In reply to a post by samsonsky:

In reply to a post by TALKTALK_SUPPORT:

Hi Samsonsky,

Im sorry to hear you are experiencing problems with streaming.

If you join the TalkTalk Members Forum or tweet us @TalkTalkCare we can investigate into this, conduct diagnsotics with you and if necessary raise this to our network teams for further investigation.

Regards

Mark
Online Community Department

Cant see the point just read all the posts on there, lots of people having problems and nothing gets sorted talk talk are a joke

People like you make me laugh, you have a problem, [censored] about it in a forum then when help is offered you throw it back in the TT reps face, it is you who is the joke !


.

In reply to a post by Jack_Hackett:

In reply to a post by samsonsky:

In reply to a post by TALKTALK_SUPPORT:

Hi Samsonsky,

Im sorry to hear you are experiencing problems with streaming.

If you join the TalkTalk Members Forum or tweet us @TalkTalkCare we can investigate into this, conduct diagnsotics with you and if necessary raise this to our network teams for further investigation.

Regards

Mark
Online Community Department

Cant see the point just read all the posts on there, lots of people having problems and nothing gets sorted talk talk are a joke

People like you make me laugh, you have a problem, [censored] about it in a forum then when help is offered you throw it back in the TT reps face, it is you who is the joke !


.

Loll you don't even know the full story i have had help off them and its about as much use as your comment

In reply to a post by samsonsky:

In reply to a post by Jack_Hackett:

In reply to a post by samsonsky:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Cant see the point just read all the posts on there, lots of people having problems and nothing gets sorted talk talk are a joke

People like you make me laugh, you have a problem, [censored] about it in a forum then when help is offered you throw it back in the TT reps face, it is you who is the joke !


.

Loll you don't even know the full story i have had help off them and its about as much use as your comment

You say you have had help yet you are not a member of the members forum i assume therefore you have been using phone support, phone support has a bad reputation, the forum has an excellent reputation (i used it to sort the problems mentioned earlier) so why not give them a chance to help instead of moaning about how bad support is ?

In reply to a post by Jack_Hackett:

In reply to a post by samsonsky:

In reply to a post by Jack_Hackett:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

People like you make me laugh, you have a problem, [censored] about it in a forum then when help is offered you throw it back in the TT reps face, it is you who is the joke !


.

Loll you don't even know the full story i have had help off them and its about as much use as your comment

You say you have had help yet you are not a member of the members forum i assume therefore you have been using phone support, phone support has a bad reputation, the forum has an excellent reputation (i used it to sort the problems mentioned earlier) so why not give them a chance to help instead of moaning about how bad support is ?

i am just you cant find me because your looking for this user name Loll not replying anymore its getting boring now

Well it look like there is no helping you.
Shut the door on the way out.

i am just you cant find me because your looking for this user name Loll not replying anymore its getting boring now

Believe me i haven't been looking for you and the news you will taking no further part in this thread has made my day.

Which surely is unlawful and is harassment? Yes/No?

Firstly, debt has to be proven to exist. That normally requires a court hearing (right?). If the judge rules that the contract was broken but service still adequately provided, then yes, debt then exists, and the customer is due to pay all debt and extra charges. If that debt remains unpaid, then bailiffs can be instigated.

If, however, it is found that service was not adequately provided, per their contract, then no debt exists, so if they then decide to instigate bailiffs, it is illegal. If it was me, I would then invoke a tacit agreement where I would advise them that I will bill them £100 for every minute (rounded up) I spend having to deal with their bailiffs they have instigated towards me, over debt that has not been proven to exist. Tacit agreements are useful, and very handy.

Sorry, this may not be the way -they- want you to work, but I get so completely run down by companies trampling over customers because they believe they are god, and have leverage to threaten bailiffs and tarnishing someone's credit record. It's a complete joke. Modern society is weighted towards corporations every time and it is not fair at all.

To the original OP, good luck with sorting this out. I suggest if you have nothing to lose regarding your credit record etc and don't mind dealing with bailiffs, cancel the direct debit and let them take you to court over it.

<end of rant>

In reply to a post by mixt:

Which surely is unlawful and is harassment? Yes/No?

No, debt collectors are merely agents of the principal, the creditor, who are just asking for the debt on creditor's behalf, that they believe is owed, to be repaid. As long as their behaviour in doing this is reasonable, then there is no harassment, as in any other walk of life. Resort to the Courts, by either party, might only be required if no agreement is reached.

In this particular case the OP is threatening to stop paying, by cancellation of DD, while service is still being provided. So a debt would come immediately into existence.

Not all disputes end up in Court; they are first attempted to be settled by normal dialogue.

Not all disputes end up in Court; they are first attempted to be settled by normal dialogue.

Obviously, and this is the right thing to be doing.

In this particular case the OP is threatening to stop paying, by cancellation of DD, while service is still being provided. So a debt would come immediately into existence.

Well, here lies the rub. The fact is, service isn't being provided, or rather, not being provided adequately, per the contract that was agreed between the OP and TalkTalk. So why should he continue to pay for a service that isn't being provided?

This is just like the horror stories I have read with mobile phone contracts where customers find the provider cannot provide coverage where they mostly use their mobile (their house is out in sticks somewhere). So even though the mobile company can't provide service to them in that area, they still refuse to acknowledge this problem and so will not let the customer cancel the contract.

As I said, if this was me, I would write to them, recorded delivery, giving them a reasonable amount of time (14 or 30 days, what ever) to rectify the problem. I would also mention in this letter that if issues persist past that time, I will be cancelling my direct debit and that should they then apply charges or bailiffs to my account, I will then bill them £100 for every minute of my time I have to deal with paperwork relating to the issue (which I will record and itemise accordingly). These charges would also be applied on having to deal with invitations to court, and in the case of attending court to address the dispute of why they believe debt is due on a contracted service that hasn't been provided. I would have no issues at all attending court to do this, as long as I was fully confident I was going to win and have them pay for all my expenses and time for addressing the dispute.

Edited by deleted (Sun 18-Nov-12 11:22:53)

TalkTalk have just announced some price increases, which count as a change in T's and C's which means you have a window to cancel your TT contract without exit penalties.

Might be worth checking the dates.