The Ts are in trouble

[Rik]

The BBC reports that:

Two telecom firms, TalkTalk and Tiscali, have been threatened with fines for billing customers for services that had been cancelled.

The regulator Ofcom has received more than 1,000 complaints this year and says more customers may be affected.

The customers had typically complained about aggressive demands for the payment of bills they did not owe.

TalkTalk blamed a new billing system introduced after it bought Tiscali in June last year.

This is gradually bringing together a million former Tiscali customers on seven different billing systems and integrating them with TalkTalk's own customer database.

The regulator warned that "many thousands more" may have been wrongly charged.

But TalkTalk said no more errors of this sort were likely to be made, as the billing system had now been fixed to stop it generating any more spurious bills for customers who had left.

"TalkTalk Group has co-operated fully with Ofcom's investigation and we apologise for the inconvenience caused to this limited group of former customers," the company said.

Ofcom has told TalkTalk to stop trying to collect any non-existent debts, including the use of debt collectors and threats of legal action.

People must be refunded if, since 1 January 2010, they have paid bills that should not have been levied.

And credit ratings agencies must be told to repair any damaged credit histories.

If the company fails to comply by 2 December it may be fined as much as 10% of its annual turnover.

Ofcom, doing something for the consumer. Pinch me someone, please!

[Glenn]

I can't pinch you, have a kick instead.

[Rik]

 

[Technical Ben]

"on seven different billing systems " 

[Rik]

A little room for confusion there, eh Ben?

[pctech]

It isn't April 1st is it?

[Rik]

 

[Simon]

TalkTalk said no more errors of this sort were likely to be made, as the billing system had now been fixed to stop it generating any more spurious bills for customers who had left.

So, I wonder how it remained unfixed for so long?   

[Rik]

Because they didn't get off their backsides until forced to do so? 

[Simon]

I wonder how much they'll still get away with, assuming they'll only pay back people who claim?  

[Rik]

Too much.

[Simon]

Not a bad little scam then, was it?   

[zappaDPJ]

Personally I think this falls outside of the remit of Ofcom and but firmly within the boundaries of the SFO. They shouldn't be fined, they should be prosecuted. This is just my opinion of course but the comments and opinions already posted here go some way towards showing an understanding of why this wasn't just a case of generating 'spurious bills for customers who had left'.

I'm one of those who is still being hounded for alleged non-payment years after leaving Pipex/Tiscali/TalkTalk. I've also reported the matter to Ofcom, the SFO and many other organisations. In my case Tiscali inadvertently put a cease on my line but still plundered my credit card for months. The only way I could get back on the net was from another location with a new provider. Tiscali owe me quite a large amount of money and yet for years they have pursued me via a number of back-ally solicitors and debt-collection thugs. The last letter received was a month ago. To make matter worse they recently attempted to reconnect the ceased line and attempted to deduct a year's charges from the details they have on file. Now they are coming after me for that despite the fact the line has been dead for three years and I vacated the property shortly afterwards.

I do rather think it amounts to rather more than simply generating 'spurious bills for customers who had left'.

[Rik]

It does, Zap. I suspect, however, that the SFO won't get involved for fear of losing another case.

[zappaDPJ]

I suspect you may be right, it's got to be well over a year since I contacted them and I've yet to receive a reply

[Rik]

They're still getting the letter analysed by a barrister.