rules up for their customers aswell, that is something that will never change

as for the letter dates i think yes you are being pedantic, a letter done after 5pm on a saturday even if posted would not be collected til monday by the Royal Mail

Stuart · 13-08-2008, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

They dont make the rules up. The day we let companies make up the rules by which we are all governed will never come.

Can I suggest that some of your relatives gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy under the law of this great country of ours.

Someone appears to be lacking perspective here. You are acting as if Virgin are trying to annex the country. They are not. They have denied you service.

As for them denying you service, it's simple: You use their network, you agree to obey their rules. You disobey those rules, and Virgin can, if they so desire, refuse to provide service.

I am no expert, but I believe the law goes some way to protecting VMs right not to provide service to you. In fact, as far as I know, the ONLY telecoms company with a legal obligation to provide service is British Telecom, and even they are only obliged to provide a line to the house.

You claim they have had no time to investigate. What's to investigate? You swore in an email and, apparently, on a voicemail (which in itself is enough to get you refused service assuming you actually did it). They have the email, which was presumably forwarded to whoever did the investigation.

I have to admit, assuming this is your first time and that you didn't leave an offensive email, that I'd consider disconnection a little harsh. I personally think they should have written to you first and then disconnected if you continued.

Toto · 13-08-2008, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I personally think they should have written to you first and then disconnected if you continued.

But they did? It appears, according to his original post, that it was only after he left an offensive voicemail message was suspension taken, and that refusal by the O/P to admit to abuse of the service led to the disconnection.

On all other points in your post which I didn't quote for the sake of brevity, I agree.

So, what has happened here? The poster has failed to solicit the sympathy he thinks he deserves from this community, and has sought to justify his arguments through accusations of corporate bullying and rule making. I don't see this thread of being any further benefit

piggy · 13-08-2008, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But they did? It appears, according to his original post, that it was only after he left an offensive voicemail message was suspension taken, and that refusal by the O/P to admit to abuse of the service led to the disconnection.

On all other points in your post which I didn't quote for the sake of brevity, I agree.

So, what has happened here? The poster has failed to solicit the sympathy he thinks he deserves from this community, and has sought to justify his arguments through accusations of corporate bullying and rule making. I don't see this thread of being any further benefit

oh come on toto it gives us all a laugh thats a benefit in itself.

Toto · 13-08-2008, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by piggy

oh come on toto it gives us all a laugh thats a benefit in itself.

Oh behave

Thunderballs · 13-08-2008, 19:47

LOL.

I have a contract with Virgin - or did !

It is the Terms of that contract that are in dispute.

In a contract dispute it isnt sufficient in Law to point to a clause in a contract and say - "look the contract says this and they did that so we can do y"

The terms have to be lawful. They are not automatically lawful because both parties have agreed to them and they both have a piece of paper with each others signature on.

Because that is the case it is incorrect to say that Virgin make up the rules - they dont.

It is also becasue of that that I am going to claim that Virgin had no right "in law" to disconnect my services without giving me 30 days notice.

I am not disputing the email was sent via my internet connection.

I am not disputing some people might find it offensive.

I am disputing that it specifically breaches the Terms and Conditions of the contract and VM have yet to specifically detail to me how it breaches the Terms and Conditions and which clauses it breaches.