Sneaky hone phone charges - daylight robbery

Anyone from PlusNet care to try to justify backdating four months (£12) of Home Phone price increase charges to customers who had not been notified that the price was going up (by 150%, no less)?

Looks like daylight robbery. Had customers been properly notified of this outrageous price increase, no doubt many would have cancelled immediately. Instead, PlusNet lulled them into a false sense of security and now seems to be trying it on.

Don't fall for this con trick.

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,7887...

Simon

I don't think it appropriate for PN to discuss the specifics of this case on this BBS without the participation of the person disputing this matter.

Would it be appropriate to discuss the general principle of charging the customer four months charges for a mistake that they say wasn't theirs?

This doesn't affect a single individual - it's another generic failure, including another failure of the Plusnet billing system. Rather than leave people to plough through the whole Community topic Simon linked I'll summarise the situation:

What has happened was that some months ago Plusnet made changes to the home phone packages. Customers were sent notification which included a link to a blog posting on the Community site describing the changed products which included the following:

The sharp-eyed amongst you will have noticed there is a slight increase in the line rental element of the products, this is prompted largely by an increase at a supplier level, and is the first price increase we have had in over 2 years.

...

If you�d like to see the new tariff details in full then please have a look here.

Note that the only price increase referred to in the blog post was in the price of the line rental.

Buried within the PDF linked at the end of the post was a massive increase in the price of the Anonymous Call call feature. The OP had not noticed this - it's pretty obvious that this is not adequate notice!

To compound this the billing system wasn't updated and for some months it continued billing at the old price; it has now been updated and Plusnet are trying to claim back payment. I guess many of the people who had opted in to the Anonymous Call feature may have second thoughts about it's usefulness when the price has gone up so much, so hitting them with a demand for back payment when they may have cancelled the feature after the first month when they realised the extra cost (or even immediately they received notification if Plusnet had given proper notification).

I've had a number of run ins with Simon in the past, but in this case having spotted the issue on the Plusnet forums I think he was fully justified in flagging it up here so that any other users affected can see they are not the only ones who are very unhappy with the situation.

My own opinion is that they would be fully justified in refusing to pay the back fees if they are not intending to continue to use Anonymous Call because of the massive price hike (IANAL).

My own opinion is that they would be fully justified in refusing to pay the back fees if they are not intending to continue to use Anonymous Call because of the massive price hike (IANAL).

Problem is most pay via DD or CCA so won't be able to refuse. I'm suprised PN haven't given a definitive answer yet.

Plus as you say everyone with a PN phone connection will be affected. This raises the thorny issue of informing customers who don't use the forums.

In reply to a post by wingco1:

Would it be appropriate to discuss the general principle of charging the customer four months charges for a mistake that they say wasn't theirs?

Sort of suggesting it is nothing to do with the link.

We both know it is a matter of dispute on exactly this matter and as it is a dispute still in discussion how on earth can a reasonable discussion be had when we are not privy to all the facts?

We have had numerous cases in the past where Pipex failed to collect direct debits for months at a time running to a substantial amount where the user was unaware that it had not been taken. It is always the case as I understand it that monies legitimately owed is still owed regardless of an error by the company.

If these monies are ligitmately owed I know not, and would want both parties being able to state their views before we chip in...as we do not know.

If as you say it is a generic failure then it is certainly an item for debate. My reluctance was based on it being specific to an individual who needed to partake in any discussion about his issue.

Thanks for the clarification on the facts.

I would suggest that the lack of responses from Plusnet towards the end of the topic on the Community forums says a lot!

Hi,

We're going to be contacting those who have been emailed with this message to let them know that we'll be stopping these payments where possible and if it's too late to stop them, we'll be refunding them.

In reply to a post by Metronet_James:

Hi,

We're going to be contacting those who have been emailed with this message to let them know that we'll be stopping these payments where possible and if it's too late to stop them, we'll be refunding them.

That's good to know.

What's the response to:

In reply to a post by pr100:

Sneaky hone phone charges - daylight robbery

daylight robbery

PlusNet lulled them into a false sense of security nd now seems to be trying it on.

Don't fall for this con trick.