Is this even legal?

[HagbardCeline]

Two days ago we received a letter saying that as of October 4th , our bill was going to go u[ by a staggering £32.64, only to find out that Virgin had already put this in place last month .

So they have upped the bill without telling us before we can do anything about it, kike cancel it .This cant be legal, can it?

[nodrogd]

Check your contract. If you have come to the end of your minimum term, then all associated discounts for that contract end at the same time & you pay the rolling contract price. If that is the case the only way to negate some of the increase is to negotiate another fixed term period.

[unisoft · Accepted solution]

"only way to negate some of the increase is to negotiate another fixed term period."

Correct, but good luck to the original poster with this one.

A few hurdles:

1. Getting an offer from retentions without being messed around and transferred multiple times

2. Getting exactly what you agree in the final contract

3. VM actually honouring the re-contract and not price gauging by a significant amount.

Of late, in many cases on just this forum alone, a lot of people been going through this. About time someone responsible in VM did their role seriously and sorted this out as its losing customers and revenue and brand damage as one customer with a bad experience, tells a lot of other people about their experience.

[Adduxi]

I have to agree, the pricing "structures" are a disgrace.  Yes, the after 18 months full price is always shown on the Contract and that's not disputed.  However, there is no fixed price for anything otherwise that I can see.  It's an absolute lottery of pricing really, and it's what I would describe as "sharp practice". Why should people have to threaten to leave to get a good deal? Why do those not in the know about Retentions end up paying a fortune? It may be good business, but it's very poor for customer relations.  When I left a while back and rejoined after 90 days, my monthly bill was less than half what it was, and the speed was double.  I've since left again, and I've noticed the "new" customer only pricing is now better again than the last time.  Not a great look really.

[HagbardCeline]

Thanks all

[Rosebush18]

---

@Adduxi wrote:

I have to agree, the pricing "structures" are a disgrace.  Yes, the after 18 months full price is always shown on the Contract and that's not disputed.  However, there is no fixed price for anything otherwise that I can see.  It's an absolute lottery of pricing really, and it's what I would describe as "sharp practice". Why should people have to threaten to leave to get a good deal? Why do those not in the know about Retentions end up paying a fortune? It may be good business, but it's very poor for customer relations.  When I left a while back and rejoined after 90 days, my monthly bill was less than half what it was, and the speed was double.  I've since left again, and I've noticed the "new" customer only pricing is now better again than the last time.  Not a great look really.

---

Honestly you have to be aware of the reality, VM is a company, literally, drowning in debt, they need every single penny they can get from subscribers to even stay afloat - don’t take my word for it, look at their published results.

They do seem to operate as an almost perfect example of capitalism, no that’s not quite (technically) fair, but they offer a service and will pitch the price depending on what alternatives are available, no doubt some algorithm based on the likelihood of the customer kicking off and leaving, and what they think will work.

It’s ‘free market economics’, you have to accept that every transaction is a personal one between the provider (VM) and the customer (you). VM as a provider, naturally want to extract the maximum amount of money they can for the minimum service, as the customer, you want the exact opposite - so, naturally, it tends to end up somewhere in the middle. What others get is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is this ‘what does the provider (VM) offer and what are you (the customer) prepared to accept?

Changing providers is a bit of an ask, no? But some customers would be prepared to do it to save £1, others just can’t be bothered and will pay whatever for a quiet life.  But VM doesn’t know where an individual customer  stands on this scale, so they will play hardball, assume that the customer will cave and bend over, unless it is obvious that they won’t, are prepared to ‘go nuclear’ and actually cancelled. And then, and only then will any sort of negotiation happen.

Is it fair, is it right for customers to have to do this? Debatable. But it is the reality of the situation. Play the game or don’t!

[unisoft]

---

@Rosebush18 wrote:

---

@Adduxi wrote:

I have to agree, the pricing "structures" are a disgrace.  Yes, the after 18 months full price is always shown on the Contract and that's not disputed.  However, there is no fixed price for anything otherwise that I can see.  It's an absolute lottery of pricing really, and it's what I would describe as "sharp practice". Why should people have to threaten to leave to get a good deal? Why do those not in the know about Retentions end up paying a fortune? It may be good business, but it's very poor for customer relations.  When I left a while back and rejoined after 90 days, my monthly bill was less than half what it was, and the speed was double.  I've since left again, and I've noticed the "new" customer only pricing is now better again than the last time.  Not a great look really.

---

Honestly you have to be aware of the reality, VM is a company, literally, drowning in debt, they need every single penny they can get from subscribers to even stay afloat - don’t take my word for it, look at their published results.

They do seem to operate as an almost perfect example of capitalism, no that’s not quite (technically) fair, but they offer a service and will pitch the price depending on what alternatives are available, no doubt some algorithm based on the likelihood of the customer kicking off and leaving, and what they think will work.

It’s ‘free market economics’, you have to accept that every transaction is a personal one between the provider (VM) and the customer (you). VM as a provider, naturally want to extract the maximum amount of money they can for the minimum service, as the customer, you want the exact opposite - so, naturally, it tends to end up somewhere in the middle. What others get is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is this ‘what does the provider (VM) offer and what are you (the customer) prepared to accept?

Changing providers is a bit of an ask, no? But some customers would be prepared to do it to save £1, others just can’t be bothered and will pay whatever for a quiet life.  But VM doesn’t know where an individual customer  stands on this scale, so they will play hardball, assume that the customer will cave and bend over, unless it is obvious that they won’t, are prepared to ‘go nuclear’ and actually cancelled. And then, and only then will any sort of negotiation happen.

Is it fair, is it right for customers to have to do this? Debatable. But it is the reality of the situation. Play the game or don’t!

---

all very well and good and most of us realise this hence walking away, but where does this fit in then from my original statement:

1. Getting exactly what you agree in the final contract (i.e. accuracy in contract sent through what's agreed on phone or Whatsapp chat)

2. VM actually honouring the re-contract and not price gauging by a significant amount. (i.e. not changing to a more random non agreed price after contract negotiation and then denying the offer was agreed)

That's nothing to do with playing the game. Its morals, ethics and legality.

[Adduxi]

If every company and shop took that attitude as "free market economy", we would all be in a total mess.  I still think it's terrible to basically milk people for money if they can get away with it. But then again, I like to think I have some morals left in me.