Member Info for fleccy

It's only a small buy in itself; If it's part of a much larger accumulation, maybe.

68.55p close

There was an Off Book trade at 15:23 for more than 54 million shares traded at 69.25p, if that had been On Exchange the price would have gone up to over 69p. Someone was willing to pay a premium of 0.75p to the On Exchange price and yet the price is going down on Exchange, one can be forgiven for thinking the price is being manipulated.

"I often scroles right by you're input because I can't be bovvered too reed it all"

That's because of your ADHD Gutter, you should seek treatment for it.

I believe there's a 6 year limitation period for claims of this type, so if I'm correct they'll only be able to claim going back to December 2017. I'm not sure where the reported 2007 date comes from, I suppose it depends on the wording of the claim and if the CAT approves this as a collective claim; Will there be one class action, or 4 separate ones? The individual providers may have used different terms and conditions in their contracts, so I'm not sure how they'd square that in a collective action.

"What is the limitation period for different kinds of claim?

The relevant limitation periods for different kinds of claim as set out in the Limitation Act 1980:

Claims in relation to a contract: 6 years

Claims in relation to awards in arbitration: 6 years

Claims in relation to debt arising under statute: 6 years

Claims in relation to personal injury: 3 years

Claims in relation to negligence: 6 years

Claims in relation to recovery of land: 12 years

Claims in relation to breach of trust: 6 years

Claims in relation to tort: 6 years

Claims in relation to defamation and malicious falsehood: 1 year

These limitation periods are subject to some exceptions. For instance, in personal injury cases involving a child, the limitation period does not start to run until the child reaches the age of 18; and a person under a mental disability may have longer to bring a claim in some cases."

"For instance, in a breach of contract claim the limitation period will start to run from the date of the alleged breach by the defendant. This would apply regardless of how long ago the contract was entered into. The claim for breach of contract must then be brought within 6 years of the date the breach occurred."

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/claim-preparations/civil-claim-limitation-periods

I'm assuming that because these claims are based on contractual law, any claim before December 2017 would be time barred. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be misinterpreting what I've read.

Are they being stitched up? I would say it depends on the wording of the contracts, I'd argue that people stitch themselves up. My Wife, Son and Daughter all have Apple phones, much to my disgust, whereas I buy a much cheaper Android model with a better camera and doing more or less the same things. The reason Apple do so well is due to the markups on their products and the restrictive way they manage their operating system; If people shunned Apple products the prices would come down and the fans would do much better in the long run, but the hype overrides good financial sense. If the MNO's were upfront about their charges and the contracts were clear, then there probably isn't a case against them, time will tell.

Depends on how the contract's worded in reference to the phone and monthly subscription. I've always purchased my own mobile and used sim only contracts, everyone knows you pay over the odds if you get a contract including a phone. The mobile providers will also argue you get things like unlimited or very large data allowances, etc for the more expensive contracts.

Did they rip off their customers Rob? When you go to the shops, or buy something online, do you just buy in the first store you shop at, or do you look around? When people shop around they get the best deals, anyone who's too lazy to determine whether or not they're getting a competitive price probably deserve to pay more. I use Amazon a lot and recently wanted to purchase a product, on Amazon it's £81.99 from the suppliers store and when I searched elsewhere online it's £49.99 with free delivery; Needless to say I purchased it directly from the same distributer directly, rather than through Amazon, but what really surprised me was that the item was delivered by Amazon logistics. A while back I had a similar experience when I needed a new car battery, the battery was around £100 at Halfords but the same battery was available online for around £60, with a slightly different part number, through various suppliers; Same battery with the same Amp Hours, cheaper elsewhere with a different part number, now why would that be? All the MVNO's/CP's do the same, I know from experience that Sky will charge more if you don't renegotiate terms at the end of your TV/Broadband contracts.

People should take responsibility for finding the best deals, otherwise If they're not willing to to put in the effort to shop around they're probably happy with the price they're paying.

Gary, can you please link to the information supporting your claim that " we hear that the class action for alleged overcharging is spreading to other countries"?

Indeed Expat, I recently experienced similar myself. I was about 3 months into a Plusnet mobile contract and was advised that Plusnet are ceasing their mobile service. In the notification I was advised of a price for EE service and a link to sign up, which involved setting up an entirely new contract with EE and using a PAC code to transfer my mobile number. It was due to that experience that made me wonder if TalkTalk would be able to sell wholesale packaged contracts to a new provider, without giving the individual customers the choice of switching to alternative providers. I suspect packaging up and wholesale selling individual contracted customers isn't an option.

Expat, I was referring to TalkTalk as a whole; If the customers were simply sold off rather than someone taking ownership of TalkTalk, they'd simply be moved off the TalkTalk platform and onto the buyers platform, with TalkTalk's infrastructure becoming redundant; It wouldn't have to be BT, it could be Sky, Vodafone, or one of the other big providers who might buy the customer contracts and simply switch provider using current procedures. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the customers will have to be given a say, since their contract's are with TalkTalk and not with the buyer. All sorts of things could complicate a deal, like lengths of time remaining on contracts and other things, it may not be clear cut with other CP's simply sitting back and waiting for TalkTalk to fold and then picking up the customers.

TalkTalk appears to be a slow motion car crash, going off the articles. There was a slew of articles in July raising doubts about the company:

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/07/debt-pressures-pushing-budget-uk-isp-talktalk-toward-breakup.html

And more commentary in November:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/04/broadband-supplier-last-resort-talks-debt-pressure-talktalk/

I'm not sure anyone would want to buy them, they are already privately owned and probably run with a skeleton workforce, so any entity taking over would likely run into the same issues. The current owners could possibly look at winding down the company themselves and selling the customer bases, or if they go bust the administrators will likely move in and attempt to sell the customers, which is probably doable and may involve moving them onto new platforms at Openreach exchanges or Altnet head ends. How do you make something work that's already run on a budget and failing?

There are probably other ways to push the price of a stock either way without shorting; I'm guessing one possible way to push the price of a stock down, might be to direct buy's Off Exchange and sell's On Exchange to ensure buys aren't price setting, but sells are. I'm not sure its legal to direct order flows in order to manipulate a stock price, but I'm guessing it's possible. In my opinion Off Book trading shouldn't be allowed, every trade should contribute to setting the price of a stock.

"Jax recently bought into vod at 60p. Read his history. Welcome aboard Jax."

Was that in a dream, or did he see it in his crystal ball? It hasn't been 60p since the 90's.

I wouldn't know where to look Erik, but Polo Tang is a BT permabear and will ignore any positives and only direct attention at negatives no matter how small. Waste of time inviting them to the presentations since anything positive will be filtered out by their inbuilt prejudice toward BT.

Jax the reason I recently topped up £20k in VOD is because of all your negative comments and the fact you did the same with RR last year:

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 82.32

No Opinion

RE: Thoughts28 Apr 2022 16:21

There’s a reason why it’s dropping like a stone

There’s a significant amount of uncertainty with RR

It’s debt is large

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 83.02

No Opinion

RE: Bargain28 Apr 2022 16:04

RR still up EC?

Lol

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 83.19

No Opinion

RE: Bargain28 Apr 2022 15:52

You’re vs your

Look it up

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 83.27

No Opinion

RE: Bargain28 Apr 2022 15:47

Why is Rolls sp barely lifted compared to other sector stocks??????

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 83.48

No Opinion

RE: Bargain28 Apr 2022 15:38

This is a really depressing share

Always goes down

What a pile of dung

jax05

Posted in: RR.

Posts: 4,155

Price: 82.45

No Opinion

There’s a war don’t you know27 Apr 2022 17:37

RR will suffer because of it.

Look at where RR is now, your doom and gloom messaging could be seen as an omen foretelling Vodafone will double or treble in price in the next year or two.

S_i_d_i, you're wasting your time talking to Jax he doesn't know anything about Vodafone, as proved when he's asked for any detail to back up his opinion. I doubt he ever held Vodafone shares, he's just a classic spammer. Guttersnipe is an illiterate Jax Mini-Me who knows even less. I'd take notice of them if they had anything to substantiate their views, but all you'll get is look at the price blah blah blah. Jax and Gutter are both a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Poker I don't disagree with you, but if Spain and Italy aren't offering returns in excess of cost of capital then VOD are probably doing the right thing in dispensing with them. It's pointless directing Capex at something giving a return below the cost of that capital, so Vodafone's financials might be healthier as a result of the disposals.

If I've added it up correctly €4.12 Billion matures in 2025, even that's manageable since they're currently sitting on Cash and Cash equivalents of €7.148 Billion, not including what they'll get for Spain and possibly Italy if they sell there. The dividend is a large outlay so sustainability will depend on EBITDA and Free cash Flow, with the effect of disposals difficult to gauge; Variables like Capex/lease liability reductions will also feed into the figures alongside a decrease in Revenue and EBITDA, hopefully the new CEO has a plan and will do the necessary. As far as the dividend's concerned, in my opinion it's a bonus as long as it's maintained.

If the dividend is maintained, an 11% yield is a nice sweetener for new buyers. I've bought and will continue buying around this price, because even if the dividend is reduced or stopped the stock is cheap.