Well, they did ask......

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Stig

So after binning said unwanted modems how many people have or will be prosecuted??? ... In the real world Virgin don't want them and tell you to bin them if you ask what to do with them.... Like any prosecution would succeed

A prosecution would certainly succeed - it's there in black and white.

As you've pointed out - the fault lies with Virgin's apparent unwillingness to pursue those who are clearly breaking their T&C's, and in some cases the law, by facilitating the theft of services in favour of employing debt collection companies to hound people for a few meagre pounds of debt.

Go figure.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

A prosecution would certainly succeed - it's there in black and white.

As you've pointed out - the fault lies with Virgin's apparent unwillingness to pursue those who are clearly breaking their T&C's, and in some cases the law, by facilitating the theft of services in favour of employing debt collection companies to hound people for a few meagre pounds of debt.

Go figure.

Then may I suggest the following course of action? If it's all there in black and white (personally, I'd say it is a dull shade of grey), then it would be perfectly reasonable to send VM a bill for a. storage of the modem which you say would lead to a conviction if binned as advised by VM representatives, and b. the cost to you to insure said modem (as you are contractually obliged to do).

If a case by VM against someone binning their modem is certain to succeed, then surely a case against VM for costs incurred as a result of them advising they will not collect the modem is equally likely to succeed? All you need to do is argue (convincingly) that a case by VM against someone who binned a modem on their advice will certainly succeed. Job done.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Then may I suggest the following course of action? If it's all there in black and white (personally, I'd say it is a dull shade of grey), then it would be perfectly reasonable to send VM a bill for a. storage of the modem which you say would lead to a conviction if binned as advised by VM representatives, and b. the cost to you to insure said modem (as you are contractually obliged to do).

How would you realistically propose that someone would prove it "reasonable" for them to retrospectively claim costs in respect of something which they voluntarily undertook under clause 2c in the original contract?

Originally Posted by danielf

If a case by VM against someone binning their modem is certain to succeed, then surely a case against VM for costs incurred as a result of them advising they will not collect the modem is equally likely to succeed? All you need to do is argue (convincingly) that a case by VM against someone who binned a modem on their advice will certainly succeed. Job done.

No, see above. In the event that someone was minded to undertake such an action they would firstly need to be able to prove that their household insurance premium, post contract, was artificially inflated as a result of the equipment in their home. Ditto with proving storage costs.

Additionally, private house owners are not legally allowed to charge "storage" for items or goods on or in their premises as this invalidates the term of their household insurance in that providing or charging "storage" services constitutes a provision of a business service.

Anything else I can help you with?

[Stig]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

A prosecution would certainly succeed - it's there in black and white.

It is not certain to succeed. Virgin/Ntl employees are not taking it upon themselves to advise binning the modems, even if they were Virgin should and would stop them and it is an internal matter. The employees are representatives of Virgin/Ntl and as such are letting the people who are bound by Virgin/Ntl T&C off the hook.

No court in the land would convict somebody of theft if the originator (or rep) of the T&C was "letting you off" by telling you to bin the modem after you had tried to give it back.

and....

If we or you end this agreement, or you decide to disconnect from some of our services, you must return our equipment to us (or let us collect it from you if we choose to do this). You must return equipment or make it available for collection in a reasonable condition, allowing for fair wear and tear. If you fail to return or make available the equipment for collection for any reason, we are entitled to charge you for the replacement cost of the equipment........ If we have supplied you with any additional equipment, we'd encourage you to dispose of it responsibly if you're no longer using it so please contact us for further information about disposing of your additional equipment.

means that if you had tried to return the modem and Virgin/NTL told you to bin it a prosecution would be as near impossible as you could get


If you'd like to test this out I'll get my Mum to trash/bin her modem and I'll pass her details on to Virgins legal dept..... Nothing will happen. The case would be dismissed because Virgin don't want them and make it near impossible for you to return the modem making a nonsense of the T&C.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

How would you realistically propose that someone would prove it "reasonable" for them to retrospectively claim costs in respect of something which they voluntarily undertook under clause 2c in the original contract?

After termination of the contract you are left with an item that needs insuring under said contract. Now surely, if they can hold you to this contract when it comes to disposing items, then surely the same holds for items that need insuring under the same contract after it expired.

No, see above. In the event that someone was minded to undertake such an action they would firstly need to be able to prove that their household insurance premium, post contract, was artificially inflated as a result of the equipment in their home. Ditto with proving storage costs.

Additionally, private house owners are not legally allowed to charge "storage" for items or goods on or in their premises as this invalidates the term of their household insurance in that providing or charging "storage" services constitutes a provision of a business service.

That probably is a good point.

Anyway, A judge would probably laugh VM out of court if they took action against someone who binned a modem on their advice (particularly if they regularly advise people to do so). It may be there in the T&Cs, but that doesn't mean a judge will find these conditions fair. I once signed a lease on a house which stipulated I was not allowed to have guests. When queried, the estate agent said there was no way that would stand up in court. I think he was right. Judges will assess the fairness of conditions (particularly when it comes to consumers). In this case VM don't have a leg to stand on imo.

Anything else I can help you with?

Actually: I have a Modem in the loft that wants relocating to the bin. I find it a bit heavy. Come and give us a hand will you?

[Smok3y666]

Mr Angry, if it bothers you so much why don't you just cancel you VM subscription? The fact is VM don't care what happens to their modems regardless of what their T&C's say and cloners don't care about you suffering poor download speeds so long as they get what they want for nothing. eBay don't care about people selling NTL modems on their auction site so long as eBay are making profit. The only person that does care is you, the person stupid enough to keep paying for a crap service.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Smok3y666

Mr Angry, if it bothers you so much why don't you just cancel you VM subscription? The fact is VM don't care what happens to their modems regardless of what their T&C's say and cloners don't care about you suffering poor download speeds so long as they get what they want for nothing. eBay don't care about people selling NTL modems on their auction site so long as eBay are making profit. The only person that does care is you, the person stupid enough to keep paying for a crap service.

I do believe Mr Angry cancelled his services ages ago.

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by Smok3y666

Mr Angry, if it bothers you so much why don't you just cancel you VM subscription? The fact is VM don't care what happens to their modems regardless of what their T&C's say and cloners don't care about you suffering poor download speeds so long as they get what they want for nothing. eBay don't care about people selling NTL modems on their auction site so long as eBay are making profit. The only person that does care is you, the person stupid enough to keep paying for a crap service.

If I recall, Mr Angry did indeed cancel his contract for this very reason some months ago, and even ogt silence on the retentions line when they asked why he was cancelling. So with that in your mind I suggest you settle down with the sweeping assumptions.

Furthermore, Mr Angry is not the only person who cares about this issue - it is a shame that the people in power to perhaps combat it are currently not seen to share the same.

[Smok3y666]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I do believe Mr Angry cancelled his services ages ago.

Then wtf is he moaning about?

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------

Originally Posted by JackSon

If I recall, Mr Angry did indeed cancel his contract for this very reason some months ago, and even ogt silence on the retentions line when they asked why he was cancelling. So with that in your mind I suggest you settle down with the sweeping assumptions.

Furthermore, Mr Angry is not the only person who cares about this issue - it is a shame that the people in power to perhaps combat it are currently not seen to share the same.

Then what does that tell you? They don't care so long as you keep paying them.

[JackSon]

It tells me you're fishing for a 'spot the obvious' contest?

[Smok3y666]

So what's the point of the thread?

[Stig]

Originally Posted by Smok3y666

Then wtf is he moaning about?

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------



Then what does that tell you? They don't care so long as you keep paying them.

Doh!

Have you read the thread??

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Smok3y666

Then wtf is he moaning about?

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------



Then what does that tell you? They don't care so long as you keep paying them.

Do you have a problem with me "moaning" or are you suggesting that everyone should just put up with paying for something that others are stealing?

[JackSon]

As you have so expertly cottened on to, the powers that be don't care as it seemes the cost of losing customers is less than putting into action the prevention of cloned services. That is an assumption of my own anyway.
So, the 'point' of this thread is to put pressure onto the higher ups from all angles to make this issue more in the public eye and also to help prevent the supply of the stolen kit.
My Angry should be commended for his crusade in this respect because after cancelling his contract, his hands could have been washed of it.
With respect to "wtf he is moaning about" only he can say, but I speuclate that he feels he was forced into cancelling because of no action of VM's part to save him from poor service as a result of the underlying criminal activity.

[Smok3y666]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Do you have a problem with me "moaning" or are you suggesting that everyone should just put up with paying for something that others are stealing?

Well people are obvioulsy putting up with cloners stealing bandwidth or else VM would have done something about it.