Virgin Media stands accused of targeting the vulnerable

Virgin Media’s marketing methods have once again been called into question following claims that the company bombarded a vulnerable adult with marketing calls until he signed up for a more expensive deal.

According to a report in the Swindon Advertiser, Denise Curwen set up a new account with broadband and a landline on her 24-year-old autistic son Leigh’s behalf because of his condition and history of problems with finances.

She then told the company not to phone him with marketing deals because of his vulnerability. But Leigh told the newspaper that he received calls at all hours, trying to persuade him to upgrade his deal to one he could not afford, which he initially refused.

He added: “They rang me six months after the first deal, I said no but they kept calling until I said yes and I felt pressured into it. They would be nice at first then when you said no, they’’d get cold and nasty.”

However, Virgin Media refutes this version of events, claiming it never “proactively” called him about upgrade offers and that it opted him out of marketing in July.

Even so, once Leigh had signed up, his mum Denise contacted the company to try to cancel the upgrade only to be told this was only possibly if she paid hundreds of pounds.

Denise told the Swindon Advertiser: “It’s disgusting and unfair. They could be doing this to other vulnerable adults. I posted about it on their Facebook page and got response from other people saying they had been ripped off as well. It’s not right and they should be stopped.

“There should have been a notice on his account about his condition but unbeknown to me, they had been ringing my son up and put him on a higher package.

“I phoned up and said he doesn’t want it and he was talked into it. He signed up for an extra SIM card he doesn’t need and the monthly bills were going up.

“They were happy for me to speak on his behalf before but when I tried to sort this out, they kept insisting on talking to him directly and said he’d verbally agreed to the deal so that was enough.They’d been hounding him with phone calls but they deny it when we confronted them about it.”

Virgin Media claims the account was opened online and that it did not have any notes indicating that Leigh was vulnerable or did not wish to receive marketing calls.

Mike Bowden, the treasurer of local mental health charity Phoenix Enterprises, said: “I’ve been with Lee while he received some of these calls. It makes me so angry that a large company has behaved appallingly and taken advantage of a vulnerable adult.

“They bombarded him with unsolicited calls and mis-sold him something he didn’t want. What really makes me worry is I wonder who else this is happening to?”

In a statement, Virgin Media said: “We apologise for any confusion regarding Mr Curwen’s account and, as a gesture of goodwill, have waived the early disconnection fee and remaining balance on his account, which he accepted.

“We are committed to protecting vulnerable customers and have measures in place to support them, including providing annual package reviews and more flexible bill management.”

The irony of the issue will not be lost on many; Virgin Media’s most recent ad campaign by Adam & Eve DDB featured Jake, a young man in a wheelchair, meeting fellow students Jade while playing an online video game.

The story is the latest in a long line of cock-ups dating back over eight years. In 2013, Virgin Media was forced to grovel to a deceased man’s family after it sent the man a broadband bill, including a £10 fine for late payment, and a year later it had to apologise again after a technology related cock-up led to hundreds of customers being bombarded with spam emails.

In 2016, a flaw in the Virgin Media online graduate recruitment site exposed up to 50,000 CVs from job applicants. And in 2018, Decision Marketing reported the plight of one reader who contacted Virgin Media over a suspected phishing attack, only to be told by a senior official that is was probably her fault.

Last summer, Virgin Media was accused of using underhand – and potentially unlawful – tactics in an attempt to get customers who had opted out of marketing communications to change their minds and sign up again through a major email campaign.