"Two telecoms firms, TalkTalk and Tiscali, have repaid nearly £2.5m to customers who were billed for services that had been cancelled.

The regulator Ofcom received more than 1,000 complaints but estimated some 62,000 could have been affected.

The customers had typically complained about aggressive demands for the payment of bills they did not owe.

TalkTalk blamed a new billing system introduced after it bought Tiscali in June 2009.

"We are pleased that Ofcom has recognised the significant steps we have taken to fix the billing issues," a TalkTalk spokeswoman said.

Compensation

Ofcom said that the two firms, who together have 4.2 million customers, had taken steps to fix the problem.

An average of about £40 has been paid to thousands of customers in refunds or compensation payments.

People must be refunded if, since 1 January 2010, they have paid bills that should not have been levied.

And credit ratings agencies must be told to repair any damaged credit histories.

Ofcom launched an investigation in July 2010 about the case, following the complaints. The firms were told to pay compensation by December or face a financial penalty.

Fines have been ruled out by the regulator, for now, but it said it would continue to monitor the situation."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12595391

Ofcom do have teeth then pity they don't use them more often.

Quote:

TalkTalk blamed a new billing system introduced after it bought Tiscali in June 2009.

So what was it then? Bad design of the billing system; done on the cheap or something else?

Surely the billing system did as it was programmed to do.  ::)

Surely the billing system did as it was programmed to do.  ::)[/quote]

Fare coment where did the 2.5 million go in this period in the high interest account no doubt and as you say Dave the system will have been programmed to carry out the transactions in the first place >:(

Dave wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 10:46am:

Surely the billing system did as it was programmed to do.  ::)

Probably find it wasn't tested correctly.  It happens nearly all the time.

A piece from Which? on this, posted in November:

http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ofcom-blasts-talktalk-for-billing-ex-customers/

Dave wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

A piece from Which? on this, posted in November: http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ofcom-blasts-talktalk-for-billing-ex-customers/

I love the last paragraph:
Quote:

It accepts that the technical issue has been going on for some time, yet it deals with refunds on a ‘case by case’ basis. Plus, it waits until it’s being investigated and finally threatened with enforcement action by the regulator before it comes up with a solution. I’m sorry, but I’m not impressed.

No different from nearly every other company imho.

It was nice, however, to see OfcoN finally do something for consumers........ although this problem has been going on since 2006... so OfcoN must have been working overtime on finally deciding an action to take instead of it's constant soft-touch/don't want to mess with stakeholders, etc/ordinary consumers arent that important attitude lol :)

... or maybe one of the complainants was a stakeholder  ;D

This is an interesting case, because it is a simple matter of erroneous commercial practice, which has nothing to do with the specific nature of the business and therefore need not require the intervention of a specialist regulator. Any business in any industry could have made a similar mistake - it probably happens following takeovers and the amalgamation of billing records all of the time.

Because this relatively straightforward matter was dealt with under the terms of engagement deemed appropriate to use of Ofcom's powers for enforcement of industry specific regulation, it seems that action was far too slow and lacking in vigour.

An alternative means of dealing with this matter under the law should surely have been available. If Otelo was involved, it should surely have directed victims elsewhere, or found an effective way of dealing with the issue.

We should not need to use specialist regulators simply to ensure that people are not billed for services they are not using.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:40pm:

This is an interesting case, because it is a simple matter of erroneous commercial practice, which has nothing to do with the specific nature of the business and therefore need not require the intervention of a specialist regulator. Any business in any industry could have made a similar mistake - it probably happens following takeovers and the amalgamation of billing records all of the time. Because this relatively straightforward matter was dealt with under the terms of engagement deemed appropriate to use of Ofcom's powers for enforcement of industry specific regulation, it seems that action was far too slow and lacking in vigour. An alternative means of dealing with this matter under the law should surely have been available. If Otelo was involved, it should surely have directed victims elsewhere, or found an effective way of dealing with the issue. We should not need to use specialist regulators simply to ensure that people are not billed for services they are not using.

I agree that Ofcon shouldn't have been used.

I don't know if end consumers went to TalkTalk/Tiscali and then otelo but were getting nowhere fast, so ended up having to go to Ofcon.

There must have been a reason why Ofcon had to intervene either because Otelo wasn't getting anywhere fast or because the severity and how long it had been going on for forced Ofcon to intervene.

Yes, this thing does happen when a company takes over another one and they obviously have more than one billing system but there was no need for it to take this long to sort out.  As the story mentioned that once Ofcon had intervened, only then did TalkTalk really start pulling their finger out.

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

I agree that Ofcon shouldn't have been used.

We also agree that it did make a difference in this case, although not "enough".

This sits alongside other issues (note my nickname) where Ofcom's softly-softly relationship with telecoms service providers, and the style of operation which flows from that, is incompatible with duties that it takes on. (I have not researched the case fully, but I note that Otelo were heavily involved.)

We are rightly quick to criticise Ofcom for the many things that it gets wrong. In this case, perhaps greater criticism needs to be aimed elsewhere, although I see little reason to congratulate Ofcom for so slow and limited a result.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

This sits alongside other issues (note my nickname) where Ofcom's softly-softly relationship with telecoms service providers, and the style of operation which flows from that, is incompatible with duties that it takes on.

We agree here as well.


Quote:

(I have not researched the case fully, but I note that Otelo were heavily involved.)

If Otelo were heavily involved then I can only assume that TalkTalk werent bothered about Otelo.  Does anyone know if Otelo and the alike actually have any powers?


Quote:

We are rightly quick to criticise Ofcom for the many things that it gets wrong. In this case, perhaps greater criticism needs to be aimed elsewhere, although I see little reason to congratulate Ofcom for so slow and limited a result.

We agree again lol.