RE: €1800 bill from Eircom

webtest01

Just saw this thread today.

The 72 Gb was very, very wrong. There was a problem in the sequence of the raw data for that customer which led to several 1 second long sessions showing a 4GB upload and download.

I've fixed the problem (I hope) and would ask the original poster (and anyone else) to check their stats and make sure that they are accurate.

Sorry about the problem. my bad.

R

please email webtest01@eircom.net with any problems

BKtje

Wow, thanks for posting and clearing that up. Im sure the original poster will be very pleased.

jimhenson

Thanks a lot for all your help! and your phone call
its really appreciated.

elexes

lol u were screwed now ur saved . wp eircom ( ffs what am i saying )

BKtje

Theres nothing wrong with Eircoms employees (apart from biddies) theya re usualy fairly good at their job. Just shoot the biddies and the eircom higher management.

Töpher

i must say its very nice to see eircom admit to their mistake!
and i think we're all happy for jim! lol!

CyberGhost

i guess everyone who flamed that guy, owes him an excuse

BKtje

i guess everyone who flamed that guy, owes him an excuse

Not really, the reason he was flamed is correct. I don't think he ever denied downloading that much...? He just refused to pay saying he hadn't ordered this service and wouldn't pay for it. Thats why he was flamed. :ninja:

Dustaz

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
He just refused to pay saying he hadn't ordered this service and wouldn't pay for it.

Which he was perfectly within his rights to say. I would say the same. The ignorance on that thread was mindboggling.



If someone orders service A and recieves service B, they should not have to pay for service B or any charges incurred under service B.

It should thoretically take only one phone call to say "This is not service A, its service B" for the problem to be fixed. There is a certain amount of Caveat Emptor but imo, the guy was perfectly right to refuse to pay if he WAS charged for that amount.

BKtje

If someone orders service A and recieves service B, they should not have to pay for service B or any charges incurred under service B.

Ah maybe that would be the case if he didn't use it but he did use it so his defence went out the window imo. (unless he didnt realise he was using service B which i find doubtful. This wasn't his first month using it afterall and had therefore payed the bills)

Im gonna leave it at that, no point in starting another discussion about it

LFCFan

I've only read that thread now. Can someone answer me something that to me seems bloody obvious? Did Jimhenson actually get a Bill? All he posted was the stats screen to say that he'd gone over his allowance. AFAIK, €ircon have yet to charge anyone for going over the cap. There was a lot of people telling him to pay the bill etc but did he actually get a bill?

bugler

Not on the basis of that thread. But I don't think it would have been wise for anyone to think "oh they haven't charged anyone for going over the cap, so they won't charge this guy the €1800".

Perhaps someone should have sussed that there was no way anyone could go that far over the limit, I'll blame you BB monkeys!

That thread was a bit farcical, for two main reasons: 1) Jim's odd reluctance to say that he had signed the contract for the uncapped until late in the thread, which was by far the most important piece of info, and made almost everything else irrelevant, and 2) Other people's subsequent refusal to acknowledge this crucial fact and allow for it.

No contract, no agreement, no right to reclaim debts.

And don't congratulate Eircom for correcting their mistake, that's the least people are owed. Oh that feels better..

Mutant_Fruit

he didn't sign up fpr the uncapped, he TRIED to sign up for the uncapped... if you read the post you would have seem that he said he has been trying to get moved over to the uncapped, in other words, he knew he was on capped service.

And before this degenerates into mud-slinging like the last one, i think this thread should also be locked shortly.

bizmark

maybe if it turns into a flameing war or 100 post super thread lol

but people seem to want to get this topic of overchargeing/Cap payment out of their systems SOOOOOOO no flameing = fine with me

enjoy

bugler

Mutant_Fruit.....

Quoted from jimhenson in the original thread:

So you all think I should pay even though I the contract I signed was for the uncapped service...

Maybe you don't believe him? Well I had my doubts too, but I'm prepared to take him at his word. After all, he's the only one in a position to actually know. Well, him and Eircom.

From the contract standpoint, and this is what matters when resolving disputes, if he signed for the uncapped, it effectively matters not a fúck whether or not he knew, suspected or had an inkling he was on the capped service.