# Telecom provider issue



## JdmSpec (25 Aug 2008)

Hi,Im just wondering could anyone give me an idea of likely outcome here.

About two years ago i was with a telephone provider,for a month at a time i was left without service and had constant problems with the line,according to comreg at the time i was entitled to leave the company as they could not provide a service,so i notified them by post and subsequently left.

The provider then tried to bill be for periods when i had no service and for the remainder of the contract.

Fast forward two years and after about 5 letters from Intrum Justita demanding money,to which i replied everytime stating the facts,i have now recieved a letter from a solictor saying i have 7 days to pay.

The fee is small €165,but i dont feel i should just pay it to get them off my case when there trying to bill me for a service i didnt have,or time i wasnt even with the company.

Im wondering what is the best thing i can do or if left is this likely to go to court or is it simply scare tactics from strongly worded letters by IJ?


----------



## McCrack (25 Aug 2008)

€165. Ignore it. By all accounts you seem to have done all you can.
Even if that amount was legitimately owed to them it's not worth their while to refer it to the Court. They know that and they may suspect you don't hence the letter from a solicitor.


----------



## bond-007 (25 Aug 2008)

Agree 100% with McCrack.

Ignore any further letters from IJ. They will not go to court.


----------



## JdmSpec (25 Aug 2008)

Just something i noticed on the letter,it has a solicitors name and logo on it,but yet IJ's address and phone number,it's kind of made out to look like its from a solicitor but infact its from IJ.

The solictor does exist from a google search but doesnt list any affiliation from there site with IJ or there office isnt even anywhere near them.

Seems abit shady


----------



## bond-007 (25 Aug 2008)

Bill Holohan by any chance?


----------



## JdmSpec (25 Aug 2008)

Yep!I guess thats a standard form of letter they send?


----------



## bond-007 (25 Aug 2008)

Yep. That is the standard form letter they use. The next letter will be a IJ letter. It usually goes quiet after that letter.

I dunno if Bill Holohan has done a deal with IJ so they can use his name?


----------



## JdmSpec (25 Aug 2008)

I actually emailed him this morning regarding it,well emailed the address from his businesses website so it'l be interesting to see if anyone gets back from his company about it


----------



## bond-007 (25 Aug 2008)

It might be worth contacting the law society also.


----------



## justsally (25 Aug 2008)

I too was receiving requests for payment from a Debt Collecting Agency on behalf of a telecom company. This despite the fact that I had personally returned a modem with a covering letter cancelling the contract. This was in line with terms and conditions of the contract. Every time I received a letter I replied by letter explaining the situation . I continued to receive letters and even telephone calls didn't help until I said that I will be taking legal action because of defamation. Their reply was (paraphrasing) we are not defaming you, I said no, but your client is by passing on to you incorrect information about me  and putting my name on a debtors' list. I never heard from them again.


----------



## bond-007 (25 Aug 2008)

They can't put you on a debtors list. They have to take you to court first. 99% of the content of their letters is pure lies. Remember they are in scare enough and they will pay up game. 

They have no legal powers and they will give up after 5 letters if you don't engage them in correspondence.


----------



## justsally (25 Aug 2008)

The "debtors' list" I was referring to was the list they were working from. I'm sure they had a "list" in front of them, and no way did they want to pay me money, so if I'm not a creditor I'm a debtor. All I can say is, it worked for me. Just my tuppence worth. For me it was better to take this course than try to ignore letters coming through my letterbox. Some people are good at ignoring such letters I'm just not lucky enough to have that disposition.


----------



## csirl (26 Aug 2008)

> I too was receiving requests for payment from a Debt Collecting Agency on behalf of a telecom company. This despite the fact that I had personally returned a modem with a covering letter cancelling the contract. This was in line with terms and conditions of the contract. Every time I received a letter I replied by letter explaining the situation . I continued to receive letters and even telephone calls didn't help until I said that I will be taking legal action because of defamation. Their reply was (paraphrasing) we are not defaming you, I said no, but your client is by passing on to you incorrect information about me and putting my name on a debtors' list. I never heard from them again.


 
You should also send them a bill for the costs of you having to deal with their correspondence - call it a processing fee - and follow it up with letters similar to the ones they send you - see how they react to being pursued for the debt  

If they made inquiries with you, and you incurred costs as a result (remember time is money) and their inquiries are incorrect or invalid, then they should pick up the tab. In any legal situation cost follows fault. Would be interesting to see a case like this is small claims court.


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

Small claims would not be the correct venue for any such action.


----------



## csirl (26 Aug 2008)

> *Introduction*
> 
> The Small Claims procedure is an alternative method of commencing and dealing with a civil proceeding in respect of a small claim and is provided for under the District Court (Small Claims Procedure) Rules, 1997 & 1999.
> It is a service provided by District Court offices and is designed to handle consumer claims cheaply without involving a solicitor.
> ...



From Courts Service website.

I would have thought that if you were a customer of the telecom company and incurred costs due to the actions of the company, you would fall under (a) above. No different that if you bought faulty goods and had to pay to fix them because the company would not. In this case you are paying to fix the problem with your customer account with the telecom company because the telecom company will not fix it itself. Just because they are not physical goods, it doesnt mean you are not allowed claim.​


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

I doubt a small claims court would accept such a action as you are looking for damages, from personal experience. It would not fall within the remit of the 3 types of claims. 

You will be directed to a solicitor who will take a District Court action for damages.


----------



## JdmSpec (26 Aug 2008)

csirl said:


> You should also send them a bill for the costs of you having to deal with their correspondence - call it a processing fee - and follow it up with letters similar to the ones they send you - see how they react to being pursued for the debt
> .


 
I might just bombard them and see what they say,they dont seem to bother replying to any emails i send them though.

Im also interested in finding out more about the solicitors name on the letter,would it be standard practice for companies in general to send letters supposedly from a solicitor but addressed to themselfs or is it even legal?


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

JdmSpec said:


> Im also interested in finding out more about the solicitors name on the letter,would it be standard practice for companies in general to send letters supposedly from a solicitor but addressed to themselves or is it even legal?



Only the law society can really answer that. 

Does Bill Holohon say in any part of the letter that he is a solicitor? 

In the UK certain debt collectors use fake solicitors letters to get the desired result. But if you carefully check the letter footer it will say something like "Bond and Partners" is a trading style of "Dodgy debt collectors." So they don't actually ever to claim to be a solicitor.

It is all part of the deception that debt collectors engage in.


----------



## csirl (26 Aug 2008)

[broken link removed]


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

And?

What relevance does this have to the matter at hand? We do not know if this is the same "Bill Holohan".


----------



## JdmSpec (26 Aug 2008)

It basically has bill holohan and associates solicitors (debt collection department) at the header and signed "yours faithfully bill holohan and associates solictors" 

Likwise its as a footer but it's IJ's address and there phone number then bill holohan - solicitor


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

In that case I suspect that IJ have done a deal to use his name on the letters. The letters would be printed and sent out by IJ.


----------



## Skary (26 Aug 2008)

JdmSpec - I would suggest that you phone the provider and outline why you feel that you should not be  responsible for the payment of the €165. If they were not providing you with the service thus resulting them being "in breach of service agreement/contract" then you should not be liable for the payment. 
The difficulty is in getting hold of the right person - and also how you approach the situation.  There is no use in talking to a customer service rep - as they will be bound by limitations - but try to get onto a head of department and explain your case. I dont believe that any reasonable company would make you pay if they were clearly unable to provide a service (by their own admission) 
Don't be nasty on your approach - the more reasonable you appear (and have all your facts to hand) the more likely they are to come to a reasonable conclusion. I head up a CS department (thankfully not in telecoms) and frequently come across cases like yours, where people feel that they have not received service etc. I always asses the cases fairly and if the customer is reasonable and has a fair case, I would tend to rule in their favour. Again - there will always be many influencing factors to my decisions, including how the person approaches the situation. It is not worth ruining your credit history for a measly €165, however, It also  sounds like you may have a fair justification as to why you should have the amount written off in your favour.


----------



## bond-007 (26 Aug 2008)

Again, credit history can only be affected if the company get a judgement.


----------



## csirl (27 Aug 2008)

> And?
> 
> What relevance does this have to the matter at hand? We do not know if this is the same "Bill Holohan".


 
Its the only Bill Holohon on the Law Society list, so it must be them or someone masquerading as them.


----------



## JdmSpec (27 Aug 2008)

Skary said:


> JdmSpec - I would suggest that you phone the provider and outline why you feel that you should not be responsible for the payment of the €165. If they were not providing you with the service thus resulting them being "in breach of service agreement/contract" then you should not be liable for the payment.
> The difficulty is in getting hold of the right person - and also how you approach the situation. There is no use in talking to a customer service rep - as they will be bound by limitations - but try to get onto a head of department and explain your case. I dont believe that any reasonable company would make you pay if they were clearly unable to provide a service (by their own admission)
> Don't be nasty on your approach - the more reasonable you appear (and have all your facts to hand) the more likely they are to come to a reasonable conclusion. I head up a CS department (thankfully not in telecoms) and frequently come across cases like yours, where people feel that they have not received service etc. I always asses the cases fairly and if the customer is reasonable and has a fair case, I would tend to rule in their favour. Again - there will always be many influencing factors to my decisions, including how the person approaches the situation. It is not worth ruining your credit history for a measly €165, however, It also sounds like you may have a fair justification as to why you should have the amount written off in your favour.


 
Ive tried this approach before (the company is smart) and they seem to have an amazing turnover of staff as each time i recieved a letter and contacted them i would be told X Y Z who i dealt with before had left the department.

Its quite hard to get anyone in there but im going to make efforts with them again and see if i get anywhere.I actually think the original billing amount was €110,i'll need to dig out the past letters but if thats the case i dont know where €55 has jumped in from


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

Most likely that €55 is the IJ levy.


----------



## McCrack (27 Aug 2008)

JdmSpec said:


> Ive tried this approach before (the company is smart) and they seem to have an amazing turnover of staff as each time i recieved a letter and contacted them i would be told X Y Z who i dealt with before had left the department.
> 
> Its quite hard to get anyone in there but im going to make efforts with them again and see if i get anywhere.I actually think the original billing amount was €110,i'll need to dig out the past letters but if thats the case i dont know where €55 has jumped in from


 
JDM see my post #2. Honestly mate don't waste any more of your own time.


----------

