£380 charge for going over BT broadband monthly usage?

4743hudsonj

jox wrote: »

Hi, i have just given her a call, she dosent actualy recall signing anything, but i have told her to ring up BT and ask for a copy of the agreement she signed.

If the agreement dosent mention the £1 per GB what would this mean?

A physical signature is not the only binding form of acceptance

I love being n VM, can never go over, instead, no matter what plan you just get throttled, ie your 10mbps is reduced to 2 mbps if you go over Xgb's in each 4 hour period, after this your speed goes back up. i find a slight slow down better than a whopping bill or paying more to have true unlimited!

Poppycat

£1 per gb is about the standard that some ISP charge. The problem is she should monitor her usage better or go for unlimited and pay the extra per month

jox_2

woody01 wrote: »

Which will make no difference as you are not required to.

SHE isresponsible for her son's usage. If she cannot take charge then either the son should pay or she should not have it.

The point im trying to make is i think the charges are unfair, she cant afford to pay this, they money has already come out of her bank which has left her overdrawn where she now faces more charges from her bank and she now has no money and 3 kids, i have lent her £100 of my own money to help her out. she recived no warning that he had gone over the limit, the 1st thing she knew was when her bank was over £300 in debt.

She knows nothing about computers or monthly limits, Theres no way should would have known he has gone over the limit, im sure if she did know she would not have let him.

I truley belive £380 is very unfair. imo she should have been cut off way before she could rag up such a huge amount. or recived some sort of letter no warning or anything? surely theres some sort of unfair charges act?

Poppycat

My old ISP use to warn you if you are getting to the limit and the you would be put on slow connection. I then just paid £1 extra or more if I wanted more

I had a generous limit too

pimento

When we got rid of Sky, I did a deal with my teenage son that we would upgrade to BT's unlimited deal as he would then be able to download the TV shows he was missing.

Previously we had a capped deal and I used to get the odd email from BT if we went over the limit. It was never more than a couple of pounds.

I'd call BT, tell them you're willing to sign up for another year or 18 months and ask if they will waive the fee. I'd play stupid and be nice. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Good luck!

annie-c

I signed up to BT Broadband (10GB) last September and I remember seeing the clause about being charged £1 per extra GB from the second month at the time of signing up. I was stung for £17 extra without any warning last December but I put it down to experience (I had been watching a lot of iplayer during a bout of illness so I could see where it came from. I have had another warning this month but have decided to chance it rather than upgrade.

Technically I would think you must have signed or clicked a 'terms and conditions' agreement if you joined BT recently, and so the charges would technically be legitimate. However, I would imagine you would have a reasonable case for having some or all of the fee waived if you write to them or ring them and explain the situation (and possibly sign up to unlimited for the rest of the contract?). The bill will have been generated automatically and might possibly be overwritten as an act of goodwill if you ask politely but firmly?

I see that a couple of posters are taking the line that it is the bill payer's fault, but I think there are always grey areas and room for negotiation in situations like these. Commercial organisations are often less concerned about right and wrong and more about customer relations as long as you play the game nicely and butter them up. On a separate matter, I have had a credit card charge and an unauthorised overdraft charge waived in the last couple of months, just by ringing up and asking nicely (and expectantly!). Yes, sure it was my 'fault' but they were quite reasonable about it on each occasion.

jox_2

i do agree with charging when you go over dont get me wrong but, surely they should do something when it starts racking up to £380? i would have thought you would be cut off or recived a letter by then? i just dont see how they can jusify it it sees ver exceive to me just like the old bank charges.

DrScotsman

jox wrote: »

i do agree with charging when you go over dont get me wrong but, surely they should do something when it starts racking up to £380? i would have thought you would be cut off or recived a letter by then? i just dont see how they can jusify it it sees ver exceive to me just like the old bank charges.

That is a good point.

Wouldn't this come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations? Like a private parking 'fine', it's an excessive penalty which definitely doesn't represent BT's actual costs, it's almost pure profit, something which I thought the regulations nullify. Am I wrong?

jox_2

DrScotsman wrote: »

That is a good point.

Wouldn't this come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations? Like a private parking 'fine', it's an excessive penalty which definitely doesn't represent BT's actual costs, it's almost pure profit, something which I thought the regulations nullify. Am I wrong?

This is what im thinking, i agree a charge should be paid but surely there must be a point where that charge becomes excessive? where or how can i find out more about this?

DrScotsman

I love this list:

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

I sincerely doubt there is any way BT can justify that much of that £380 was an actual cost to them considering that they offer unlimited broadband for a fraction of that, so yes, I think a good chunk of the £380 comes under these terms. If I were in your friend's position I would fight this jox, as my reading of it says that the law is on her side.