Virgin media robbing my Grandmother!

martin64_2

Good afternoon- I am the son of the ‘grandmother’ I can confirm that Sky TV has been always installed and use as it is me whom has always paid for it on behalf of my mum and dad (when he was alive)
My daughter only discovered my mother was paying an excessive bill for her phone line recently. What I can say about my mother (and my deceased father) is that they were both technophobes and were not aware what virgin TV is or was. Bear in mind mum is now in her mid 80s and at the time virgin claim that a system was installed she was in her late 70s
My daughter has posted here to maybe discover something we have missed in our claim against virgin, what we haven’t considered and one thing we are beginning to realise is that it should be virgin proving that a system was installed and being used

Takmon

Potbellypig wrote: »

Why should she? Because you say so?

I would say the vast majority of adults who are responsible for bills know roughly how much a landline should cost and know that £50+ per month is excessive. Everyone has a responsibility to check their bills/bank statements and to check they aren't paying too much and switch as appropriate.

Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are incapable of looking after their affairs so i don't think this should be the default assumption due to her age.
If she does have difficulty in understanding her finances then this certainly in part a failure of her family to let this go on so long.

pmduk

Cornucopia wrote: »

I didn't think VM did self-installs? And if they did and the box was disconnected they would presumably know about it. But, yes, this was what I meant when I said that the historical facts can be hard to pin down.

They were doing a few yrs back, I'm not sure now.

essex_boy

Takmon wrote: »

I would say the vast majority of adults who are responsible for bills know roughly how much a landline should cost and know that £50+ per month is excessive. Everyone has a responsibility to check their bills/bank statements and to check they aren't paying too much and switch as appropriate.

Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are incapable of looking after their affairs so i don't think this should be the default assumption due to her age.
If she does have difficulty in understanding her finances then this certainly in part a failure of her family to let this go on so long.

These days isn't all bills done online, and paid by direct debit
It would be easy for someone that age to be unaware of how much is being taken from their account

BoyWithTheBlues

Stating the obvious here, but Sky TV runs from satellite and Virgin runs from cable. Two totally different systems, cabling, networks. Couldn't be more different.

If Virgin had been installed, and it was previously a Sky household, an engineer would have had to run through cable from the street & drill through walls, etc. There would be a very distinctive Virgin Media socket. Should be pretty easy to prove that this is not evident in the household.

elsien

Takmon wrote: »

So this TV service had been on every monthly bill since 2008 and your grandmother didn't question it?. Surely she must have realised that paying £50+ a month for just a telephone line was excessive.

Depends on how the finances worked prior to the husbands death. If your partner has handled all the bills, which was more usual for an older generation, then she may not have known how much a "normal" bill was. And there are many people who let contracts run from year to year without shopping around regardless of age.

[Deleted User]

martin64 wrote: »

what we haven’t considered and one thing we are beginning to realise is that it should be virgin proving that a system was installed and being used

Perhaps VM need to prove a box was supplied (not necessarily installed if it was self-installed, see below) but whether it's being used or not is immaterial.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I didn't think VM did self-installs? And if they did and the box was disconnected they would presumably know about it.

It looks like they had self-install in 2007 at least (VM claim they took the TV out in 2008) however I was thinking more along the lines of the householder possibly removing it. For self-install of course there has to be an existing connection point.

Cornucopia

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

It looks like they had self-install in 2007 at least (VM claim they took the TV out in 2008) however I was thinking more along the lines of the householder possibly removing it. For self-install of course there has to be an existing connection point.

I'm not sure that would be definitive since the OP's scenario has a VM connection point in existence for the phone service.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not sure that would be definitive since the OP's scenario has a VM connection point in existence for the phone service.

Sorry, you've lost me there.

Cornucopia

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me there.

The OP's Grandparents had/have a VM phone service, and therefore have a VM connection point in their home. I don't see that as in dispute.

The questions are:-

- Was a TV box ever supplied? What is/was its serial number?
- Was it installed by an Engineer? When?
- If VM claim it was self-installed, do they have evidence of the commencement of TV service to that box?
- Are there any on-going usage records?
- What are VM's processes for enabling a new TV connection?
- Does it have any provisions for identifying TV connections that are inactive for a period of time, and does this involve the customer?
- Does VM have the capability to differentiate between a box that is connected but inactive, and a connection that has "lost" its associated TV box?

Although, as I said, I think these may be moot questions, as the tendency with these kind of dispute processes is not to allow new questions or new objections to be raised at the later stages. But I don't know for sure.