Charged £5.85 by Premier Inn to get a refund

movedto03

eskbanker said:

But the posts added today don't introduce anything new beyond what was already covered in the thread's first incarnation?

My first post in this thread covered, among other things, why the statement that calls cost 13p per minute from a BT landline is incorrect, why the statement not exactly premium rate is also incorrect, detailed the hotel's obligations to declare call charges, which they failed to do, how the bound to pay clause is often misinterpreted (as it was here), and the hotel's obligations if someone calls the 0871 number, including a mandatory refund, among other things.

eskbanker

movedto03 said:

eskbanker said:

But the posts added today don't introduce anything new beyond what was already covered in the thread's first incarnation?

My first post in this thread covered, among other things, why the statement that calls cost 13p per minute from a BT landline is incorrect, why the statement not exactly premium rate is also incorrect, detailed the hotel's obligations to declare call charges, which they failed to do, how the bound to pay clause is often misinterpreted (as it was here), and the hotel's obligations if someone calls the 0871 number, including a mandatory refund, among other things.

I didn't (and still don't) see a post like that?

Pollycat

movedto03 said:

eskbanker said:

But the posts added today don't introduce anything new beyond what was already covered in the thread's first incarnation?

My first post in this thread covered, among other things, why the statement that calls cost 13p per minute from a BT landline is incorrect, why the statement not exactly premium rate is also incorrect, detailed the hotel's obligations to declare call charges, which they failed to do, how the bound to pay clause is often misinterpreted (as it was here), and the hotel's obligations if someone calls the 0871 number, including a mandatory refund, among other things.

The post you refer to is not there.
Unless you've changed your username.

Grumpy_chap

Pollycat said:

The post you refer to is not there.

There has been an individual in the past couple of days necroposting on redundant threads with long ramblings about phone charges - perhaps the Site Admin have seen them as the apparent AI content and taken action.  The comments have not been particularly relevant or focused to the threads or the original query, and even more irrelevant when the OP has long gone.

movedto03

The comments on the three threads directly addressed the issues raised in those threads. The comments were my own words, no AI involved whatsoever, and contained no links.

The multiple regulation changes a decade ago were complex and can't be summarised in half a dozen words, have multiple effects, and parts have been widely misinterpreted.

I had hoped to dispel some myths and correct some misunderstandings. My posts are for anyone with the same issue finding the thread in the future. I didn't realise that replies are supposed to be only for the original poster to read.