Anyone else hit with 300 euro + bill from Eircom when changing to EsatBT dsl?

Penfolds

Ring them up and politely mention that there seems to be a problem with your line, then when they tell you that you've been cut off ask why.
When they say that you were cut off because you cancelled your subscription and as per clause 9.3 you owe 360 which you didn't pay, just say :
"I never cancelled my subscription...Can you send me out a copy of the written notice I gave you please.......Oh you don't have it....well according to clause 9.4 I would have had to have given you notice to cancel in writing and I certainly don't remember doing that"

If they say well you gave the notice over the phone ask to hear the recording of your call giving this notice.....That may stump them...Fighting red tape with red tape and all that !

simonm2

PENFOLDS:

Excellent idea - I may not do it precisely that way but I am glad you see that as a reasonable interpretation of 9.4.


PADDY20:

Obviously there's more. This is the straw that may break the camel's back. The thing that make's you get up one morning and say - that's it, I've had enough. Last year it took 6 months and multiple phone calls (incl ages on hold - so long that the connection either timed out or was deliberately cut to make their answering stats look better in the call centre) to get the modest refund you are entitled to when the line is out of operation for more that 3(?) days. They actually admitted that I was entitled to the refund almost immediately (at least by Eircom's standards) but it still took 3 or 4 billing cycles. That's a story in itelf. Suffice it to say that experience prompted the cartoon on this page http://comwreck.com/blog_5_jan24.html when I mentioned it in some circles. Eircom sometimes calls lightening an act of God to avoid paying out (T&C, agreed with Comreg apparently) - my view on that is that lightening conductors were invented no later than the mid-18th C. - T Jefferson and the kite...

If Eircom had kept their promise to roll-out nationwide dsl by autumn 1999 and even done it by late 2001 the small company which brought me back to Ireland in 2004, after years abroad, might still be in business - specifically we were looking at developing an online product but at IR 3k a month (from Worldcom I think - not Eircom) just for the bandwidth it was too expensive to do.

I am also befuddled by a government which by inaction has effectively legalised the forgery of the T's signature and for that matter of the Pres of the EU - i.e zero legal action take against one Cllr Allen in Wexford. If you or I forge Berties siggy and send it out in offical Gov envelops I reckon the special branch would have us in a cell before we knew what hit us.

A company I have done some contracting looks as if it is going to make me a decent offer for a London based job - as the two events have coincided I am thinking seriously. Speaking of which, time do some work.

seamus

Your best defence probably lies in their incompetence. Eircom.net's training is abysmal. Agents aren't made aware of half of the procedures. When you order the product over the phone, they are supposed to either read the T&C out to you, or at least ask you if you agree with them. That should be the clincher. If you say "Yes, I agree" then you have no leg to stand on.
Furthermore, when you cancel the service over the phone, they are supposed to flag your account for deactivation* and then ask you to send a confirmation mail to accounts@eircom.net or something. Instead they usually just send a mail to a team leader to cancel the account** and leave it at that. This is not because they're lazy or stupid, but because most of the time, nobody told them what the procedure was.

Compare this with UTV. I sent an email to request a UTVIP account be ceased, and the same day received an email saying the account was now flagged for deactivation and would be ceased 30 days from that day. And it was. No problems.

*The contract says 30 days, but I'm not sure if eircom have the right to waive that notice and cancel it as soon as it is requested. You'll notice the contract says that the customer must provide 30 days notice of cancellation, but eircom can cease your account at any time. So it may not need to be flagged for deactivation at all

**When I was there, FRIACO was new to eircom.net and a customer's internet account could be ceased by anybody just clicking on a big red "Cease" button on their account. Within a few weeks, this had been changed so that only Team Leaders were authorised to do this. A little better, but still a laughable system.

simonm2

seamus wrote:

Eircom.net's training is abysmal.

Tend to agree on this - while the evil in me likes to think that Eircom's agents hang up on callers deliberately, I suspect that your explanation is closer - the poor buggers don't know how to transfer the call properly and fluff it up as a result. Late last year when I was still trying to get a refund for a 7 day outage (4 in Eircoms books because Sat, Sun and Bank holidays don't count!) I got disconnected a number of times after precisely 6 minutes on hold - I began to suspect that calls which were on hold beyond a set time were being automatically disconnected. I was also cut off once in mid-stream but got back to the same guy when I rang back a few minutes: he had no idea what happened - I got the impression that his whole system had gone down.

EsatBt despite their ropey billing system at least have a call back system that works.

What bugs me about the whole dsl scenario is that over the last two years I have contacted Eircom numerous times asking when I could get it. Everytime they assured me they would call me as soon as the exchange was enabled - last time I did it was sometime in late May when they said end of June, which I didn't believe (but which turned out to be true - I discovered by accident in mid-july when this whole saga began) and again assured me they would let me know - still haven't had a call from them. (They can't get through now anyway ;-)).

When I was working in Galway we were spending enough that we had our account manager's mobile number: despite that he never returned my calls - actually I never managed to get past his voicemail.

blorg

Don't know if this might be relevant, regarding unfair terms in contracts drawn up between businesses' and consumers:

http://www.ecic.ie/consumer/goods_services/gs_2.htm

Quote: "In essence an unfair term is one which is significantly weighted against the consumer and which is used by the business in a way that violates the principle of good faith."

simonm2

blorg wrote:

Don't know if this might be relevant, regarding unfair terms in contracts drawn up between businesses' and consumers:

http://www.ecic.ie/consumer/goods_services/gs_2.htm

Quote: "In essence an unfair term is one which is significantly weighted against the consumer and which is used by the business in a way that violates the principle of good faith."

Definitely relevant. I've already taken the advice above and raised the issue with the OCDA. (Thanks PADDY20)

A question for all those lurking legal eagles out there:

I have just noticed something that has been staring me in the face from day one. On the description page for their "flatrate" service http://home.eircom.net/products/flatrate/# they explicitedly state "non minimum contract" and again when you click on the Anytime link the same "no minimum contract" phrase is there. Surely a penalty for termination cannot be enforced if there is no minimum contract? Any thought anybody.

It certainly "violates the principle of good faith" in my view.

seamus

simonm2 wrote:

I have just noticed something that has been staring me in the face from day one. On the description page for their "flatrate" service http://home.eircom.net/products/flatrate/# they explicitedly state "non minimum contract" and again when you click on the Anytime link the same "no minimum contract" phrase is there. Surely a penalty for termination cannot be enforced if there is no minimum contract? Any thought anybody.

It's not really a penalty for terminating, because you're being charged for something that you have in fact used. Basically, by allowing you to connect free between billing periods, they are giving you credit.

In effect, they are giving you flat rate on the agreement that you pay them your subscription at the end of the month. By terminating, you are telling them that you're not going to pay them this subscription, so then they have to attempt to recoup costs of the calls you have made.
It's a sneaky clause, and one that is purely designed to extract money from people, particularly given its unusual nature. In theory, the same thing should occur when you change flat rate packages, but I know it didn't happen for some people.

That bit that blorg posted is very interesting. Suddenly it doesn't seem so bleak.

simonm2

Did the biz today and posted off a small claims court form. Zero idea what will happen next.

Exchanged yet another email with Eircom. It gets absurder. My "respondant" (we're almost old buddies at this stage!) in Eircom now says that section 9.4 of the terms and conditions doesn't apply to the Flat Rate service (Anytime 150) because the words "flat rate" don't occur in that section. It only applies only to the "Free and subscription" services (I assume because these words do occur in the paragraph). For completeness sake I have asked them to clarify how many other terms in the T&C don't apply.

Now kiddies, let's all have a guessing game: you have a contract with Eircom - they send you 5000 words of tightly worded T&C, the game is to guess how many terms actually apply to the agreement in question ...

I am looking forward (but not holding my breath) to Eircom's answer.

Ripwave

simonm2 wrote:

My "respondant" (we're almost old buddies at this stage!) in Eircom now says that section 9.4 of the terms and conditions doesn't apply to the Flat Rate service (Anytime 150) because the words "flat rate" don't occur in that section. It only applies only to the "Free and subscription" services (I assume because these words do occur in the paragraph).

Anytime 150 is a subscription service!

simonm2

Ripwave wrote:

Anytime 150 is a subscription service!

Hey Wow!! Someone else noticed that! Should we let Eircom in on the secret??

Raskolnikov

Don't pay anything yet.

A friend of mine was in the exact same position that you are in now. He was even going to pay the €300 that he had and all! I persuaded him to give eircom.net a call and get in touch with someone high up, after lots waiting on the phone and getting pitched about, he got in touch with a manager and explained his situation, eventually the eircom.net girl buckled after he threatened to ditch his eircom line. She said to send the account details and photocopies of the bills to the account dept and to pay what he owed. Eventually the matter was sorted out. Maybe it's too late for this now, heck, I think it's still worth a shot.

simonm2

Raskolnikov wrote:

Don't pay anything yet.
Maybe it's too late for this now, heck, I think it's still worth a shot.

As far as I am concerned it is (too late that is) - I've spent an aweful lot of time in the last month trying to get this sorted out and all I meet is a stone wall. I'll see what the Small Claims Court makes of this. Then I'll figure out what to do next. It's clear from your post and an earlier one further up, that Eircom don't apply their rules evenly. I've just talked to another friend who has another issue with Eircom and the problem is the same - it's impossible to find anyone to talk to - I don't know how your friend managed to get through to a manager - 1901 hung up on me when I asked for a supervisor.

Anyway I would still love to hear from anyone with experience of taking Eircom to court - small claims or district.

spongebob

Small Claims worked for me, they never showed up. It was a few years back and involved a tree though.

M

simonm2

Very encouraging - they may take a different view when it is to do with a bill - but nice to hear nevertheless.

simonm2

I've had some interesting email exchanges with Eircom's customer care over the 2-3 weeks.

Some highlights:

How do you terminate an Anytime 150 service (which is clearly described as a having "no minimum contract"). The question I asked was:

> I would appreciate if you could clarify
> for me the correct method of cancelling the Anytime 150 flat rate
> service so as to avoid the implications of 9.3.

Answer I got:

"It is not so much that there is a right way and a wrong way.....but once you cease the flat rate account, all calls to 1893 will revert to the 'pay as you go rates' from the beginning of that billing period, so it is up to the customer to choose which they do; cancel mid-billing cycle and have the calls made to 1893 revert to the 'pay as you go rates' or to wait until they have received their bill and then cancel the account, thus paying the flat rate fee and not per minute charges."

My conclusion - there is a minimum contract duration of one billing cycle which is 2 months.

When I was informed that section 9.4 didn't apply to the Anytime 150 contract I asked what other sections did not apply. They didn't actually answer my question but did say this:
"
>Here is a list from point 9 of our terms and conditions (Term and
>Termination) which package each apply to:
>9.1 a&b applies to all our packages
>9.2.1 a&b applies to all our packages
> c applies only to flat rate, as flat rate is the only package
tied directly to the telephone account number
>9.2.2 applies to all our packages
>9.3 applies only to flat rate
>9.4 applies only to subscription and free accounts
>9.5 applies to all our packages
>9.6 applies only to subscription and flat rate packages
>9.7 applies only to subscription and flat rate packages
>9.8 applies only to flat rate packages

"

Seems odd at least to me to send out Terms and Conditions for a contract where some of them don't apply to the product in question. Ah that's Eircom for you.

Mutant_Fruit

I suppose if you could find ONE case of someone not being charged the "disconnection" fee you were charged, you could possibly sue them for "unfair treatment". I.e. them deciding who to apply the charges to, and who not to apply them to (not sure of the right word for this ). If all else fails, thats worth a shot.

simonm2

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

I suppose if you could find ONE case of someone not being charged the "disconnection" fee you were charged, you could possibly sue them for "unfair treatment".

There are already two cases mentioned in posts above: I have a small claims court process underway - I'll wait and see how that goes.

simonm2

Similar thread by eirebhoy from 13/10/04 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1994083&posted=1#post1994083

Moojuice

actually got a bill from eircom. Not that bad but they wanted 86 squid off me. So they go their flat rate charge and extra money. Bunch of ****s. How did you sic com reg on them? Do I have to write to them to get them to act?

Moo

gline

I cant believe Eircom, they have such a monopoly on the telecommunications industry for home users, they make it virtually impossible to go with anyother company. I would definitly not pay that charge. Fair play to you for disputing, they are a bunch of feckers, definitly say to them that you never cancelled the service andd ask for proof if they said you did.

daymobrew

About a month before my billing cycle ended I handed a letter into the eircom net office in East Point asking that my flatrate account be cancelled at the start of my next billing period. I stated that my letter was 30 days written notice as required by item 9.4 in the T&C.
I followed up clarifying the 'start of my next billing cycle' bit in an email because I submitted it just over 30 days before the start.

My bill for that period arrived with a 130.48 euro charge for 1893 calls. I was furious.
I walked over to eircom's building in East Point (I work in the business park too) and asked that it be sorted and calmly stated that my other option was to go to Small Claims.
I was put on the phone to Sarah what was helpful but said that she could not refund more than 50 euro. She put me onto May Murray in Credit Mgt who wouldn't handle the refund because it was eircom net charge. She didn't help me get back to Sarah. Quite unhelp was May.
The eircom receptionist put me through to Frank Arthur who was very helpful. I read out my letter to him and I faxed it to him in Limerick.
He sorted out the refund (130 less flatrate subscription fee). Frank was helpful.

Frank Arthur is at 061-400-688.
The fax machine, quite a distance from Mr Arthur, is 061-205-644.
(I'm including these numbers because it is difficult to resolve issues when you keep getting put onto different eircom people).

spongebob

Daymo had given 30 days notice and had proof of service of notice.

If you cannot personally hand a letter into Eircom.Net (like most of us) then email cc phil.nolan@eircom.ie when you email Eircom.Net as to the notice period . I suspect that they will process it properly if the mail is cc'd to the boss and if not the boss has proof that you mailed them .

You would think that handing it in the door of the office is enough notice though :eek: .

On a similar note I have noticed that most recent calls to Eircom CS are ending up in a really crappy yellowpack call centre in CityWest in Dublin.

They answer the phone all right but seem incapable of pulling data up on screen or DOING anything for anyone . Nor are they "service with a smile" as O Reilly said to the investors at the AGM recently.

Is this an outsourced operation does anyone know ? Bring Back Biddy I say !! .

M

ShadowFax

I cancelled mine by email, but they screwed me over also, round €360. I will never, ever go near eircom again!!!

Anybody with any bit of sense, will stay clear also.

daymobrew

I dropped it into the eircom office because I'm next door and because of term 12 which includes:

Such notices shall be deemed to have been served:
(a) at the time delivery, if delivered personally

http://home.eircom.net/products/flatrate/terms

Note that the T&C has changed in the last month - 9.4 is now 9.8 (30 days written notice).

I left a message with ComReg to register my complaint about the retro-charge terms that multiple people have fallen foul of. It's far from fair.

gline

daymobrew wrote:

I dropped it into the eircom office because I'm next door and because of term 12 which includes:


http://home.eircom.net/products/flatrate/terms

Note that the T&C has changed in the last month - 9.4 is now 9.8 (30 days written notice).

I left a message with ComReg to register my complaint about the retro-charge terms that multiple people have fallen foul of. It's far from fair.

Well Eircom doesnt = FAIR. I hope something is done about their bogey T+C's, talk about fine print.

simonm2

gline wrote:

Well Eircom doesnt = FAIR. I hope something is done about their bogey T+C's, talk about fine print.

You beat me to it about the change in terms and conditions.

I followed up a suggestion to talk to the ODCA. I pointed out that it was contradiction to state in the advertising for the ANYTIME service that there is no minimum contract and then have the old t&c which asks for 30 days notice. According to an email I got from the ODCA Eircom has agreed to remove that condition for the Anytime service. They are still discussing Eircom's (over) charging that made me start this thread. I will keep you posted.

Simon

Ripwave

simonm2 wrote:

You beat me to it about the change in terms and conditions.

I followed up a suggestion to talk to the ODCA. I pointed out that it was contradiction to state in the advertising for the ANYTIME service that there is no minimum contract and then have the old t&c which asks for 30 days notice. According to an email I got from the ODCA Eircom has agreed to remove that condition for the Anytime service.

Surprise, surprise, eircom removes the bit of the T&C that customers can use to protect themselves from this ripoff!

gline

Ripwave wrote:

Surprise, surprise, eircom removes the bit of the T&C that customers can use to protect themselves from this ripoff!

That is so true, the customer seems to always lose with eircom. They don not care as they have the monopoly at the moment.

simonm2

Ripwave wrote:

Surprise, surprise, eircom removes the bit of the T&C that customers can use to protect themselves from this ripoff!

The point about the ODCA getting Eircom to remove the 30 days thing for the ANYTIME service is that it is advertised as a 'no minimum length contract' therefore they will have to revoke 9.3 aswell at least as far as the ANYTIME service is concerned. It flies in the face of all reason to have a penalty clause on a contract that has 'no minimum length' - I am not a lawyer but I can't see how they would have a leg to stand on in court.

The ODCA is talking to them about both 9.3 and 9.4 - I think the only reason we have not heard anything yet is that Eircom is trying desperately to come up with a new condition so that they do not have to refund every single customer who got hit with bills when stopping the service and customers who waited for 30 days before actually terminating.

Eircom will be looking for a way of doing what the ODCA says but without admitting to any wrong-doing. It will take quite a bit of ingenuity on the part of their legal eagles.

Being forced to change the 30 day termination effectively means that they have been caught red-handed breaking the law (false advertising) - as a result everything related with that product is open to being contested. So Eircom are looking for a way out with damage limitation.

Personally I'd like to see then in court and see them getting a nice slap over the wrist. I won't hold my breath on that but its nice to think about.

seamus

simonm2 wrote:

The ODCA is talking to them about both 9.3 and 9.4 - I think the only reason we have not heard anything yet is that Eircom is trying desperately to come up with a new condition so that they do not have to refund every single customer who got hit with bills when stopping the service and customers who waited for 30 days before actually terminating.

Sounds like Eircom know they're going to lose and are looking at damage limitation.

They cannot change the T's & C's for existing customers, or for those who are sueing over the bills, they can only make sure that future customers can't sue too.