Vodafone Adhoc Billing

S

Shadowofthewind

Registered User
Messages
20
Hi all,

I've been with VF for a good few years as mobile customer and in recent years for TV and Broadband. Due to challenges in 2021, I was late with some bill payments and I discontinued direct debit payment method. Back in Nov 21 I received a bill with a "Reconnection fee" of €25 on it and I paid it and all arrears in full. Receiving my bill for Dec 21 I noticed two further (previously unregistered) reconnection fee charges of €25 each. VF also added some miscellaneous addOn charge to my bill of a small amount < €5 euro.

In communications with VF customer care I have been told that reconnection fees are applied in circumstances where bills are not paid on time and by due date. And so going back over my bills I was told 3 different reconnection fees applied in 2021. Speaking with another agent today I was told that the two charges related to the two components of the bill i.e. TV and Broadband separately, €25 charge per component. Pressing VF for confirmation on details of dates where these apply varies depending on the agent you speak to. I downloaded the VF tariff details and discovered that listed above the Reconnection fees represented as €25 is a late payment fee charge of €10 per event. As for the add on charge of < €5 on the bill, I've been informed that this relates to the fact that I dropped out of contract on 21st Dec 21.

Further to above, VF said they would waive all charges should I setup a direct debit arrangement with them again and they would be happy to remove the add-on charge on the basis that I entered back into contract with them for 12 months. Its my experience that going the DD route and if your busy and unable to keep on top of reviewing your monthly statements, your likely to miss addon charges etc and there seems to be an assumption by service providers like VF that consumers will easily overlook this.

Now I'm sorry, but I have to ask, is everyone else aware that a service provider like VF is doing this? Is this happening across all services providers? This is my first touchpoint with an experience like this albeit VF is generally not strong on performance in this area generally. It stinks of corporate control and consumer and market manipulation. Its unbelievably difficult to trust VF in this situation as they don't seem capable of mapping out a clear charge pathway for me and their efforts seem purely coercive in nature. And this undoubtedly has to stem from the top of the organization down IMO. Our country is in dire need of disruptors to the market as the incumbent players at large all seem to adopt similar posturing, and as for customer service - not one of them seem to know how to do this well.

On another note, in talking with a pensioner recently about my dissatisfaction, they informed me that because they pay bills through An Post (and not DD etc) since that is where their pension is paid that VF do not permit them access to any product upgrades like access to Fibre. VF seem to prefer direct access and control to consumer bank accounts so they can charge at will it seems. Are we all just accepting of the fate that these service providers seem to be enforcing?

Yes, by all accounts the above is about small money, but my problem is the trust aspect and tactics being used.
I'd be interested to get your thoughts and feedback where you have similar experiences or whether this is something new that your not aware of?

Thanks.
S.
 
Shadowofthewind said:
Now I'm sorry, but I have to ask, is everyone else aware that a service provider like VF is doing this?
Click to expand...
If, as it seems from your interactions with them, the charges are in line with what's stated in the contract terms and conditions/tariff sheets then they're perfectly entitled to levy them in the relevant circumstances. This is why people should always at least skim the contract terms and conditions when agreeing to them.
Its unbelievably difficult to trust VF in this situation as they don't seem capable of mapping out a clear charge pathway for me and their efforts seem purely coercive in nature.
Click to expand...
From what you've posted they've explained all of the charges, you have cross checked these with the tariff sheets and they've even offered you an option where the charges can be waived. I'm not really sure what you're complaining about to be honest.

If you're not happy with Vodafone then there are other service providers out there that you can move to. For TV you don't even need a service provider if you install a free to air dish for hundreds of free satellite channels and an aerial for Saorview digital terrestrial channels for a once off fee of maybe €200-€300.
 
Last edited:
The charges are not aligned to the tariff sheets as mentioned in my post. The waiver of charges is based on a subsequent exchange for further 12 months of Loyalty and my commitment to DD only. Its not a waiver to correct the error in charges applied.
 
I couldn't understand your description of the charges/tariff and thought that you were saying that they checked out. If they didn't then you should query it with them and, if necessary/justified, make formal complaint. Ideally do all that in writing.
 
I've made a formal complaint and have my communications are in writing, however VF have not confirmed anything in writing on the matter.
I really do think if we as consumers are configured to accept this type of exchange and if we are not happy to "just move" when alternatives are more of the same, we don't make progress, nothing changes and none of the service providers need to change and will probably assume they can enforce further controls.
 
Vodafone T&C clearly call out the €25 re-connection fee per service. The €10 charge is per missed direct debit attempt, it's not a late fee. When you have a DD agreement in place, they might attempt to take payment multiple times for a single bill. I

Perhaps the <€5 charge is for service from the end of the contract period to the date of the failed direct debit or service being suspended? As per the contract, the service agreement rolls-over at the end of the contract period and they will continue to bill you accordingly.

Shadowofthewind said:
It stinks of corporate control and consumer and market manipulation.
Click to expand...

What in particular do you feel is manipulation? Their being willing to cancel charges legitimately applied to your account on the proviso that you will return to paying by direct debit or something else?
 
Surely reviewing the DD's on your banking statement once a month is far easier and quicker then traipsing down to the Post Office to queue up and pay your bills?. If anything, you have more control over it since the DD rules allow you to recall a DD for up to 8 weeks after it was originally taken where as once you've paid the bill over the counter, that's it.

Harsh and cold reality here is that you didn't pay your bills on time despite the fact that your supplier has given you plenty of ways to do so. All of those missed payments and interactions with VF cost them money in the same way they charge for a missed DD because they will be charged by their bank to do so.
 
Its possible the terminology is not appropriate here. Reconnection fee suggests some disconnect and reconnect. There was no such event on any of the occasions. Similarly, late connection fee states €10 per event and reading the narrative as stated by Leo and provided below would suggest it applies only in the context of direct debit failure on multiple attempts - which should not apply in my case as the DD was not in place at the time of the charges.

"€10 per event. This will be applied if your Direct Debit fails due to insufficient funds in your account, on the second and subsequent failed attempts"

There are many layers to my frustration on this and there seems to be an accepted view that if you fall into trouble through no cause of your own and have to be late with payments that its just tough. There is disregard for your long term loyalty overall. It seems that no understanding of the situation is considered and for anyone in more challenging times and not being able to pay on their end, even if only intermittently, your penalized for the net effect by the service provider. This is aside from the fact that we are a country that are accepting of charges for broadband etc which is already expensive compared to other regions in Europe.

It is also quite remarkable that when you do take the time to evaluate and inspect what is going on that you can in fact be told that these charges can be waived but only on the proviso that you retain your loyalty and follow the model that the service provider prefers (no representation of the customer need in this). Alot of my original points seem to have been overlooked. In particular, why are there two charges appearing end of year and only being recognized now for some period in middle of 2021 and why is customer service on one side stating they related to two separate months and another stating they relate to same period but are two different components. Its all too unclear.

Lastly, the point referring to "Perhaps the <€5 charge is for service from the end of the contract period to the date of the failed direct debit or service being suspended" - I just don't think there is sufficient objectivity in this. And yes perhaps its for "some service" following the end of the contract, but then VF should be able to detail where it comes from or what it applies to? Isn't that an acceptable request? its just more of "perhaps".. but where is the clarity? It has nothing to do with a failed direct debit charge as none existed and there was no suspension in service.
 
I think this is where I am at and would have liked to hear more broadly from the community in terms of experiences related to this matter.
 
I've never experienced it myself but then I pay my bills on time using DD and generally don't breach my side of the contract agreement/terms and conditions.
 
Shadowofthewind said:
Reconnection fee suggests some disconnect and reconnect. There was no such event on any of the occasions.
Click to expand...
Disconnections / reconnections happen remotely via their IT systems, it's not that someone calls to your property. They don't own the infrastructure so can't do physical disconnections.

Shadowofthewind said:
There are many layers to my frustration on this and there seems to be an accepted view that if you fall into trouble through no cause of your own and have to be late with payments that its just tough. There is disregard for your long term loyalty overall. It seems that no understanding of the situation is considered and for anyone in more challenging times and not being able to pay on their end, even if only intermittently, your penalized for the net effect by the service provider.
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine an argument for how your failure to pay your bill on time could be attributed to Vodafone here. The problem is that consideration for consumers' circumstances and a system to accommodate failures or inability to pay on time costs a lot of money to run.

Utilities like Vodafone have two choices. They can implement such a system, with a significantly increased staff to liaise with customers to work through such issues, and charge everyone a little more, or they can run with lower staff numbers, offer the vast majority who pay on time a lower cost and charge those who run into problems for the additional expenses incurred in dealing with late payments.

It's clear in multiple market sectors, communications in particular, that the public want lower prices and are prepared to sacrifice customer service levels for that. With that primary focus on cost, I can't see any provider taking a different approach.
 
Hi Leo. Thanks for your response. I'm a long standing customer on Mobile DD and someone that did bow out of DD for Broadband and TV. Missed payments don't happen all the time and I would consider that I am a good customer that has shown considerable loyalty. I have to say my key points seem to be consistently getting overlooked. My bills are being paid up in full, but back to my previous points, VF have not been consistent or clear in terms of the charges being applied and not clear about why they are only recording them in Month 12 or why customer service presents different views and honestly maybe it is terminology but what has "Reconnection fee" got to do with late payment when I know there was no service disruption. I am entitled to consider this a risk and a red flag as a consumer and establish clear understanding. Is this demand not fair and reasonable from a service relationship perspective?

Also, failure to pay on time is a challenge, I understand it complicates matters on both ends, but its imbalanced in favour of the service provider. I'm not asking for high touch engagement and definitely would not expect it from VF but a contract like this has two key parties and there should be a balanced acceptance of risk IMO - but there is not and instead, VF counter risk on their end with penalties. VF do not recognize the pain points and time consumed and lost by consumers who need to get redress for their issues through customer service and IMO they ignore sufficient investment in that aspect of their business.

As to public sacrificing customer service levels for lower prices and considering that reports highlighting Broadband charges in Ireland are amongst the highest in Europe and double that of countries like Italy etc. I do not align to the view that we should be expected to sacrifice service at all. We seem so accepting and understanding that businesses must make considerable profits at any cost, especially at the cost of us the consumer.

I've consumed way too much time on the forum here and responses have been very narrowly represented. I'll leave at this for now.
 
Clubman - "narrowly represented" comment is not a personal remark at those that have responded. I appreciate the responses. I just had hoped to get broader feedback on experiences with this.
 
Shadowofthewind said:
and honestly maybe it is terminology but what has "Reconnection fee" got to do with late payment when I know there was no service disruption. I am entitled to consider this a risk and a red flag as a consumer and establish clear understanding. Is this demand not fair and reasonable from a service relationship perspective?
Click to expand...
Their T&Cs clearly entitle them to add these charges to your account should you not pay on time. If you don't believe that is fair, you should seek out a supplier that does not have such a condition.

Shadowofthewind said:
Also, failure to pay on time is a challenge, I understand it complicates matters on both ends, but its imbalanced in favour of the service provider. I
Click to expand...
I look on it as balanced in favour of the majority who pay on time. Regardless of level of touch involved, managing late and missed payments involve extra cost for the provider. Yes it's a real pain when it affects you, but when you were signing up, if you were given a choice, would you have paid extra just so there would be no fees attached to late or missed payments?

Shadowofthewind said:
I do not align to the view that we should be expected to sacrifice service at all. We seem so accepting and understanding that businesses must make considerable profits at any cost, especially at the cost of us the consumer.
Click to expand...
The vast majority shop around for services based primarily on price. If customer service levels were a significant motivator, companies like Eir or Ryanair who consistently rank among the worst for customer service would be out of business, and not amongst the most popular. Customer service costs money, and in competitive markets, staff costs are one of the few levers companies can manipulate to reduce costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top