Woke to find TalkTalk charged me £128 overnight!

dillydilly

my point here isn't the semantics around t&cs, but whether it is ever right for a company to charge £128 for an unintentional error, particularly when they have not incurred any incremental cost and implied a cap to protect against such risks. A reputable company would have acknowledged the mistake and removed the charge. That's why we have the ombudsman...

mobilejunkie

No; We have the Ombudsman to protect us when the provider breaks its terms and conditions - not when you think it should do something different because you made a mistake.

grumbler

Pretty much all companies charge for "unintentional errors".
Just leave the tap water running over a night or a holiday. Or buy a non-refundable airline ticket for a wrong date.

'Implied' by whom?
I can be wrong, but I don't think that the ombudsman will support you unless you have some proof that you were promised a cap.

keith1950

You are criticising the network when in fact the solution was in your own hands.
Either you should set the phone so that it doesn't automatically update or as previously suggested set it so it only updates over WiFi.

This is something that you failed to do.

If you can't trust yourself or your son to set up their phone correctly you should get them a truly capped contract such as the Tescomobile ones where you set a buffer.

Why oh why do so many people nowadays always blame someone else for their own shortcomings?

Techhead_2

keith1950 wrote: »

You are criticising the network when in fact the solution was in your own hands.
Either you should set the phone so that it doesn't automatically update or as previously suggested set it so it only updates over WiFi.

This is something that you failed to do.

If you can't trust yourself or your son to set up their phone correctly you should get them a truly capped contract such as the Tescomobile ones where you set a buffer.

Why oh why do so many people nowadays always blame someone else for their own shortcomings?

I think the thing that causes such a strong reaction here is that everytime a company gives in to someone like dillydilly that cost is ultimately paid by other customers.

People sign up to contracts without properly familiarising themselves with the tariff and terms and conditions. They buy handsets and don't take the small amount of effort to learn how to use them.

d123

dillydilly wrote: »

my point here isn't the semantics around t&cs, but whether it is ever right for a company to charge £128 for an unintentional error, particularly when they have not incurred any incremental cost and implied a cap to protect against such risks. A reputable company would have acknowledged the mistake and removed the charge. That's why we have the ombudsman...

How does the company know it was an unintentional error and not just someone's son watching videos in bed after mommy tucked him in for the night?