User comments on ISPs
  >> TalkTalk Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | [10] | 11 | 12 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User mixt
(experienced) Sun 15-Sep-13 09:32:29
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: uppi] [link to this post]
 
Regardless of the situation I still need Internet and I have owned the line for the past 6 years. So I'll try anything to keep it.

As another poster has already asked, who is now paying for the TT connection?

Now on <aaisp.net> (21CN+IPv6+40Mb/FTTC)
Previous ISPs: Virgin Media (50Mb/Cable), Be* Un Limited, ZeN
Is Linux routing your internet connection?
Need to make BIND geo-aware?
Standard User uppi
(learned) Sun 15-Sep-13 17:43:05
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: mixt] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by mixt:
Regardless of the situation I still need Internet and I have owned the line for the past 6 years. So I'll try anything to keep it.

As another poster has already asked, who is now paying for the TT connection?


I'm certainly not paying for it. as I have already explained earlier it is a complete random name. on the Letters its a female name.
Standard User ukhardy07
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 15-Sep-13 18:10:08
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: uppi] [link to this post]
 
Isn't it more likely that during sign up a woman's given her post code and house number and the agent on the phones entered their post code slightly wrong meaning it's been installed at yours instead?

This way the other user would probably pass credit checks too as their bank info would be genuine.

What makes you so sure it's revenge from a brother?

Whatever the case using their internets not really legal.

Edited by ukhardy07 (Sun 15-Sep-13 18:10:59)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User 4M2
(knowledge is power) Sun 15-Sep-13 18:17:01
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: uppi] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by uppi:
In reply to a post by mixt:
Regardless of the situation I still need Internet and I have owned the line for the past 6 years. So I'll try anything to keep it.

As another poster has already asked, who is now paying for the TT connection?


I'm certainly not paying for it. as I have already explained earlier it is a complete random name. on the Letters its a female name.


Looks like there was a mix up of names, addresses, phone numbers, bank account details, etc. by TalkTalk and they notified BT Retail of the proposed migration of broadband and the switch of the phone service from your WLR line. If you have evidence of wrongly addressed letters from TalkTalk, i.e. the female name, then you will certainly have a case for claiming that there was an error made by TalkTalk. TalkTalk will have to answer how your name, address and telephone number somehow possibly got confused with an another individual's name and perhaps bank account.

However you did not act on the notifications from BT Retail about the proposed move to TalkTalk so that may complicate issues somewhat...
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 15-Sep-13 18:28:17
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: ukhardy07] [link to this post]
 
And if a real mistake someone will be moaning about a failed activation and probably will end up with TalkTalk figuring it out and ceasing this line with zero notice

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User grahammm
(member) Sun 15-Sep-13 19:38:04
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
And if a real mistake someone will be moaning about a failed activation and probably will end up with TalkTalk figuring it out and ceasing this line with zero notice

Rather than just ceasing it with no notice, should they not be obliged to restore the line to the state it was in (ie restore, or arrange for restoral of, the services on it) before they made their mistake?
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 15-Sep-13 19:41:04
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: grahammm] [link to this post]
 
Yes but that takes time and hijacked person making it clear they want old service restored.

This one has lots of potential to be messy

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User tommy45
(knowledge is power) Sun 15-Sep-13 20:08:01
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Maybe, but in this instance i see Stalktalk sales making offers and doing what they get paid to do best,lie to the customer,in a bid to gain 2 customers out of this,

Stalk talk shelling out compo to the OP, and fees to BTOR etc for re reinstatement of the OP's line back to WLR3 plus and any FTTC reconnection fee's, will be the last thing they will want to do, the OP will get the hard sell no 2 ways about that,lol

And my guess is that they will accept stalk talks offers, and agree to be a customer,which makes this post pointless ,but they will later probably end up regretting it, as said if they haven't so far been concerned regarding the levels of support from tt then there's little or no hope of them ever becoming aware of possibly what is the worst customer services and tech support of any isp in the uk via the telephone,

However they do have a members forum, that customers firstly must register with in order to make posts,and therefore get any form of support, which often takes days not hours or minutes, but that would be of little use if the customers adsl or fttc service was down , so is IMO a far cry from a real way of offering support

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 15-Sep-13 20:36:05)

Standard User David_W
(experienced) Fri 20-Sep-13 21:12:54
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: mixt] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by mixt:
I appreciate your point here, but this seems completely flawed. When creating or terminating any contract, at the most fundamental level, a wet signature is required, though these days, that is mostly skipped on so many levels. For BT to just issue a fire and forget notice saying services will be transferred is just madness, in my opinion. What if the person is ill ? Away on holiday ? Or post delayed ? That maybe how the current process works, but in my opinion, that doesn't make it right, or even legally valid.

I appreciate the thread has moved on beyond this point, and note that MrSaffron correctly pointed out the falsehood in this at the time. However, the wider context of this answer is relevant to where we are now.


It has never been a requirement of the law of England and Wales (or, so far as I know, Scotland or Northern Ireland) for contracts to be in paper form and to be signed. If there were such requirements, City traders would be in trouble, as their job revolves around electronic or telephone contracts to buy and sell worth millions or billions of pounds. A contract can be verbal - though it can be hard to prove a verbal contract.

A contract in England and Wales typically requires an offer, unconditional agreement to that offer, consideration (best thought of in this case as a promise to pay in return for a promise to provide a service) and intention to create legal relations. There are certain exceptions relating to consideration (deeds, estoppel and so on), but they are not relevant here.

The mention of postal delay by mixt addresses a particularly knotty point of contract law in England and Wales. Acceptance of an offer by post, which would create a contract, usually applies from the point of posting, even if the letter is never received - though, of course, it may be difficult to prove you posted a letter of acceptance that was never delivered. This rule does not apply to instantaneous electronic communication (the case law is about telex, but applies by extension to fax, e-mail and the like) - in that case, acceptance applies from when the offeree reasonably expects the offeror to notice the acceptance.


The concept of privity of contract is central to the dealings between the original poster and TalkTalk. The original poster seems to be a third party to the contract between TalkTalk and the unnamed woman on the contract, so has no rights whatsoever under that contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 cannot apply, as the original poster was never supposed to gain any rights under that contract.

As others have suggested, I suspect TalkTalk have mixed up the original poster's phone number for the one on which the woman contracting with TalkTalk wanted service. Once that mistake has been pointed out to TalkTalk, it's unclear what will happen. TalkTalk may try to argue that the original poster has entered into a contract with them for provision of service, based on his dealings with them in relation to the matter. Alternatively, TalkTalk may argue that there is no contract in relation to the original poster's line, and may cease all services without notice.


Arguably the original poster made two mistakes.

Firstly, he should have responded to the notification from the losing service provider by stopping the transfer. It's never a good idea to allow a mistaken transfer to proceed - if you wish to switch to the gaining provider, stop the transfer process and start it again on a proper footing to prevent this sort of mess.

Secondly, he should not have attempted to deal with TalkTalk in relation to the mistakenly provided services, other than working with TalkTalk to transfer service back to a provider of his choosing. Making use of the services knowing that they are not provided for his benefit could constitute fraud by false representation contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 - though it is debatable whether the original poster's actions are dishonest in the legal sense (dishonest according the standards of ordinary and reasonable people, and the subject realised their actions were dishonest according to those standards). No offence has been committed if the actions were not legally dishonest.


If the losing provider issued the notifications required by regulation at the appropriate time, they are not negligent, and the contract with the losing provider was correctly brought to an end. Contract law does not sit in isolation - if the law lays down a process by which a service is transferred to another provider, and the transfer process was correctly followed, the contract with the losing provider ends on transfer despite the customer's lack of explicit instructions to the losing provider to terminate the contract.


If the losing provider correctly followed their part of the transfer process, it is hard to see how they breached any duty of care they owed the original poster, which is the fundamental requirement to establish negligence. Contributory negligence would be a further hurdle, as it can be argued the original poster was negligent in not stopping the transfer from taking place.

Damages in tort (including negligence) are usually limited to direct financial loss, so there appears to be no route to claim for consequential matters such as alternative broadband provision. Even if consequential losses were claimable for, the concept of remoteness would limit damages to those directly flowing from the loss - the original poster certainly couldn't claim for the whole of a 24 month mobile broadband contract!


I think the original poster has three options to resolve this matter.

1. Instruct TalkTalk to cease the mistakenly provided services at his address.

2. Instruct TalkTalk to transfer the line to a provider of his choosing, on the basis it was mistakenly transferred to TalkTalk.

3. Instruct TalkTalk to set up an account in his name, and transfer service to that account.


I strongly suggest that "do nothing" is the wrong approach, as it may only make the situation harder to resolve in the future.

I agree with the suggestion that any dealings are best done by letter or fax, so as to be traceable. If using fax (yes, I know it's old school), it's important to print out a transmission report confirming receipt.


Nothing in this post constitutes formal legal advice. I am, in any case, a mere law undergraduate, who could well be talking rubbish.
Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Fri 20-Sep-13 22:01:02
Print Post

Re: Talktalk fraudulently moving my services from BT


[re: David_W] [link to this post]
 
An interesting and informative view of this situation.

In re: your 3 options near the foot of your post, as there is no privity of contract between OP & TT, I don't see how the OP can instruct TT to do anything; maybe he may request.

Option 3 may be the closest he may achieve in that he may strike a new contract with TT to provide service on his own line and to effectively do to the unnamed woman what she did to him. Any correspondence from TT about the takeover of the line would most likely be sent to his address.

But equally well the OP can make a new contract(s) with any providers to do much the same.

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 20 Meg WBC
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | [10] | 11 | 12 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to