Sue or Ombudsman?

The_Deep

For over a year Virgin Media have been charging me for a second Tivo box which they removed in July last year. I have written to them four times but have not received a reply.

I now have two choices, complain to the Ombudsman (CISAS) or take them to the Small Claims Court.

I am in favour of taking them to court, but fear that a judge may not award me costs as I have not engaged in ADR. The last time I took someone to court the judge refused to award me CPR27.14(2)(g) for that reason, even though there would have been little point.

What do others think?

Stenwold

Have you tried to contact them by any other means? Letter is not a very effective method of communication, and you have no proof they received them.


If you are able to speak to someone and get them to acknowledge you have cancelled the second Tivo box, but an admin error has meant you're still being charged (presuming this is the case), then you can ask your bank to complete a direct debit indemnity to call for the funds back.


I think the first port of call would be the official complaints route via telephone or webchat (if available) so you can start some sort of dialogue, as opposed to just sending letter and waiting for a reply.


Also, the Ombudsman will refer you back to the firm in the first instance if a complaint hasn't been logged.

[Deleted User]

The_Deep wrote: »

Sue or Ombudsman?

The legal route always has higher costs and a lower chance of success than the Ombudsman option, so it should be a fairly easy choice.

The_Deep

Have you tried to contact them by any other means? Letter is not a very effective method of communication, and you have no proof they received them.

I tried in the first instance to sort this out on the telephone. In the space of half an hour I spoke to four people, all apparently from Indian call centres and the fourth person I spoke to told me I was not entitled to a refund.

The chances of all four letters not being received is minute imo. I also disagree with you, imo a letter is the most effective means of communication there is, judges love paper trails. The use of the telephone to sort out complaints is surely the worst possible option, there is no record unless you record it.

Also, the Ombudsman will refer you back to the firm in the first instance if a complaint hasn't been logged.

Of course a complaint has been made, in four letters. If they have not logged it they have surely shot themselves in the foot.

[Deleted User]

The_Deep wrote: »

Have you tried to contact them by any other means? Letter is not a very effective method of communication, and you have no proof they received them.

I tried in the first instance to sort this out on the telephone. In the space of half an hour I spoke to four people, all apparently from Indian call centres and the fourth person I spoke to told me I was not entitled to a refund.

The chances of all four letters not being received is minute imo. I also disagree with you, imo a letter is the most effective means of communication there is, judges love paper trails. The use of the telephone to sort out complaints is surely the worst possible option, there is no record unless you record it.

Also, the Ombudsman will refer you back to the firm in the first instance if a complaint hasn't been logged.

Of course a complaint has been made, in four letters. If they have not logged it they have surely shot themselves in the foot.

the fourth person I spoke to told me I was not entitled to a refund

Did they state why a refund was not applicable?

Stenwold

The_Deep wrote: »

Have you tried to contact them by any other means? Letter is not a very effective method of communication, and you have no proof they received them.

I tried in the first instance to sort this out on the telephone. In the space of half an hour I spoke to four people, all apparently from Indian call centres and the fourth person I spoke to told me I was not entitled to a refund.

The chances of all four letters not being received is minute imo. I also disagree with you, imo a letter is the most effective means of communication there is, judges love paper trails. The use of the telephone to sort out complaints is surely the worst possible option, there is no record unless you record it.

Also, the Ombudsman will refer you back to the firm in the first instance if a complaint hasn't been logged.

Of course a complaint has been made, in four letters. If they have not logged it they have surely shot themselves in the foot.

If you have sent four un-answered letters and a complaint has not been logged, then I wouldn't say post is the most effective method of communication.


To answer the initial question though, the ombudsman is the route to go down as it won't cost you anything. Also, they have been known to give the firms a nudge if they think a complaint should have been logged already.

The_Deep

… I wouldn't say post is the most effective method of communication.

I would. judges love paper trails.

Stenwold, I agree Ombudsmen are free, but they are not always fit for purpose.

PoPLA is an example of a biased, incompetent system. The SRA is also extremely partial towards complaints against solicitors, and as for the International Appeals Service, I understand that they have they guaranteed to reject 80% of all complaints. ADR leaves much to be desired in this country.

Stenwold

A paper trail is simply a term used to track and record a sequence of events. It doesn't have to be made of paper, a phone record is just as effective - however I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


Whichever route you go down, good luck!


In the meantime, it could be worth attempting to requesting a direct debit indemnity from your bank to try and get some of the funds back.

knightstyle

How about sending a SAR first to see if any of your letters are registered on their system?

penners324

Why not send a letter directly to the Chief Executive? That will then be lodged as an official complaint and usually resolves the issues very quickly

sevenhills

The_Deep wrote: »

Stenwold, I agree Ombudsmen are free, but they are not always fit for purpose.

I received £270 from the ombudsman for being without broadband for a month, it was all done online.