Three Itemised Billing Charges (merged threads)

Mr_Zippy

jasonwatkins wrote: »

i think that email from OTELO shows that, in all honesty, for people who upgraded after october 2007 or took out a new deal, this matter is all but closed now.

the itemised billing charge is covered by "reserving the right" to do so, and you're not going to be able to argue that you should have been informed of the per-minute billing if you've taken out a new contract, or switched to Mix and Match after October because they'll simply say it's your responsibility to find out, and with the news from OTELO, there's no further recourse from that point.

i think the only people who can cancel now are those who are still on video talk and text deals, as they were initially per-second billing.

As much as I hate to say it, everyone else is going to have to lump it.

Don't follow you...

The change to the Price Guide should have been notified one month in advance, they did not do that, when I was renewing I was not told my contract had changed (apart from the minimum term).

I would expect it to remain the same as I knew a clause stated they must notify me of any changes, therefore it must still be the same as they didn't notify me it changed.

You are not told your old contract is null and void, you must take a new one out and read it in full just in case they changed it.

When you upgrade you renew your minimum term part of the contract, that is all as far as I know, you may be reminded you are subject to 3's terms and conditions - but you already were anyway.

jasonwatkins

Mr_Zippy wrote: »

Don't follow you...

The change to the Price Guide should have been notified one month in advance, they did not do that

I agree. My letter to James Harkin, which I still haven't sent, puts the point across that as 3 had clearly made the decision to adopt per-minute billing across all current and future contracts, then they should have informed their customers before the roll-out began.

I argue that by not doing this, it puts the customers at a disadvantage because it prevents them from making an informed choice about whether or not they will continue subscribing to 3's services.

Mr_Zippy wrote: »

When you upgrade you renew your minimum term part of the contract, that is all as far as I know, you may be reminded you are subject to 3's terms and conditions - but you already were anyway.

Yes, this is true if you upgrade and remain on video talk and text - there is a reasonable assumption that you are continuing the contract under the same terms and conditions until told otherwise.

I had no choice - I was told quite clearly in December that Video Talk and Text had long been discontinued, so if I wanted to stay with 3, then I had to take out a Mix and Match contract.

I wasn't told it was per-minute billing, but 3 will simply tell me that it was my duty as a customer to find out.

The only way I can see this being resolved for people taking out new contracts, or upgrading to different price plans after October 2007 is a full blown legal challenge. OTELO have made it clear they won't get involved as it was a commercial decision by 3, and OFCOM will simply refer you to OTELO, so there really is no other way.

anonymousie

Just to update all you lovely folk:

Just had a call from 3, and the guy spent 15 mins trying to convince me to stay-offered to "allow" me to swap to £20 texter from £15 texter (yeah, like I want to spend more to "stay under my allowance" 'cos YOU have moved the goal posts sweet cheeks!) and the usual "every operator is going to be whole minute billing" spiel.

Just kept politely saying no thank you, and in the end he caved in and apparently will send my PAC by text (I know, wait and see but I'll be onto them tomorrow if needed).

THe only thing that confuses me though, is that DH has the £15 texter plan (though I pay it) and he called me on MY mobile number......odd......the confusion is compounded by the fact that my mobile contract is, at the moment " cancelled as of 19th sept" (when it ends) in order to potentially go PAYG.

We'll see which phone the PAC comes through on I guess!

BTW this txter contract was taken out end sept 07.

(hoping that when this stuff blows over in a week or so they will realise they need to keep their current customers sweet and call me with a nice retention deal!)

rev_henry

Just had a call from the exec office. The woman there stated that simply by posting updated t &cs on their website counts as notifying customers of changes, I said that was unreasonable, but she said the regulators seem to disagree and have said this is ok. I therefore requested she put this in writing which she agreed to do, so I should have a deadlock letter on the way!
Judging by the letter posted from OTELO before by someone, she's right though, so I don't hold out much hope. But in common sense terms, how can putting something on a website be deemed an acceptable way of notifying customers of changes? She also told me several times that it was impossible that a t&c booklet was not sent out with my handset. I'm sure she's right in most cases, but there definately was not one with mine, and many others, judging by other peoples comments here.

BUT she made FREQUENT REFERENCE to comments made on this forum, almost suggesting that we were a bunch of liars, from the impression I got. So beware what you say people, THEY ARE WITHOUT DOUBT READING EVERYTHING WE POST HERE.

jasonwatkins

i think a lot of companies probably read this forum - Martin's regular appearances on GMTV have probably long since alerted them to this place.

I think the excuse that posting the change to the T's & C's on the website counting as notification is crap to be honest - when she said this to me, i said "So what about the 39% of people in this country who don't have an internet connection?".

She said "well they can go into a 3 shop".

I still think the only way left open now is a legal challenge and claim that 3 have acted dishonestly.

amz84uk

sadiedoll wrote: »

You are legally entitled to a deadlock letter - if they refuse, ring OTELO and tell them that 3 are refusing to issue a deadock letter. They won't be happy about that!

Three really are messing about - when I had problems with Wanadoo/Orange Broadband, the first whiff of an OFCOM complaint and they bent over backward to put things right.

I wrote a letter to 3 on 15 August 08 and sent it Recorded Delivery. No response received, so I sent an email to the Executive Office email address and received a standard email stating that they don't deal with anything other than Exec Board emails, and referred me to the 3 website.

I replied saying that I want a proper response, but I received the exact same response back. Waste of time!

I sent a quick email via 3's website this morning and had a phone call within 2hours from 3 Customer Services. They refused to read out the T&C's, said that they wouldn't respond in writing, and I asked for a deadlock letter, and he said that I have to pay £10 for this.

I am stuck! I felt like punching the 3 staff, as they referred me to the T&C's on their website, and when I asked for them to read out the specific paragraph stating that the customer has the right to terminate without fee, they refused to read this out! Bunch of idiots!

I am going to continue pestering them until THEY disconnect me for being a ar*ey customer!!! (I no longer want to a "valued 3 customer"... it's like a script they have)

rev_henry

jasonwatkins wrote: »

i think a lot of companies probably read this forum - Martin's regular appearances on GMTV have probably long since alerted them to this place.

I think the excuse that posting the change to the T's & C's on the website counting as notification is crap to be honest - when she said this to me, i said "So what about the 39% of people in this country who don't have an internet connection?".

She said "well they can go into a 3 shop".

I still think the only way left open now is a legal challenge and claim that 3 have acted dishonestly.

I would agree with you there. I put that point to her too and she said something like they can call and request t&cs to be posted to them. I didn't really press the point though. Can't remember why lol oh well. I should have my deadlock letter on the way anyway.

amz84uk

jasonwatkins wrote: »

i think a lot of companies probably read this forum - Martin's regular appearances on GMTV have probably long since alerted them to this place.

I think the excuse that posting the change to the T's & C's on the website counting as notification is crap to be honest - when she said this to me, i said "So what about the 39% of people in this country who don't have an internet connection?".

She said "well they can go into a 3 shop".

I still think the only way left open now is a legal challenge and claim that 3 have acted dishonestly.

3 Mobile should be fined heavily for the inconvenience and distress they are causing customers. In compensation, they should give us all free line rental until the end of our contract, and home internet access FREE ... which they are trying to flog off! The guy didn't understand that I am tied into a 12month contract with o2 Broadband, and said that 3 Broadband is better and I should take it out with them. They should be sacked for such incompetence!!!

Martin should get someone from 3 Exec Office to answer our queries, as the juniors don't understand our concerns!

If 3 staff are reading this.... I won't rest until I recover all my line rental from 15 September 2008, and until I get compensation!!!

rev_henry

I agree, I really think Martin needs to get in on this. I had the feeling I was simply being bullied by the woman who called, they seem to be trying to just shut us up. If Martin were to contact them I'm sure they'd be a little more helpful.

Mr_Zippy

rev_henry wrote: »

Just had a call from the exec office. The woman there stated that simply by posting updated t &cs on their website counts as notifying customers of changes, I said that was unreasonable, but she said the regulators seem to disagree and have said this is ok

Where does it say in my contract that I am required to have an internet connection, and monitor changes to my contract on their website?

Exactly, it doesn't, hence this notification letter is 10 months too late.

And if it did I think it would be classed as an unreasonable contract condition.