Virgin Media. Fraud.

My letter to Virgin Media.  
Worst service provider I have ever had dealings with.

Virgin Media.

Ann Curran

Head of Contact Management

Virgin Media payments.

6 June, 2011.

I am writing with regard to your bill,  £140.19 for charges up to 6 July, as well as your letter of 30 May from Anne Curran, demanding £72.17 as it relates to Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, "Fraud by abuse of position."

The facts in this matter are:

1.     Some Months ago I received a letter from Virgin Media accusing me of ‘Detrimental use of broadband.’ Upon review I noted in a call to Virgin Media that I was away for lengthy periods of time during this period where this limitation to the unlimited Broadband package I paid for apparently occurred. I felt the heavy-handed correspondence from Virgin media was of an unacceptably low standard. As a result I started using a new Service provider, keeping my Virgin media account solely for the E Mail addresses which were widely used in my business.

2.     Despite the fact that I barely used the Virgin Media unlimited broadband service – I received a second letter once more accusing me of ‘Detrimental use of broadband’ which demanded that I call Virgin Media to provide assurances of submission to the Virgin Media code of ethics for the still unqualified offence presented as ‘Detrimental Use of Broadband.’ No indication of what this offence might entail was offered. I was at this point disturbed by the threatening approach to customer service and resolved to terminate my use of Virgin Media’s products with permanent effect. Writing to a customer demanding they call in to provide assurances on limiting the product sold as unlimited or else face being disconnected without further notice is to my mind unacceptable business conduct.

3.     On Thursday 5^th May 2011, at 11am I phoned Virgin Media to cancel my subscription. I was advised of the 30-day notice period and assured the service would remain active until 4^th June. This would enable me to effect changes to a new e-mail address for the various areas, such as Internet Banking, Share trading accounts, PayPal and Amazon accounts as well as the commercial scripts which run sales for my business – all of which return to my e-mail account, which was controlled by Virgin Media. 

4.     At 4 PM on the 5^th of May - my e-mail ceased working. I called the operator to be told ‘I see they have put a hold on your account’. I requested that ‘they’ call me to explain. The operator told me ‘They will not do that.’ I would like to be very clear on this point. Virgin Media suspended my e-mail account on the 5^th of May, despite being told that the extent of how I rely on this for my business. When I called in to enquire – I was told by the operator – who accessed my file before she spoke to me – thereby confirming that the matter of this disconnection in on your files – that despite my protestation that this was shocking business practice and that someone from Virgin should call me to explain – she said ‘They will not do that.’ I asked the Virgin Media representative if I could quote her on that and she said ‘You can do what you like.’   

5.     On Friday 6^th May with no Internet service available to me from Virgin Media with my broadband account quite obviously suspended two things became clear: Firstly I was paying for a service that I was not receiving and secondly, that I would now have to incur costs to adjust my business accounts which rely on my e mail address.

6.     I consulted with a Telecoms experienced lawyer following which I cancelled the direct debit payment at 11.30 AM on Friday the 6^th.

7.     On Saturday 14^th May, the Virgin media phone line, which was a part of the package with the broadband was disconnected. By this time I had still not received so much as a courtesy call from Virgin media explaining why they suspended my service although I did receive bulky correspondence inviting me to ‘Come back to Virgin media.’ Demonstrating the lack of cross-departmental cohesion that is as offensive to the customer as it is an indication of ineffectual business practise.

8.     On 30^th May I received a letter from Anne Curren chasing payment of £72, which followed an invoice for £140.19. These amounts are for services that were not provided. I understand the correct legal term for the attempt to charge for a service you have no intention of providing is attempted fraud. Virgin Media knew the service was not being provided – having themselves terminated the service on 4^th May 2011, yet Virgin media sent a bill charging £140.19 for the period to 06 July 2011.

9.     My costs in physically contacting and effecting change of e-mail address for my business arising from the termination of my e mail account on the urgent basis required by the disconnection exceed £500.  The stress of dealing with this harassment style bullying incompetence that is the face of a company who cut-off the service of a very long standing premium customer and then reply to the request to be called by someone responsible with the words ‘They wont do that’ should have a compensatory value. My legal costs in establishing my position in this matter, is a further consideration. The fraudulent attempt to extort further payment for services offered after the termination of the service provided may be no more than an administrative oversight in your view, in mine however it has the serious consequence of requiring additional time commitment in the form of taking legal advice and authoring this time intensive correspondence.

10.  I dispute your charges, as detailed above, as they relate to services that were never provided and that you never had any intention of providing. The act of presenting these charges is attempted fraud.

11.  I look forward to your proposals for recompensing me for:

11.1. The costs of transferring, under conditions of urgency, my e mail account information on the 4^th of May from approximately 17 key business links all of which required time intensive correspondence with verification and explanation in a process occupying most of my time for two full days.

11.2. Compensation for being exposed to the schoolyard bullying style incompetence that characterised my correspondence with Virgin media and the ‘Detrimental use of Broadband’ issue leading to the termination of my account without as much as a phone call, but with a surfeit of threat and malign implication. The cost in addressing the fraudulent claims for charges for services you had no intention of providing.

11.3. The cost of my legal advice, including how best to deal with the daily harassment via telephone of your company’s calls to my private number. There has been a call and message left on my phone every single day this week demanding payment including on the weekend.

As a premium rate customer of the Broadband service in this area, from the very outset with Nynex who laid the original cable over 20 years ago, then with Pipex who bought them out, then with NTL who bought out Pipex and then most recently with Virgin Media. Over 20 years as a premium rate customer of the broadband service provided to this location and until now, over a 20-year period, without any complaint. In the past year the Virgin Media service has declined noticeably. There were periods when I was unable to even download a basic e-mail in less than 3 minutes, despite your advertised reassurances of ‘lightning fast’ broadband. I repeatedly ran tests on broadband download speed-reading to confirm that over 50% of the time using your broadband service, the download rate was under 100K. Yet I was being charged and paying for your top of the range broadband product. Curiously despite the hugely varying download speeds and the inconvenience the slow download periods imposed, at no time did the cost of the service I was paying for reflect the fact that I was not receiving what was being advertised. “Happy to take the money for the goods but nowhere to be seen when the goods went bad” is a fair assessment of this aspect in my dealings with Virgin Media. The decline in the service provided has been matched by the decline in professional standards. I can’t think of any company I have dealt with in the past that has caused me as much stress and disgruntlement as Virgin Media.

That you have the temerity to try and send me an invoice after cutting off my service is entirely consistent with the standards I have come to expect from Virgin Media. As a former customer the experience will in my case be remembered for the only good thing arising from the business relationship, which is the story I look forward to telling.

I look forward to your reply to the points raised above.

Andrew Brel.

Katya Koren and Islam

I have wondered, and this wonderment has persisted consistently almost all of my life,  how it is that something as staggeringly dumb as belief in an invisible chap in the sky who runs the show and requires total blind submission to his ways, is not permanently and conclusively eliminated from the list of blights on mankind.

The great qualities we possess as a species have reached many fantastic landmarks. Great minds have turned to the challenges facing our survival and demonstrated just how amazing we can be when applying rational logical thought in a forward direction. We have managed to overcome many of the diseases that have blighted our evolutionary path -  TB and smallpox to mention but two - yet this much more sinister and murderous pox on humanity, one which could so easily with mere legislation be wiped out at the swish of a pen, continues to flourish. How is this possible?

I am reminded of this today looking at the picture of Katya Koren. A  Ukranian 19 year old who participated in a beauty pageant,  for which reason she apparently attracted the rape and stoning death attention of  3 Muslim youngsters including, Bihal Gaziev, 16, who suggested (according to the Police report) that his belief in the invisible man in the sky and his set of rules regarding how to live on Earth required killing young Katya, in an appropriately barbaric way. 

His claim, published in the Daily Mail, that she was in breach of Sharia values has a sound ring to it. Rape and brutal murder are far less likely to accompany the actions of a rational logical thinker than an adherent to blind faith. Although the story was later amended by the Daily Mail to exclude any religiously motivated thinking, Bihal Gaziev's actions represent his Religious belief.

One need look no further than Tony Blairs example to see how loosely Biblical interpretation, in his case 'Thou shalt not kill,' lend themselves to the illogic of the blind faith supplicant.

Bihal's claim is much like that of John Joe Thomas, 28, of Pennsylvania, who, just a few Months ago filled a sock with rocks and bashed 70 year old Murray Seidman, who had named him as his sole beneficiary in his will, to death, with the explanation that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. "Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must kill Seidman." Well why not. If you believe in the invisibility of logic, then you can do whatever your prayers tell you to do.

Just another Biblical tragedy and there are no shortage of tragedies arising from that unholy book.

“The battle for mans extinction has never been more fiercely contested, on one side, the supplicants of irrational blind faith and on the other, rational logical minds.” The Emergency Bouzouki Player.

For those supplicants of blind faith, who number more than half of the Earth and who populate almost all of the most powerful offices – from the US Presidency to the Billionaire sheikdoms – there is no workable moral code. The premise of their position – scriptural prescription – is ridiculous. So much so that the only way it can survive is reliance on an idea called blind faith. Blind faith as an argument for believing anything is a ridiculous premise which cannot survive without defeating its ideological opposite. Rational logical thought.

Debating the merits of scriptural prescription is ridiculous, being the intellectual equivalent of debating the flatness of the Earth. The scriptures, the bible, the Quran and all their silly derivatives are ridiculous. Childrens fairy stories rehashed through the millennia to support the ‘my god is better than your god’ argument whose premise is an ‘eternity in heaven’ for submission, and an ‘eternity in hell’ for the rest. 

The purveyors of this cynical relief package for the desperate and needy – the Popes, Bishops, Imamsm Fathers and Padre’s – perpetuate a delusion they can only maintain through blind faith. They are, without exception, not only ridiculous, but the enemy of reason, in service to a system of social, psychological, spiritual and intellectual abuse. Perpetuating, often on pain of death, submission through the metaphorical equivalent of thought lobotomy, into their social order in which the right to independent thought is forbidden and non-conformity persecuted.

Mans great advances since the first thinkers began developing ideas and sharing them for the betterment of all, have, almost without exception, arisen from non-believers, often despite persecution by the Religious powers of the day. Often those thought-contributors who were under the influence of the Church - would have to suppress their inventions if they threatened the Church's absolute stronghold on stupidity. Were it not for non-believers pursuing logical rational thought and directing the benefits toward upliftment of our human race in general, we would in all certainty already be extinct as a species.

And yet, more than half the planet believe through blind faith in a scripture based prescription which relies on a logical argument that a 9 year old would easily discredit with basic thought. How is it that seemingly intelligent people defend this iniquitous, exploitative, divisive product whose purpose is no more than to offer ridiculous promises – heaven and hell  - while offering nothing in return. Perhaps this is related to the fact that more than 50% of the Earths population live in abject poverty, less than $2 a day. This poverty layer make prime harvesting fields for souls so desperate they will believe anything. 

Is it not the most cynical of devices for churches to recruit from the underbelly of those most dispossessed by economic misfortune, who will believe anything for the price of a hot meal?

In terms of the powers that be, using the example of the USA, the heartland of Christian belief with their ‘In God we trust’ approach, who could legislate to end the pernicious growth of this social cancer, the motivation to do so is at odds with the formula for success in a democratic election. (And I use the word democratic in its loosest American style interpretation.)  Dumbed down believers in blind faith prescription will vote accordingly - their vote is so easy to manipulate - believe in invisible things and you will believe whatever you are told - in his name. 

The words 'God' and 'Democracy' are so linked in American politics that the chances of a leader being elected who didn't openly and enthusiastically embrace the little mighty Jesus in his manifesto - would stand no hope.  America's leadership is limited to either a leader who believes in an invisible man guiding his hand - or one who lies about it. Any suggestion that this represents democracy - rule by the people - must acknowledge the distance America's democratic model represents from the Greek invention.

Oh well. Bihal Gaziev and John Joe Thomas have an important lesson for us all. As believers they are guaranteed a place in heaven, albeit two different heavens.  Another two good reasons to believe.