Virgin Media fined £7 million

Chad · 16-11-2018, 08:45

Virgin have been handed a hefty fine for overcharging customers who ended their contract early

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46233110

Mr K · 16-11-2018, 09:05

Quote:

"This decision and fine is not justified, proportionate or reasonable. A small percentage of customers were charged an incorrect amount when they ended one or more of their services early and for that we are very sorry," said Tom Mockridge, chief executive of Virgin Media.

Virgin Media said it had mistakenly overcharged 1.5% of its 5.5 million cable customers between September 2016 and August 2017.

That small percentage is 82,000 !

VMs disconnection fees always have been unfair, particularly if moving and VM can't provide the service in a new area.

richard s · 16-11-2018, 18:33

No surprise here then... I only wish the customers are compensated.

japitts · 19-11-2018, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K

That small percentage is 82,000 !

VMs disconnection fees always have been unfair, particularly if moving and VM can't provide the service in a new area.

As a matter of interest, what is it about them that's unfair? Not trying to be funny, just genuinely curious as I've never had cause to look at them in any detail.

I'd expect to have outstanding monthly payments multiplied by remaining minimum term, with some dispensation for moving out of a serviced area.

Mr K · 19-11-2018, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by japitts

As a matter of interest, what is it about them that's unfair? Not trying to be funny, just genuinely curious as I've never had cause to look at them in any detail.

I'd expect to have outstanding monthly payments multiplied by remaining minimum term, with some dispensation for moving out of a serviced area.

To me it's VM that have broken the contract if they can't provide the service in your new house and you're willing to take it/continue the contract.

Mythica · 19-11-2018, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K

To me it's VM that have broken the contract if they can't provide the service in your new house and you're willing to take it/continue the contract.

Surely the contract is linked to the address you are currently in and are taking services out for. It isn't VMs fault that customers move.

RichardCoulter · 19-11-2018, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K

To me it's VM that have broken the contract if they can't provide the service in your new house and you're willing to take it/continue the contract.

Totally agree. It was VM who chose to sell off their ADSL service and, therefore, prevented customers staying with them in non cabled areas.

People who move often have no choice about the matter and of those that do, it is unreasonable to expect them to take VM into account when assessing the suitability of a new property.

Stephen · 19-11-2018, 21:16

If people sell or decide to move then that's not VMs issue.

You take the contract and then move to a non cable area, you are effectivelybreakibg the contract.

When you move and are able to carry on, you likely start a new full contract at the new address. As they allow you to cancel the existing contract due to taking a new one.

Mr K · 19-11-2018, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythica

Surely the contract is linked to the address you are currently in and are taking services out for. It isn't VMs fault that customers move.

Contract is with the customer, not a house

Anyway, seems the courts take a dim view of VMs practices.

RichardCoulter · 19-11-2018, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

If people sell or decide to move then that's not VMs issue.

You take the contract and then move to a non cable area, you are effectivelybreakibg the contract.

When you move and are able to carry on, you likely start a new full contract at the new address. As they allow you to cancel the existing contract due to taking a new one.

Well, it's VM's fault if they aren't able to supply services at the new address by cable or ADSL.

Many people move simply because they have no choice e.g. their house is being repossessed, their Housing Benefit has been cut, their assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end or their landlord has given them notice to quit.

When looking at new properties, I think that whether VM can service them will be well below more important matters like the crime rate, what the schools are like etc.

**Hugh** · 19-11-2018, 22:15

Actually, the court’s decision had nothing to do with VM charging people for leaving a premise before their contract was up, it was to do with VM charging the customers more than had been agreed initially.

From the OP link

Quote:

Ofcom found that Virgin Media had levied early-exit charges that were higher than customers had agreed to when signing up to their residential contracts. The regulator said this went on for almost a year.

**Mick** · 19-11-2018, 22:46

£7 Million Fine for VM, that's another price rise on the horizon then.

RichardCoulter · 19-11-2018, 23:55

VM will charge the maximum that the market (or individual) will stand, regardless of their other expenses. Having said that, they probably will try to pass this fine onto their customers.

When prices go up I decide how much i'm prepared to pay and get in touch with them and if they meet my expectations I stay (which has worked so far, although some do give people the runaround).

Mythica · 20-11-2018, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K

Contract is with the customer, not a house

Anyway, seems the courts take a dim view of VMs practices.

Is it or is the contract linked to the address the services were installed.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, it's VM's fault if they aren't able to supply services at the new address by cable or ADSL.

Many people move simply because they have no choice e.g. their house is being repossessed, their Housing Benefit has been cut, their assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end or their landlord has given them notice to quit.

When looking at new properties, I think that whether VM can service them will be well below more important matters like the crime rate, what the schools are like etc.

You can't blame a company for not having 100% coverage across the country. People also have a choice not to sign a 12 month contract.

Stephen · 20-11-2018, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, it's VM's fault if they aren't able to supply services at the new address by cable or ADSL.

Many people move simply because they have no choice e.g. their house is being repossessed, their Housing Benefit has been cut, their assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end or their landlord has given them notice to quit.

When looking at new properties, I think that whether VM can service them will be well below more important matters like the crime rate, what the schools are like etc.

None of those are VM's fault so early termination charges are perfectly valid.

Also you would be surprised what people find important these days, broadband speed is one of those.

There is a ADSL/FTTC provider I know very well and if you move and they can't give you the same speed or better if you move, will not charge any early termination fees.

In this VM case though it was also mobile ETFs and not just the home services as EE were also fine a large sum.