# NTL charging for service while disconnected



## A.C.Charlie (5 Apr 2009)

Last month NTL disconnected my service because there was an outstanding amount on the account. A week later I paid the outstanding amount and got the service turned back on. But when the bill came it was for the full amount! This is despite not having the service for a quarter of that time.

I've been on to them through phone and e-mail but they have told me that I am indeed being charged for the service even though it was disconnected. I've told them that I am not paying for service for the week that I didn't have any. 

Where can I go from this? It's only €14 but I really want to stand my ground on this. I'm disgusted that they're charging me for a week of service when they had disconnected that service. I don't want to let them get away with this because once that precedent is set they will most likely try it on again. For example if they turn the service off for repairs.

The only next step I can think of is to send a registered letter outlining my complaint. I don't know if that would achieve anything as I've already done that through e-mail. To have my solicitor send a letter would cost more than ten times the €14 that I'm disputing. I don't know if it's worth that. If the solicitors letter cost €50 I would do it. I know that sounds stupid but it's the principle of the thing, not the money.


----------



## europhile (5 Apr 2009)

Did they charge you a reconnection fee?


----------



## rmelly (5 Apr 2009)

What do the terms & conditions say about this circumstance? When you were reconnected you aren't a new customer, so in a way I can see where they are coming from - it wasn't their fault you weren't receiving the service and you still had their hardware presumably? If you had been disconnected for 3.5 months would you have had to pay for the .5 or the 3.5?


----------



## A.C.Charlie (5 Apr 2009)

Thanks to both of you for responding. 



europhile said:


> Did they charge you a reconnection fee?



They did charge a reconnection fee and I paid that. Although in my complaint I mentioned to them that I was very annoyed that during my conversations with their agents not once was this fee mentioned. However I did pay it but they refunded the money. They are welcome to take that money back, it's the issue of being charged for the service while disconnected that I'm disputing. 



rmelly said:


> What do the terms & conditions say about this circumstance?



Apparently in their terms of service they say they charge even if you're disconnected. I don't know how to check this. Plus, I'm not sure if it matters (maybe I'm wrong though). Like if a shop puts up a sign saying "Laser cards only accepted with purchase of €10 or more", that's illegal. They can't refuse a Laser card over the amount, that's the whole point of them. So people don't have to carry cash. Putting up a sign doesn't make it any less illegal. 



rmelly said:


> Then you were reconnected you aren't a new customer, so in a way I can see where they are coming from - it wasn't their fault you weren't receiving the service and you still had their hardware presumably?



I would have thought that it was their fault as they are the ones who turned the service off. Surely as the account was disconnected, it wasn't using any energy, therefore no reason to charge.



rmelly said:


> If you had been disconnected for 3.5 months would you have had to pay for the .5 or the 3.5?



I don't know! I did wonder that myself. What if I hadn't been able to get t he money together so quickly and it remained off for a month or two? Would I have been recieving full bills? It would be difficult to swallow a €62 bill for TV and Internet if I have neither.


----------



## rmelly (5 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> Like if a shop puts up a sign saying "Laser cards only accepted with purchase of €10 or more", that's illegal.


 
Are you sure? Retailers can choose their method of payment, given that Credit & presumably Debit card issuers charge the retailer a % based transaction fee, retailers may lose out on small transactions. On a similar vein, how many Irish retailers don't accept Amex?



> I would have thought that it was their fault as they are the ones who turned the service off.


 
If the reason for disconnection was non-payment then I wouldn't necessarially agree without more info.


----------



## A.C.Charlie (5 Apr 2009)

Well, regardless of the circumstances I don't see how they can expect me to pay for a week of service when I wasn't recieving service. How can any company possibly charge for a service they aren't providing?


----------



## iscritto (7 Apr 2009)

They are not doing anything wrong as such, the service was there for you to use however as you did not pay you did not met you side of the agreement and therefore they withdrew the service to "encourge" you to pay and prevent any loss on their side. Can't see them giving you back the money.


----------



## A.C.Charlie (14 Apr 2009)

iscritto said:


> They are not doing anything wrong as such, the service was there for you to use however as you did not pay you did not met you side of the agreement and therefore they withdrew the service to "encourge" you to pay and prevent any loss on their side.



Yes, they withdrew the service, yet still expect me to pay for it. They held their service to ransom and "encouraged" the money out of me. That's fair enough but they should not be charging me for use of the service during the time it wasn't there to use. 

Of course they can charge for everything I _did_ use.


----------



## MOB (14 Apr 2009)

€14 per week??  Cancel the service.  There are alternatives, I am sure.


----------



## Leo (14 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> Yes, they withdrew the service, yet still expect me to pay for it.


 
This is all very clearly spelled out in their terms and conditions to which you agreed when signing-up to the service. They also have the option to charge interest on the unpaid amount. 

You have no grounds whatsoever for a complaint.
Leo


----------



## A.C.Charlie (14 Apr 2009)

Leo said:


> This is all very clearly spelled out in their terms and conditions



I'm sorry, where?


----------



## Leo (14 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> I'm sorry, where?


 
*19. Suspension of Services and Termination*

19.4 You must reimburse us all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in any suspension and/or restart of the provision of the Services and we may charge you a reasonable reconnection charge. This will not apply where the suspension is not due to your breach, fault, or omission or is agreed between us. You will continue to be liable to pay all Charges which are due for the Services and the Equipment during the period of suspension and any period in which you do not comply with this Agreement.​


----------



## A.C.Charlie (15 Apr 2009)

Thank you but that doesn't really help. Or answer my question. Seeing it written on the Internet does not a legal contract make.


----------



## Silver2 (15 Apr 2009)

Chorus are a crazy company to deal with:!!!!

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=89355&highlight=chorus+ntl


----------



## AlbacoreA (15 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> Thank you but that doesn't really help. Or answer my question.


 
Why not? This seems to exactly answer it. 

"You will continue to be liable to pay all Charges which are due for the Services and the Equipment during the period of suspension and any period in which you do not comply with this Agreement"



A.C.Charlie said:


> Seeing it written on the Internet does not a legal contract make.


 
I'm guessing thats not the only place it exists.


----------



## Leo (16 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> Thank you but that doesn't really help. Or answer my question. Seeing it written on the Internet does not a legal contract make.


 
Are you serious? Ok so, dig out the contract you signed and that'll answer your question, and you can stop wasting everyone else's time.
Leo


----------



## A.C.Charlie (18 Apr 2009)

That does not make it a legal statement. If I were to draft a "contract" saying "I'm going to murder you" and got someone to sign it, it would still be illegal to murder them.

Please stop wasting _my_ time.


----------



## AlbacoreA (18 Apr 2009)

Stop wasting our time. What NTL are doing isn't illegal, so its a daft example. 

A contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal. Which one are you claiming the NTL contract is, to make it invalid?


----------



## JoeB (18 Apr 2009)

A.C.Charlie said:


> How can any company possibly charge for a service they aren't providing?



Hmmmm.. not a broadband user then I suppose... (mainly just the wireless providers)


----------



## Leo (20 Apr 2009)

Time waster, thread closed.


----------

