Day One Hundred & Eleven: Decision

After 111 days (or 15 weeks if you prefer) I've finally received a very nice email from CISAS

The claim does not succeed.

Apparently, the main issues in the adjudication were:-

1. Whether the company had broken any terms of the contract between it and me or failed in its duty of care
2. Whether the reasons given by me are sufficient to justify the remedies claimed.

In terms, of the adjudication findings, the adjudicator found that (and I'm paraphrasing here):-

1. In this case, the company has provided a detailed set of documents and records to prove its case. As per the bill dated 27 January 2012, the customer incurred roaming charges for using his phone whilst in the US. Furthermore, it is not disputed that SMS texts were sent to the customer on 23 and 24 January 2012 in relation to the customer reaching his credit limit. As per the contract and the bill dated 27 January 2012, it is clearly stated that the company may suspend an account once the customer exceeds his credit limit. The customer claims that he should be compensated for the loss of service, the time he spent dealing with his claim and the mental anguish he suffered for not being able to communicate with his family. As per the contract and the bill provided, I find that the company was justified to suspend the customer’s phone account for exceeding the credit limit and that it was the customer’s responsibility to ensure that an interim payment was made to get his phone services restored. Therefore, in this case, I am satisfied that the company acted in a fair and reasonable manner and hence the customer’s claim for compensation of £5000.00 does not succeed.
2. In addition, call data records provided by the company show that the company explained to the customer what he was required to do to reinstate his phone services and by offering the customer a goodwill gesture of a month’s free service, free minutes to his children and refund to cover the customer’s call charges to contact the company from the US, I find that the company acted in a fair and reasonable manner to resolve the dispute. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the company acted in a conciliatory and professional manner with the customer and at all times provided the customer with all the relevant information in relation to his account. Therefore, I find that the customer’s claim for an action to better train the staff on products and services does not succeed.
3. I am satisfied that based on the terms and conditions of the agreement and the copy of notes provided by the company, the customer was provided adequate instructions to restore his phone services and I find that it was the customer’s responsibility to ensure that a payment was made to the company to restore the phone services. Furthermore, I find that the company had provided a detailed and adequate explanation to the customer for the loss of phone service. Thus, I find that the claimant’s claim for an explanation does not succeed.
4. Having carefully considered all the documents, I find that on the balance of probabilities the company acted in a fair and reasonable manner and therefore, the claimant’s claim for an apology does not succeed.

So in conclusion

1. The company has not failed in its duty of care to the customer or acted in breach of contract and has sufficiently proven that it has charged correctly for data services.
2. The reasons given by the customer are not sufficient to justify the claims.

My reply:

Case No: 212120898 - Babbington-Fowles vs. Virgin Mobile

Response:

1. I do NOT accept this decision

My findings and reasons

My decision NOT to accept this decision is based upon the Adjudicators finding and reasons as per their decision letter of 10 May 2012.

My responses to the Adjudicator's findings are:

1. Virgin Mobile has not disputed or provided any evidence that the wrong information was provided during my phone call to them on 22 January 2012. Although I accept responsibility to pay the bill it seems unreasonable and illogical to pay a bill after being informed that this was not necessary by Virgin Mobile themselves.
2. Virgin Mobile may have explained how to reinstate my phone services, but as I highlighted both to Virgin Media and in my appeal this service did not work and payment could not be made. Attempting to enforce a settlement without my agreement is neither professional, reasonable or in any sense goodwill
3. Although Virgin Mobile provided instructions on how to pay the bill, these instructions directed me to a service which does not work in accepting payments! Throughout this complaint, Virgin Media have failed to provide any explanation, either to myself or the Adjudicator as to why the wrong information was provided to me on 22 January 2012
4. The response from the Adjudicator clearly demonstrates that my documents have not been considered, since there is no reference to my phone conversation of 22 January 2012 which directly led to my loss of service and form the basis for this complaint, or to the failure of Virgin Mobile services to accept payments.