Angry UPC customer...

Del2005

Duffff-Man wrote: »

How is it similar to ppi being missold?

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Because people had it for years and didn't realise.

I thought the PPI miss selling was that people where sold something they couldn't actually claim from as they didn't qualify.

The OP could have had the 4 boxes but choose not too look at their bill for 7 years so didn't take them or cancel them. UPC are at fault for sticking the extra boxes on the bill but not checking in 7 years and expecting it all back, when the tax man doesn't even refund that long.:eek:

Allyall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

It really is their own fault for not checking what they had. If they could afford to let this money be taken out for 7 years then they must have too much of it on their hands.

Upc have been more than fair in their solution here. If it wasn't pointed out to the op then they would be none the wiser and still paying the full amount.

I'm pretty sure consumer rights should/would protect OP.
By your reckoning, because the OP didn't check their bank account, and/or was oblivious, ignorant, naive or just too trustworthy, that it's okay for UPC to rip them off for 7 years, and then offer some money back, and credit for their services so that they continue to benefit.
Somebody in UPC was eventually honest enough to point this out, but how did it go that long unnoticed by them?
If the OP is to blame for having too much money on their hands, then maybe UPC are to blame for taking on too many customers, and not having enough staff to monitor mistakes like this.
There's no excuse for ripping someone off for that long and then citing that the consumer was the stupid one.

A Dub in Glasgo

This was a mistake, maybe the application from the OP 7 years ago was unnecessarily vague, maybe UPC were providing what they thought the OP asked for and since the OP never queried it, why would they think there is an issue?

The OP has been lazy as hell in not checking bills and is now expecting to return to 7 years ago and make someone else accountable for their sloppiness and laziness. The problem nowadays is the lack of personal responsibility for their own affairs

Slippin Jimmy

Allyall wrote: »

Nonsense.
I'm pretty sure consumer rights should/would protect OP.
By your reckoning, because the OP didn't check their bank account, and/or was oblivious, ignorant, naive or just too trustworthy, that it's okay for UPC to rip them off for 7 years, and then offer some money back, and credit for their services so that they continue to benefit.
Somebody in UPC was eventually honest enough to point this out, but how did it go that long unnoticed by them?
If the OP is to blame for having too much money on their hands, then maybe UPC are to blame for taking on too many customers, and not having enough staff to monitor mistakes like this.
There's no excuse for ripping someone off for that long and then citing that the consumer was the stupid one.

Upc didn't rip them off. For some reason there was 4 boxes on the account and that is what they have been charged for. 7 years later the op finds out there was an error and is unhappy with the solution given. As we do not have the full facts you cannot blame upc.

Upc were not aware of the error until the op said they were in a 2 bed accommodation. They can only go with what they have on their customers accounts (4 boxes). I don't know why you are saying they should monitor mistakes, it would be impossible to do. They charged for what they believed was correct.

Allyall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Upc didn't rip them off. For some reason there was 4 boxes on the account and that is what they have been charged for. 7 years later the op finds out there was an error and is unhappy with the solution given. As we do not have the full facts you cannot blame upc.

Upc were not aware of the error until the op said they were in a 2 bed accommodation. They can only go with what they have on their customers accounts (4 boxes). I don't know why you are saying they should monitor mistakes, it would be impossible to do. They charged for what they believed was correct.

For some reason there was 4 boxes and that is what OP was charged for. 7 years later UPC found out there was an error - OP Correctly, is unhappy. No 'Solution' has been given. Without full facts you cannot blame OP.
OP was not aware of their error until UPC said that they were charging for 4 boxes.
It would be very easy to monitor their mistakes. Definitely not 'Impossible'.
They may have charged for what they thought was correct, the OP paid for what they thought was correct.
The fact is, UPC have the OPS money, and took it by accident.
I have no idea why you would think that the OP is to blame, nor why they shouldn't get their money back. Unless it expired.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe there should, I mean not checking your bills for 7 years is the norm in your world

Edit, If UPC had not noticed that they undercharged for 7 years, I would be saying the same thing, they should have checked. I doubt UPC, in that circumstance, would be expected or allowed to recover the money they thought they were due but did not due to their laziness and sloppiness

Slippin Jimmy

Allyall wrote: »

For some reason there was 4 boxes and that is what OP was charged for. 7 years later UPC found out there was an error. Without full facts you cannot blame OP.

Nor can you blame upc.

It would be very easy to monitor their mistakes

How?

The fact is, UPC have the OPS money, and took it by accident.

They took it because in 7 years it was not questioned once. If you want to be lazy and not check your bills then fine, but you can't expect a company to pick up on a mistake that they don't know they're making.

Say it wasn't extra boxes, but instead they were charged extra for sports and movies. Would you think the op should be given a full refund for 7 years?

Allyall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Nor can you blame upc.

That quote was actually in reply to saying that already.

Duffff-Man wrote: »

How?

In this particular case, quite easily. They had 7 years, I'm sure the bill was reviewed many times.

Duffff-Man wrote: »

They took it because in 7 years it was not questioned once. If you want to be lazy and not check your bills then fine, but you can't expect a company to pick up on a mistake that they don't know they're making.

Yet you blame the OP for not knowing the mistake was being made.
Not knowing the correct pricing, or not realising you are overpaying, should result in you losing your money?

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Say it wasn't extra boxes, but instead they were charged extra for sports and movies. Would you think the op should be given a full refund for 7 years?

Completely different and hypothetical, it wasn't Sports and Movies. UPC/OP would have to go back over each day and prove OP didn't watch any of those at any time. Which isn't practical and wouldn't happen.
Say it was you who overlooked pricing on something, and it amounted to quite a substantial amount, would you not think you were entitled to have your money back? Especially if the mistake was not made by you, but was made by the people who now have your money.

Batzoo

OK the OP seems a bit shy and has not clarified some of the points raised. But all the posts saying they are lazy or it's their own fault for not checking is a bit harsh.

Some facts to note are an engineer would have delivered and installed the original box. They would have filled out a work sheet for that box and only that box. This should have been cross referenced by UPC to the OP's account.

If it was a self install, 4 boxes would have been dispatched at the same time to the customer. UPC should have a record of each box and the details.

Most likely for a 4 box install an engineer would have to be dispatched to install the extra points.

Any of the above should have raised a flag on the UPC billing system that the user is paying for four boxes but only has one registered to their account. I would expect this due diligence to be applied by UPC to all bills issued to customers. Obviously it was only noticed when the customer rang UPC and the rep could see straight away that they were being overcharged.

The onus should not be on a customer to read a 30 page legal agreement/terms and conditions, to sign up to a basic TV service. UPC and the big service companies should be more responsible in these situations to their customers.

A Dub in Glasgo

Batzoo wrote: »

The onus should not be on a customer to read a 30 page legal agreement/terms and conditions, to sign up to a basic TV service.

I would like to see an example of the bill

Slippin Jimmy

Allyall wrote: »

In this particular case, quite easily. They had 7 years, I'm sure the bill was reviewed many times.

Can you explain this a bit better please?

How can you be sure the bill was reviewed?

Yet you blame the OP for not knowing the mistake was being made. Not knowing the correct pricing, or not realising you are overpaying, should result in you losing your money?

If they didn't look at the original contract which they would have recieved, then yeah it is their fault. I think they should get some money back, which they have been offered.

Completely different and hypothetical, it wasn't Sports and Movies.

I'd still like an answer. It is a relevant question.

Say it was you who overlooked pricing on something, and it amounted to quite a substantial amount, would you not think you were entitled to have your money back?

If it was me, it wouldn't happen because I would have researched what im getting vs what im paying for. Check my bank account regularly and also any bills that I am paying, as im sure the majority of people do.

Allyall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Can you explain this a bit better please?

How can you be sure the bill was reviewed?

Batzoo explained it perfectly here

Duffff-Man wrote: »

If they didn't look at the original contract which they would have recieved, then yeah it is their fault. I think they should get some money back, which they have been offered.

UPC aren't to blame at all?
13 months refund is nothing compared to the 84 or so months that UPC have been charging for.

Duffff-Man wrote: »

I'd still like an answer. It is a relevant question.

I did answer.

Duffff-Man wrote: »

If it was me, it wouldn't happen because I would have researched what im getting vs what im paying for. Check my bank account regularly and also any bills that I am paying, as im sure the majority of people do.

That's not an answer, and is basically saying that you don't/won't make mistakes.
Everyone is different, and just because you are sure that this in particular wouldn't happen to you, doesn't mean the OP should be penalised because it did happen to them.

Slippin Jimmy

Allyall wrote: »

I did answer.

Yeah you edited your post to answer it.

Would you expect them to be refunded for them?

That's not an answer, and is basically saying that you don't/won't make mistakes.

It is an answer. I would make sure any mistakes that were made were brought to the attention of said company in a timely manner. Not 7 years down the line.

Allyall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Yeah you edited your post to answer it.

Would you expect them to be refunded for them?

Five minutes before you posted.
I answered.

Duffff-Man wrote: »

It is an answer. I would make sure any mistakes that were made were brought to the attention of said company in a timely manner. Not 7 years down the line.

It wouldn't have to be the same scenario. But apparently that wouldn't make a difference either, because you just don't make mistakes full stop.

Pity you don't work in UPC.

Slippin Jimmy

Allyall wrote: »

Five minutes before you posted.
I answered.


It wouldn't have to be the same scenario. But apparently that wouldn't make a difference either, because you just don't make mistakes full stop.

Pity you don't work in UPC.

Everyone makes mistakes. But you can minimize them by simple checks. Ie bills, contracts, bank statements etc.

Wouldn't make a difference if I worked for them or not.

Allyall

There are tons of examples of people being overcharged. In the UK alone, there always seems to be an example of a customer or customers being overcharged for long periods of time.
Hard to prove, but it wouldn't be a big shock to learn that it wasn't by accident.

Apart from that, here makes some interesting reading that I'm sure the big Companies are aware of, and don't make it easier.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/confusion-over-bills-costs-families-up-to-220-a-year-29535868.html

I'm sure there would be many similar article if they were worth looking for.

paulheu

This is really a non issue. Sure, UPC made a billing mistake but it is not _only_ their fault this went on for so long. UPC does not see, check or verify every bill that goes out, as this is an automated process with no eyes on these bills. You, as the customer, can and should check every bill you receive however.

They agreed to refund you for 13 months AND give you a 50% discount for the next 12 months. How much does that leave as far as you having paid too much?

To be honest I think this arrangement seems quite reasonable to me.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

paulheu

So you're saying I should be able to claim overpaid tack from before 2009 as well then? And I can quote you on that?

WE have not heard from OP since his/her initial post so we have no real idea of what happened in the past 7 years. IF the extra boxes were on the bill all the time and OP did not do anything about it it's likely that at least some of the over payment is now unrecoverable.

Assuming the OP has two boxes in use , the offer was a refund of 13x2 boxes which comes out at around €275 and a 50% discount on the next 12 bills which (assuming a 240Mb contract with 2 boxes) means another €575. So that would come to a total of around €850 which would be very reasonable.

Arbiter of Good Taste

I find it astounding that the OP didn't check after the first payment went out of his account. If someone signs up for something that costs, say, €25 a month, they should know what it costs as they should have done their research before signing up. If one penny more is taken from their account they should be on the phone.

I'm struggling to see where this is unclear to anyone.

LOL to people thinking that UPC - or any service provider for that matter - should be checking every one of the hundreds of thousands of bills that go out each month.

Slippin Jimmy

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not nonsense at all. What is nonsense is not checking one single bill in 7 years. Again as the op has not replied we do not have all the facts. Strange that they have logged on since their first post yet haven't updated the thread.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Batzoo

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

LOL to people thinking that UPC - or any service provider for that matter - should be checking every one of the hundreds of thousands of bills that go out each month.

You can be assured that if they were under charging the customer, they would not take 7 years to notice. So your above point makes me LOL!

Magenta

Duffff-Man wrote: »

We don't have all the facts here because the op has not updated us in a while.

It could be 7 years before he/she checks the thread! :P

paulheu

Batzoo wrote: »

You can be assured that if they were under charging the customer, they would not take 7 years to notice. So your above point makes me LOL!

While unlikely in that case people here would be all up in arms about how UPC dare come back and charge 7 years of back pay.. Since they did not notice it would be their own fault and they could not come back now and ask for the money..

Facts (as we know them) are that UPC offered what seems to be a reasonable compensation for a mistake they made which OP seems to never noticed for 7 years.

Allyall

paulheu wrote: »

Facts (as we know them) are that UPC offered what seems to be a reasonable compensation for a mistake they made which OP seems to never noticed for 7 years.

How is a 13 month refund out of 84, for their mistake reasonable?

That means UPC keep 71 months of the OPs cash because of UPC's mistake.
As for the 12 months at 50%.. :mad:
That's just adding insult to injury. I doubt the OP wants to have anything to do with them anymore, and they offer a similar deal to anyone thinking of leaving or signing up anyway.

The OP may have made a mistake by not knowing the correct price for their service, or for not realising that they had been overcharging him for 7 years, but that does not mean the UPC should get to keep it.
Absolutely ridiculous that anyone would think that UPC should be entitled to keep it. For nothing. A service that they did not provide.

paulheu

Allyall wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous that anyone would think that UPC should be entitled to keep it. For nothing. A service that they did not provide.

They'r not keeping it. They are offering a reasonable enough compensation for something that they can't and should not take the full blame for. It would seem to me that they are offering a compensation which comes out close to or about 75% of the total sum which is very much fair. Especially how some of the over payment has been barred by now and as there has not been a previous claim OP now can't make such anymore.

In any case, unless OP comes back in and exactly explains what his/her bills do or do not show and what the exact offer UPC made is, we're guessing here. In any case claiming a full refund here has zero chance of success. If OP can get anything at or over 70% it should be an easy deal and IMO a fair one.

Flippyfloppy

Jeez, the fact that so many people here are of the mentality that UPC can charge for a service never provided as long as it goes unnoticed is why companies pull stunts like offering a partial refund! Finders keepers mentality or what!

Allyall

paulheu wrote: »

They'r not keeping it. They are offering a reasonable enough compensation for something that they can't and should not take the full blame for. It would seem to me that they are offering a compensation which comes out close to or about 75% of the total sum which is very much fair. Especially how some of the over payment has been barred by now and as there has not been a previous claim OP now can't make such anymore.
If OP can get anything at or over 70% it should be an easy deal and IMO a fair one.

Half agreeing with you.......
Although I'm not sure my maths and your maths are the same.

I can't figure out how you are seeing their "compensation" as 75%. - Forgetting that it isn't compensation, I see 13 months out of 84...
While I'd assume the OP might be happy with 70%+ of the overall payment (Even though that wouldn't be correct and would take forever), It seems nowhere near that. The only part I would agree with you on, is that 70% or more, may be acceptable.

All that said. I'm pretty sure consumer protection is there to prevent the consumer from being taken advantage of.
We have no idea about the OPS lifestyle, or background. It is not the OPs job to make sure all of their bills are correct. It is however, UPC's.

The OP could have a lifestyle that is luxurious to many, involves jetting around the World, Yachting around Europe, or Canoeing around Wexford. Irrelevant.
UPC are paid for a service, and they should provide it, and provide it accurately.

The OP may have many other not so fortunate reasons that they are unable to process the bill. There could be a thousand reasons.
Yet that alone, is another reason why UPC should be accountable for their mistakes.

I know if my Mother was living in this Country on her own, and I came home 8 years later and saw that she had been overcharged for 7 years, I'd be fighting it. She doesn't have time to be looking over all of her bills, nor does/should she want to.
Regardless of what anyone else says or thinks, that does not mean that she can afford it.