VM reneging on ex-NTL competitive discounts

[Dunderhead]

received an undated (and without a return correspondence address) letter from Trevor Elliott (MD, Customer Service, VirginMedia) advising me that they have been making some improvements to the way they look after my monthly bill and had noticed that they haven't been charging me enough so they are going to increase my charges by an unspecified amount.

So far, so boring. But a number of more interesting points arose when I spent half an hour talking to their Customer Services department:

1) Virgin are consolidating the former NTL billing systems, from two (broadband, telephone) into a single system
2) to support this, a data cleansing exercise has highlighted cases such as mine where an agreed bundle of services is supplied by NTL/ Virgin at a competitive discount - discounts which VM are no longer willing to honour
3) Virgin don't accept that they are breaking a contract with customers and are claiming the previous NTL discounts were merely an offer, not a contract
4) if the offer had been in writing, then they would honour it.
5) although there was no time limit on the offer, it could not be considered by their customers to be open-ended
6) the VM rep advised me that NTL staff were in the habit of offering silly discounts, just to retain customers (even though the discounts were simply to match market rates)

I don't know how many customers are affected by this but it could be quite a large number. I haven't spoken to Trevor Elliott yet but this all comes on the back of an extended period of appalling network performance.

[lostandconfused]

Regardless of if you have it in writing or not, they can remove a discount whenever they want provided they give you 30 days notice. Likewise if this happens you are prefectly entitled to cancel you contract again with 30 days notice

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

received an undated (and without a return correspondence address) letter from Trevor Elliott (MD, Customer Service, VirginMedia) advising me that they have been making some improvements to the way they look after my monthly bill and had noticed that they haven't been charging me enough so they are going to increase my charges by an unspecified amount.

So far, so boring. But a number of more interesting points arose when I spent half an hour talking to their Customer Services department:

1) Virgin are consolidating the former NTL billing systems, from two (broadband, telephone) into a single system

True. Although they are actually merging billing systems because they have different systems for different networks (ex-Cable and Wireless and ex-NTL).

2) to support this, a data cleansing exercise has highlighted cases such as mine where an agreed bundle of services is supplied by NTL/ Virgin at a competitive discount - discounts which VM are no longer willing to honour

True. They are also cancelling a lot of discounts to save money.

3) Virgin don't accept that they are breaking a contract with customers and are claiming the previous NTL discounts were merely an offer, not a contract

If it were a contract, they would insist on you staying at least 12 months extra, which they didn't.

4) if the offer had been in writing, then they would honour it.

This is correct. Although I didn't do a law degree, I did study some contracts law as part of my degree. Basically, a Verbal contract is worthless as if it comes to court, no one can prove what was agreed. The same applies to offers. If a Customer Service agent promises you something, then doesn't make a note on your account and you have nothing in writing, then Virgin only have your word that the offer was made. As they don't know you from Adam, they won't usually take your word (I am not saying you would, but you could be phoning up and trying to get a discount you weren't promised).

5) although there was no time limit on the offer, it could not be considered by their customers to be open-ended

Unfortunately, the above applies. They don't know what offers were made.

6) the VM rep advised me that NTL staff were in the habit of offering silly discounts, just to retain customers (even though the discounts were simply to match market rates)

Unforetunately, NTL were desperate to retain as many customers as possible. As such, they seemed to encourage retentions to keep customers at all costs. This has led less scrupulous agents to basically make up deals, just to keep the figures up.

Note: I don't know if they did encourage it, but they certainly didn't seem that active in discouraging it either.

[Dunderhead]

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

Regardless of if you have it in writing or not, they can remove a discount whenever they want provided they give you 30 days notice. Likewise if this happens you are prefectly entitled to cancel you contract again with 30 days notice

That's fair enough and I think that I will be cancelling because I don't like the way they do business.

The letter I received this morning is extremely patronising (Virgin housestyle though) and implies that I have been undercharged due to an error, rather than VM simply taking the periodic opportunity to re-assess the commercial value of agreements with customers.

So the letter itself is simply dishonest.

---------- Post added at 14:09 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

True. Although they are actually merging billing systems because they have different systems for different networks (ex-Cable and Wireless and ex-NTL).

True. They are also cancelling a lot of discounts to save money.


If it were a contract, they would insist on you staying at least 12 months extra, which they didn't.

This is correct. Although I didn't do a law degree, I did study some contracts law as part of my degree. Basically, a Verbal contract is worthless as if it comes to court, no one can prove what was agreed. The same applies to offers. If a Customer Service agent promises you something, then doesn't make a note on your account and you have nothing in writing, then Virgin only have your word that the offer was made. As they don't know you from Adam, they won't usually take your word (I am not saying you would, but you could be phoning up and trying to get a discount you weren't promised).

Unfortunately, the above applies. They don't know what offers were made.

Unforetunately, NTL were desperate to retain as many customers as possible. As such, they seemed to encourage retentions to keep customers at all costs. This has led less scrupulous agents to basically make up deals, just to keep the figures up.

Note: I don't know if they did encourage it, but they certainly didn't seem that active in discouraging it either.

Under English Law, a contract is concluded on an offer being accepted. Unwritten contracts are enforceable, although harder to determine if disputed. However, in my case, the contracted rate is evidenced by the subsequent billing pattern.


At the time, NTL rates had become uncompetitive so it was fairly understandable why NTL would offer a market-matching rate, rather than an exceptional deal for an individual customer.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

That's fair enough and I think that I will be cancelling because I don't like the way they do business.

The letter I received this morning is extremely patronising (Virgin housestyle though) and implies that I have been undercharged due to an error, rather than VM simply taking the periodic opportunity to re-assess the commercial value of agreements with customers.

So the letter itself is simply dishonest.

---------- Post added at 14:09 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------



Under English Law, a contract is concluded on an offer being accepted. Unwritten contracts are enforceable, although harder to determine if disputed. However, in my case, the contracted rate is evidenced by the subsequent billing pattern.


At the time, NTL rates had become uncompetitive so it was fairly understandable why NTL would offer a market-matching rate, rather than an exceptional deal for an individual customer.

Clearly, Virgin don't consider the subsequent billing pattern as proof. They seem to have picked it up as an error, hence the letter. I don't know Virgin's billing systems, but it seems that the agent you made the deal with may just have entered the reduced rate, but with no explanation of why it is there.

[dev]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

Under English Law, a contract is concluded on an offer being accepted. Unwritten contracts are enforceable, although harder to determine if disputed. However, in my case, the contracted rate is evidenced by the subsequent billing pattern.


At the time, NTL rates had become uncompetitive so it was fairly understandable why NTL would offer a market-matching rate, rather than an exceptional deal for an individual customer.

a bill would only prove they allowed the offer to exist for the past, it won't say it was a never ending deal or how long it lasted or if they could cancel it whenever. As Stuart said, if you want a legal contract it has to be in writing at least, a verbal one doesn't exist in the eyes of the courts.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

That's fair enough and I think that I will be cancelling because I don't like the way they do business.

The letter I received this morning is extremely patronising (Virgin housestyle though) and implies that I have been undercharged due to an error, rather than VM simply taking the periodic opportunity to re-assess the commercial value of agreements with customers.

It wasn't though.

Ntl Customer Relations agents had a habit of adding discounts onto an account that weren't valid

I.E Giving a broadband discount to someone who didn't have broadband, a TV discount to someone who didn't have TV etc.

The older billing systems would allow this (god knows why though)

It is this that they are currently picking up on

Now that all TV and phone (and 90% BB billing) is on a single system these errors can be identified and removed.

Anyone who was on an official ex-ntl value pack, remains on that. In fact, sometimes they actually increase the discount to match the current Virgin Bundle

[Dunderhead]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It wasn't though.

Ntl Customer Relations agents had a habit of adding discounts onto an account that weren't valid

I.E Giving a broadband discount to someone who didn't have broadband, a TV discount to someone who didn't have TV etc.

The older billing systems would allow this (god knows why though)

It is this that they are currently picking up on

Now that all TV and phone (and 90% BB billing) is on a single system these errors can be identified and removed.

Anyone who was on an official ex-ntl value pack, remains on that. In fact, sometimes they actually increase the discount to match the current Virgin Bundle

As a customer, I was offered a "bundle" by an NTL customer relations/ retention representative, at a market-matching rate. I accepted this in good faith and I do not accept that this was any sort of "error" or "mistake." It was NTL's business process and they retained customers as a result.

VM are now trawling through these deals, reneging on them and then sending out dishonest letters, claiming that the deals were a billing mistake. Dishonest is the only word to describe the process and I would be ashamed to put my name to the letters carrying Trevor Elliott's name. The letters are undated, carry no return address and do not give details of the proposed revised charges. Does that sound like an honest, reputable way to conduct business?

An honest company would have been transparent and honest about what they were doing, and why they were doing it. The net result will be, in a few weeks time, that I will make alternative arrangements.

After all my so-called XL BB has been so slow over the past five months, even a dial-up modem was quicker in December. How much money would VM make if they only billed us for the speed we actually received from them? Not a lot.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

As a customer, I was offered a "bundle" by an NTL customer relations/ retention representative, at a market-matching rate. I accepted this in good faith and I do not accept that this was any sort of "error" or "mistake." It was NTL's business process and they retained customers as a result.

VM are now trawling through these deals, reneging on them and then sending out dishonest letters, claiming that the deals were a billing mistake. Dishonest is the only word to describe the process and I would be ashamed to put my name to the letters carrying Trevor Elliott's name. The letters are undated, carry no return address and do not give details of the proposed revised charges. Does that sound like an honest, reputable way to conduct business?

An honest company would have been transparent and honest about what they were doing, and why they were doing it. The net result will be, in a few weeks time, that I will make alternative arrangements.

And it is your right to find other providers if the changes Virgin are making are not to your liking

But again, they are a billing mistake. maybe a billing mistake instigated by an advisor, but a billing mistake none the less.

It was not ntl's business practise to offer discounts not valid for the services, and they did used to have data clense teams going through the accounts and correcting where they could, just the they were never that thorough, unlike the current teams.

I agree with what you have previously posted that verbal contracts are binding. But only within their own terms.

For instance, Virgin contract terms for anyone outside of the inital contract is 30 days (as was ntl's). If you want to terminate your contract you have to give 30 days notice. If you take on a change to a service its 30 days before you can remove it. If Virgin wish to change anything it is 30 days.

No offer ntl ever gave extended this rolling contract period beyond 30 days.

On the other hand, any deal Virgin give whether to new or exisiting customers, on the whole IS recontracting to a new contract. but even then it is a 12 month period, after which reverts to 30 days.

Since ntl has not existed for over 12 months, there would be legally no obligation for Virgin to continue with any price previously quoted, althought they have to give you 30 days notice (which is normally the bill) to change it.

If however, Virgin were to change a price quoted while you within a minimum 12 month contract, yes they would be breaking the law. But they would then only have to honour the price to the end of the 12 months.

I again understand it is frustrating, especially if the level of discount you had was not that excessive.

In some instances though, ntl/Virgin have had accounts where they have been paying customers to take services, due to the level of discounts applied

The accounts clean up is going to take quite a while, but once it is done, Virgin's billing will be consistant, and based on a published list of bundles and discounts. Not the ex-ntl way of making it up as you go along

[Dunderhead]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And it is your right to find other providers if the changes Virgin are making are not to your liking

But again, they are a billing mistake. maybe a billing mistake instigated by an advisor, but a billing mistake none the less.

sorry but it wasn't a billing mistake, it was just their business policy at that time.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It was not ntl's business practise to offer discounts not valid for the services, and they did used to have data clense teams going through the accounts and correcting where they could, just the they were never that thorough, unlike the current teams.

The accounts clean up is going to take quite a while, but once it is done, Virgin's billing will be consistant, and based on a published list of bundles and discounts. Not the ex-ntl way of making it up as you go along

NTL were losing customers so they offered discounts to retain customers, in my case they undercut the sky broadband/ phone offer by 50p per month.

My beef with VM is that they are being completely dishonest by dressing this exercise up as a billing mistake, when all they are really doing is reneging on the NTL deals because they don't want to continue the loyalty discounts.

If VM had been honest, I would have more respect for them. But they are not honest and that annoys me to the point of taking my custom elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

sorry but it wasn't a billing mistake, it was just their business policy at that time..

It was never their business practice at all. Some unethical staff would do anything to get a "save" this included offering deals that were not legitimate offers. This included changing a account in such a way that a offer would go on but shouldn't have been there. This was mainly because the old NTL billing system didn't have checks in place to make sure this didn't happen. The old Telewest system which is now VM's main billing system does. This will now show as errors on the account, which is what VM will have picked up on. Do you think the orginal advisor will have left proper notes on the account saying this is what they did. I doubt it which is why now VM have simply picked it up as a billing error.
Also remember that a large number of exNTL Retentions staff were made redundent when they closed a full site and I remember the aftermath where some customers had been given just stupid deals because the staff at the time knew they were on their way out and didn't care anymore.

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

NTL were losing customers so they offered discounts to retain customers, in my case they undercut the sky broadband/ phone offer by 50p per month.

My beef with VM is that they are being completely dishonest by dressing this exercise up as a billing mistake, when all they are really doing is reneging on the NTL deals because they don't want to continue the loyalty discounts.

If VM had been honest, I would have more respect for them. But they are not honest and that annoys me to the point of taking my custom elsewhere.

Whats the problem. Instead of spitting the dummy out why don't you give them a ring. They do have loyalty discounts that undercut Sky. Then they can apply a offer to your account that is correct and dosn't show on the account as errors. If VM were reneging on the offers they had given they would have pulled the current retention deals which tend to give far greater discount then any of the NTL offers did,

In fact as benmcr has said they have been activly changing customers from the old NTL value packs to the new VM bundles which give customers a slighlty larger discount.

[Dunderhead]

Originally Posted by Akia

It was never their business practice at all. Some unethical staff would do anything to get a "save" this included offering deals that were not legitimate offers. This included changing a account in such a way that a offer would go on but shouldn't have been there. This was mainly because the old NTL billing system didn't have checks in place to make sure this didn't happen. The old Telewest system which is now VM's main billing system does. This will now show as errors on the account, which is what VM will have picked up on. Do you think the orginal advisor will have left proper notes on the account saying this is what they did. I doubt it which is why now VM have simply picked it up as a billing error.

The first thing that I did when I received my letter was call Customer Service on Friday morning and checked that there was a note of the special rate on my account. The CS agent confirmed that there was such a note, explaining the rate and reason.

Originally Posted by Akia

Also remember that a large number of exNTL Retentions staff were made redundent when they closed a full site and I remember the aftermath where some customers had been given just stupid deals because the staff at the time knew they were on their way out and didn't care anymore.

undercutting the market rate by 50p per month is not a stupid deal, it is a business policy.

Originally Posted by Akia

Whats the problem. Instead of spitting the dummy out why don't you give them a ring. They do have loyalty discounts that undercut Sky. Then they can apply a offer to your account that is correct and dosn't show on the account as errors. If VM were reneging on the offers they had given they would have pulled the current retention deals which tend to give far greater discount then any of the NTL offers did,

In fact as benmcr has said they have been activly changing customers from the old NTL value packs to the new VM bundles which give customers a slighlty larger discount.

I did call CS (see above) and was told it was a billing mistake, even after the CS rep had read out the notes on the account, confirming the arrangement. I was on that call for more than 30 minutes and the only offer that was made to me was to continue my existing deal for 30 days and to log a complaint on my behalf.

At the end of the day VM are being dishonest with customers, by pretending their loyalty discounts were billing mistakes, rather than commercial agreements.

Obviously there are people who are quite comfortable with a "reputable" business sending out dishonest letters. Shame on them.

If customer services have read you the notes and it confirms what you were offered VM will honor this without a problem. Its pointless speaking to Customer Care because they can't do anything. Ring and ask to speak to Customer Relations. Explain they situation to them and they will apply a retentions offer to your account without any problem but this time they will apply it in a way that stops it flagging as a error, Most prob saving you a few extra pounds as most deals undercut Sky by £2 or £3.

I din't think the letters were dishonest in the slightest, VM will have picked up the offer as a error on the account most prob with a automated system check. As far a VM are concered these are not commercial agreements because it never authorised staff to make them, but like I said before some staff did. It was the staff member being dishonest not VM. Now VM are having to clean up after them.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

undercutting the market rate by 50p per month is not a stupid deal, it is a business policy.

I'm not saying your offer was a stupid deal. In fact if its only undercuttign Sky by 50p it will take Custoemr Relations a few mins to correct and put right. But on some accounts VM have actually been paying the customer each month to be with them, These are the deals that have been pulled and will not be put back on.

[Dunderhead]

Originally Posted by Akia

If customer services have read you the notes and it confirms what you were offered VM will honor this without a problem.

No they won't. I spent half an hour on the 'phone and the best quote was "if you had it in writing, we would honour it." I pointed out that the rep had just read the note to me so it clearly was in writing.

It is obvious that VM need to stiff their customers to increase revenue.

Originally Posted by Akia

Its pointless speaking to Customer Care because they can't do anything. Ring and ask to speak to Customer Relations. Explain they situation to them and they will apply a retentions offer to your account without any problem but this time they will apply it in a way that stops it flagging as a error, Most prob saving you a few extra pounds as most deals undercut Sky by £2 or £3.

That's exactly what NTL did for me in the past. Now VM claim it was a billing mistake. So why is it OK for VM to price match now but not NTL in the past?

Originally Posted by Akia

I din't think the letters were dishonest in the slightest, VM will have picked up the offer as a error on the account most prob with a automated system check. As far a VM are concered these are not commercial agreements because it never authorised staff to make them, but like I said before some staff did. It was the staff member being dishonest not VM. Now VM are having to clean up after them.

The VM letters *are* dishonest because they say it's about a billing mistake, when it's really about historical loyalty discounts. An honest letter would have just said: "we have reviewed our policy and can't support the old NTL loyalty discounts, but here is our new offer...."

VM are not cleaning up after NTL, they are stiffing their customers and not being honest.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Dunderhead

The VM letters *are* dishonest because they say it's about a billing mistake, when it's really about historical loyalty discounts. An honest letter would have just said: "we have reviewed our policy and can't support the old NTL loyalty discounts, but here is our new offer...."

VM are not cleaning up after NTL, they are stiffing their customers and not being honest.

Obviously, you mind is made as to why they are doing it, no matter what is said.

If VM were being completely honest though the letter would may have read (and this is completely my own take on this) "We can't work out what you are supposed to be paying, as it's not in either the VM or ntl price list. So we are going to put you on our standard price for the services you have. If you wish to talk to us about how much you pay please do"

Ntl historically never had any 'loyalty' discounts. Any 'price matching' was done by throwing stuff at an account and hoping it would stick. This is why there are all the problems now.

Only when it became Virgin (or about to be) were proper documented loyalty discounts introduced