[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: Small Claims
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Small Claims
- From: "Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:22:07 -0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> From: Brian G. Reynolds [mailto:brian.g.reynolds@xxxxxxx]
> Hey thanks for this Mark, just what I have been told to de re NTL
> cutting my
> phone off (still).
>
> They have made no attempt to contact me to resolve the situation and
as I
> have "loads" of dates/names/payment's on file I have a good
> case.....maybe.
Great minds and all that I guess <g>
Seriously though, it will definitely go in your favour and is very likely
to
make for a swift ruling.
One question, if they have made no contact to resolve, how do you know they
are going to cut you off? (Sorry, I remember you "talking" ;)
about NTL
before, but not the specifics... too many topics on the list..hehe) If the
cut off notice was the only contact, then I would say you do have a very
good case. It isn't like a "telephone" company does not know how
to contact
you by phone and/or mail so there are no mitigating circumstances from
their
side.
IIRC, NTL seem to have a weird cut off policy, you still get incoming
calls.
Not sure if they leave 999 enabled though. Probably not relevant, but I
always wondered why they left incoming calls enabled. Possibly as an
attempt
to show compassion in court, so if 999 is disabled (as an outgoing call),
it
counteracts it, since 999 is more important than say an incoming call from
the Mother in Law ;)
Mark.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|