Rangers' Wi-Fi providers FAIL in bid to arrest £300,000 over unpaid bill

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Yes but with respect, it doesn't say nor if I was representing them would I accept that it implies that all 50,000 people would be able to get online at the same time which appears to be part of Rangers defence.

 

As I say I am anything but an expert in this field but is it reasonable to expect 50,000 people to get online inside a stadium at the same time?

If it's not possible don't say it is. Simple

[the gunslinger 3,366]

BH I bought a car which the salesman assured me was the most reliable car on the road. A fortnight later it broke down. Can I cancel my agreement with the garage now ?

Yes of course

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If it's not possible don't say it is. Simple

 

Again, with respect, GS, we've not seen proof either way. the press release doesn't prove what was in the contract.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I'd rather such stuff wasn't posted - thanks, Frankie

 

A link to that particular information has been on this site since at least April 2014.

[Frankie 8,157]

A link to that particular information has been on this site since at least April 2014.

 

Thanks. I've not noticed it previously.

 

Obviously stuff in the public domain already might not be a huge issue but I'd rather this site erred on the side of caution when it comes to contempt of court.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Again, with respect, GS, we've not seen proof either way. the press release doesn't prove what was in the contract.

What's that got to do with them saying it.

[Scott7 5,199]

All depends on the spec, doesn't it?

 

Either Rangers said fit us up with xyz or the contractors tendered to fit xyz. If xyz isn't there and the contractors have had the chance to provide it but have failed, the money's not due, at least not in full. But that's for the future. If there's a case on the face of it and the judge is nervous about Rangers' finance they may get the arrestment continued.

 

Btw, Boabie, desplte m'learned friend gs' advice, don't go rejecting that motor 'til you've crossed your lawyer's palm with silver or more likely, gold.

[boabie 230]

All depends on the spec, doesn't it?

 

Either Rangers said fit us up with xyz or the contractors tendered to fit xyz. If xyz isn't there and the contractors have had the chance to provide it but have failed, the money's not due, at least not in full. But that's for the future. If there's a case on the face of it and the judge is nervous about Rangers' finance they may get the arrestment continued.

 

Btw, Boabie, desplte m'learned friend gs' advice, don't go rejecting that motor 'til you've crossed your lawyer's palm with silver or more likely, gold.

 

I probably worded my post badly Scott. I'm perfectly happy with the car. I was making the point to BH that if I am promised or contracted to receive something and the service I receive falls far short of that then I will be perfectly within my rights to cancel any contract I made. Imo this is exactly what Rangers are doing. We didn't just stop making payments to the chancers who own the wi-fi. We'll have told them to fix it. When they didn't they'll have received notice that we don't want it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I probably worded my post badly Scott. I'm perfectly happy with the car. I was making the point to BH that if I am promised or contracted to receive something and the service I receive falls far short of that then I will be perfectly within my rights to cancel any contract I made. Imo this is exactly what Rangers are doing. We didn't just stop making payments to the chancers who own the wi-fi. We'll have told them to fix it. When they didn't they'll have received notice that we don't want it.

 

And I agreed with you even in the case of a verbal contract, although you would have to give the car salesman the opportunity to fix any defects.

 

Again, I would respectfully suggest that you are asserting as fact that which you can only assume, namely that "We didn't just stop making payments to the chancers who own the wi-fi. We'll have told them to fix it. When they didn't they'll have received notice that we don't want it."

 

This assumes two things (a) the wifi supplied and fitted was not as specified in the contract and (b) we did indeed give the supplier sufficient opportunity to fix it. One certainly hopes you are correct but we will not know that for sure till the relevant documents are produced in evidence.

[Big Jaws 570]

Yes and no Boabie the resolution of disputes also has to follow a set of procedures take this legislation that relates to Broadband providers and the key areas where disputes can arise as a sort of template.

 

Sale of Goods & Services Act: Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 retailers AND service providers must sell goods that are:

• Of satisfactory quality
  
• Are fit for purpose
  
• Service is delivered as described
  
• Provide services to a proper standard of workmanship.
  

How this relates to broadband in the Act is that a consumer can claim a full refund or compensation if they can prove that the service was not delivered as described, was not fit for purpose beforehand, or is not to a satisfactory level of quality or workmanship.

Using these points in an argument with your broadband provider may give you some credibility but you would still need to find proof in an ADR meeting or legal challenge against a broadband provider and this could prove tricky.The only way to argue the case for the Act is by looking at the terms of service within the broadband contract and seeing whether they have offered the service as advertised or referring to the “deadlock letter” and what the provider has done to resolve your problem. This may help you if you take the matter to an ADR or court.

 

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act: The original Unfair Contract Terms Act was in 1971, but has since been updated in 1995 to include a section on Consumer Contracts, (broadband providers contracts fall under this). What this means is that a consumer can submit a court action stating that they think their broadband contract is unfair and cite the Act.

The Act says that a consumer is not bound by a standard term in a contract with a seller or supplier if that term is unfair. This gives the Office of Fair Trading and others powers to stop the use of unfair standard terms, if necessary by obtaining a court injunction. Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a contract term is unfair, but in many cases broadband contracts are some of the most unfair terms of all, it’s useful to know that there is a legal precedent to protect consumers from poor contract terms.

 

To isolate the the scale in wifi traffic use this might be a handy reference on the 27 January 2015: Following Sunday’s nail biting FA Cup match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Arsenal the home team has reported record usage figures for the stadium’s free WiFi service, at The Amex Stadium. WiFi provider The Cloud saw over 13,000 devices connect to the network consuming a staggering 600,000 minutes of online time.

 

Understandably usage peaked; pre-match, at half time and after the match. The data shows a phenomenal amount of online activity before the match started with over 110,000 mbytes of data downloaded – nearly double the average data use at the stadium on a match day. With fans at Brighton & Hove Albion’s stadium being able to auto connect to The Cloud WiFi once registered, usage has soared. Supporters are now simply activating WiFi and accessing the internet to check live scores, use social media and stream content for free.

Dispute Resolution or Court Action

 

If you have reached the stage where you’ve exhausted all possible options in trying to resolve the matter directly with your broadband provider then at this point you may want to consider alternative dispute resolution or court action.In 2003 the communications regulator Ofcom drafted The Communications Act. The act sets out that all communication providers, (including broadband providers) need to subscribe to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme that offers access to impartial and free arbitration. There are currently two such schemes and each of these provide lists of their members: Otelo – Office of the Telecoms Ombudsman, their job is sort out problems with communications providers and consumers – http://www.otelo.org.uk/membercompanies.php CISAS – Communications and Internet Service Adjudication Scheme, offers the same service except they work in a slightly different way - http://www.cisas.org.uk/Members.asp Technically you can still take your broadband provider to court after an ADR has looked at your case but most people tend to accept the decision of the ADR, especially since an ADR can force a broadband provider to pay compensation.Taking your broadband provider to court should not be taken lightly. Our advice is do not proceed with court action if you do not think you have a strong case against the broadband provider. At this stage you can lose your dispute against your provider in court and it may cost you money in fines and fees if you lose, (i.e. for claims less than £5,000).

 

 

 

We don't know if this dispute was taken to ADP or what its position on it is either. Nor do we know the terms or guarantees in the contract. The above case of Amex Stadiums WiFi appears to have been robust enough to handle 13k simultaneous users where as the quoted figure we have in the Rangers case is either 10k or 50k we have no idea which is the correct figure according to the contract as we've not seen it. Now without proof that the latter figure is in the contract we cant know if its fit for purpose or not. In saying that though recorded usage logs could be used if argued in the case that the service provided is substandard. I can see at least one other option if 50k was indeed one of the terms however I simply cant tell.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Big Jaws