Obviously I have underestimated the level of residual bad feelings on this topic. I acknowledge your anger. But, really, I am satisfied with the outcome. What I thought was funny was that by the time I checked back in with my charity client, he had already pulled the plug himself on TalkTalk.
As for being offended by the term "charity case", it simply indicates that you are bigoted, krazykizza. You're no different from someone who looks down on people with mental problems. That is your problem, not mine and not my client's. As he himself is the first to point out (and pointed it out to TalkTalk), he's in an NHS flat and his only source of income is the government, so he objected to TalkTalk charging for something which he didn't need nor ordered. I simply wanted it known that this was not a paying client, that it was charity work that I was doing. As for the rest, it is TalkTalk's problem that they don't trust their employees to make outgoing phone calls. At the end of the day, TalkTalk lost in all this - not just the £216 - but there were obviously set-up costs, administrative costs (the router probably only cost them a pound or so, I figure).
No, this case ended up exactly where I thought it would - although I wasn't the one that ended up pulling the plug on TalkTalk - LOL - but I warned it would happen - I just thought it was funny that my charity client was the one who pulled the plug on TalkTalk, not me. As for TalkTalk bothering him continuosly for payment - and they knew he was a charity case, an NHS patient - I think it is reprehensible that they sat there and threatened him - not that it mattered - we both know that utility companies don't sue over £216 - but in any event, my client viewed it as sport, and also said, "I'm going to be dead in a year anyway so let them yap away".
Overall, I think the final outcome is acceptable, and I hope everyone else does too.
Edited by investmentbanker (Sun 21-Nov-10 19:55:02)