Huge problems - need to get out of this contract right away!

Radiojunkie

I am a (reasonably) heavy user of a mobile phone, since I run my own business. About 4 months ago, I switched to Vodaphone, having been with T-Mobile for 18 months before. I switched from T-Mobile due to the quality (or lack of) of service I received from them.

Unfortunately, my grief with Vodafone started on day one I picked up the handset (a Nokia E61i). The signal quality and coverage of the network is simply dreadfull over the wide area I work and whilst I did do a coverage check proir to signing up, this did not bring up any concerns. For the supposedly "largest" network, I am very surprised. I suffer lots of dropped calls, voicemails either arrive VERY late (several hours sometimes) or don't arrive at all and the "mobile internet" data service I pay extra for reminds me of "surfing" the internet in the early 90's - chronically show and full of errors. Completely useless.

To cut this boring story shot, I need to get shot of Vodafone and go with a decent network. I am loosing business and racking up customer complaints due to problems with making/receiving calls and picking up messages. For the last couple of weeks I have been using an O2 pay-as-you-go phone along side the Vodafone and the performance of this network is simply amazing. Driving around (I work mainly around the SW - Somerset and Wilshire) I have rock-solid network coverage and zero problems. Using a "cheap and cheerful" handset also!

I have composed a letter that I have just sent to the business team at Vodafone explaining my issues and the need to terminate my contract. I am interested in other peoples experiences like this and and advice with regard to terminating a contract due to poor service. What's the best way of approaching this? I really don't want to get into a prolonged battle and loose the number I've had for the last 10 years.....

(P.S - previous to Vodafone and T-Mobile I was with Orange for about 9 years. They were great and I regret leaving them now).

piggeh

The only way to avoid prolonging the issue is to raise a complaint, and once deadlocked to pay yourself out the contract and then go to CISAS to claim a refund in costs (or small claims court). I don't mind O2 business customer service - they see more sense than T-Mobile's and aren't all worker drones, so you might get somewhere, but you would be fortunate to do so and it's more likely to end up being drawn out and a lot of time wasted. Better to take the hit in the short term and pay up the contract, then seek to recover it. Otherwise your customers will only get more annoyed in the meanwhile!

Steve_xx

I think you would have difficulty in getting out of the contract at this stage. I wonder if the Voda handset is actually faulty as you say you are using a new handset on another network. I wonder if you put the Voda SIM in the handset you currrently use would there be an improvement in the service level. The provider will want to offer to change the handset in the first instance.

You didn't say how long the contract is and what tariff you're on. You might consider dropping the tariff to the lowest level possible and just retain it for inbound calls, or put a message on the answerphone to the effect that you have a new number now.

If the service really isn't that good, then you may be able to get out of it, but I suspect that at this point you will have great difficulty. You would need proof of what you're saying and therein lies the difficulty.

proplusplus

I'd say the best option would be to buy-out the contract (ie, months left x monthly cost ) <--- you do not pay VAT on this.

Port your number to a network which works. It may cost you £400-500, but at least you can appease your customers (think of the lost revenue per customer who complains).

Then, detail to vodafone your complaint and see if you can get money back.

I'd say be careful of your situation, as you may not get refunded the buy-out charges, but if paying £500 means you don't lose £500 per unhappy client/customer, it may be something you need to consider. (Maybe yor £500 buy-out can be claimed back as an expense of your business)

otherwise, the slower options are detailed on other people's posts.

best of luck

proplusplus

14wrence

I believe some phone companies (possibly Phones4U) Offer to buy out your contract for you if you get a new contract with them. If you are a heavy user you may have more bargaining power too.

My suggestion would be to get your tariff to the lowest that is possible (my brother got one down to £7 a month), Then try to get a phone retailer to buy out the remining contract in exchange for your custom.

MoscowFlyer

14wrence wrote: »

I believe some phone companies (possibly Phones4U) Offer to buy out your contract for you if you get a new contract with them. If you are a heavy user you may have more bargaining power too.

My suggestion would be to get your tariff to the lowest that is possible (my brother got one down to £7 a month), Then try to get a phone retailer to buy out the remining contract in exchange for your custom.

They don't do it anymore apparently, and it was only if you were within the last 3 months of your deal anyway.

anitalg

No seriously. Find an independant ie not a cpw or 4u, tell them you want a decent business deal but need a huge buy out. My other half does this for a living, O2 are paying well at the min so I would imagine you would be able to get virtually all the cost of buying your PAC to keep your number

gushussain11

Dear Radio Junkie

I note you have started a letter. I do think you should rely on the condition allowing you to terminate your contract for a failure to provide a service or working merchandise.

The following are some arguments you may wish to alter to your own situation:

1. The Claimant relies on:
a. Ex R5 from the provider 3G's website of a product and service advertised as follows on the left it provides 'Contract Length - 18 months' and on the right (on the merchandise) it provides 'Just 6 months minimum term'. Further down under part 'Details of your deal' point 3 provides 'This tariff is a 18 month contract'. As can be identified the statements have two different interpretations altogether. These are (i) The duration of the contract for the purpose of the special offer and (ii) the minimum term. Both can not be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean the minimum term even if that is intended by 3G. If the customer is induced by relying on the minimum term statement and thereafter 3G refuses to cancel for reasons of a penalty clause when cancelling before month 17 relying in the details
'This tariff is a 18 month contract', it is very unlikely that 3G could enforce a claim against a customer for minimum term of 18 Months to be upheld by the Court.

b. It is further relevant that there is no indication in the statement '18 months contract' of a penalty. It is never made clear if there is a minimum term that gives effect to penalty clause. In contracts where there are no clear or enforceable cancellation terms one party can give notice to cancel the contract.

c. Where a customer has used the service for 30 months, he has indeed been in a contract for 30 months and therefore it has been a 30 months contract. That does not have the same interpretation of 30 months minimum term.

3. A penalty clause needs to be justified in particular if the justification is the subsidy for the merchandise, it could be a valid argument that its effect be neutralised upon the return of the merchandise or by a true offer of its return or monetary value equivalent. It be also noted that subsidy that is locked on to the Respondents network is of no use the the Claimant.

4. The Claimant contends that for the period in which the cancellation charge is applied and calculated, that in such a period that there is no service to the Claimant and the calculation provided in clauses are not being pre-estimate of the Respondent liquidated damages. The calculation provided a) no account for the cost saved of not having to provide the service b) are not negotiated d) are not freely entered into by parties of comparable bargaining power e) are for the purpose of deterrent f) acts in terrorem. The Claimant relies on, M & J Polymers Ltd and Imerys Minerals
Ltd, the High Court held that as a matter of principle the rules against penalties could apply to a "take or pay" clause. Despite the fact that such a clause has been widely used in supply contracts, this case appears to be the first time the courts have considered whether a take or pay clause can amount to a penalty [see exhibit R6].

The Commissioner for Ofcom
5. The Commissioner says;
A consumer who ends a contract early should never have to pay more than the payments left under the contract period - in fact they should often pay less than this, to reflect costs providers save because the contract ends early and their ability to recoup sums by selling services to other consumers. [EX OFCOM1].


Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
6. The purpose of the regulations is two fold, i) the promotion of fair standard contract forms to improve the functioning of the European market place and ii) the protection of consumers throughout the European Community. The regulations is aimed at contracts of "take it or leave it". It treats consumers as presumptively weaker parties and therefore fit for protection from abuses by stronger contracting parties. This is an objective which must throughout guide the interpretation of the regulations. If contracting parties were able to avoid the application of the regulations by exclusionary stipulations the regulatory scheme would be ineffective. The conclusion that the regulations are mandatory is inescapable.

7.The Claimant invites the adjudicator to consider the contractual obligation on a customer and that the Servic eProvider is better off should the Cliamant Cancel.

8.Regulation 5(1) provides: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” Regulation 5(5) provides that Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

9.Regulation 8(1) provides that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

10.Regulation 8(2) provides that the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

11. The only material exception to the applicability of the test of fairness set out in 1999 Regulations is contained in Regulation 6(2) relating to what are called “core terms”:

“In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-
(a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange”.

12. The minimum term is penalty provision for penal damages. It prescribes remedies which only become available to the Respondent upon the non-performance of the contract by the Claimant. For this reason the escape route of regulation 6(2) is not available to the Respondent. Terminal Charges of the contract is a subsidiary term. Regulation 6(2) must be given a restrictive interpretation. Unless that is done regulation 6(2)(a) will enable the main purpose of the scheme to be frustrated by endless formalistic arguments as to whether a provision is a definitional or an exclusionary provision. Similarly, regulation 6(2)(b) dealing with "the adequacy
of the price of remuneration" must be given a restrictive interpretation because, in a broad sense all terms of the contract are in some way related to the price or remuneration. That is not what is intended by the regulations. It would be a gaping hole in the system if such clauses were not subject to the fairness requirement.

Hope your find this information useful.

Bikerchickone

Hi,
I'm having exactly the same problems with Orange at the moment. I don't see how anyone can be expected to pay for a service they cannot use, but as the CS advisor said to me I have to prove I can't use it. The fact that she had to call me on my home landline should have been a giveaway but obviously not! If you have any luck please let me know. I'm planning to call ofcom tomorrow, if I get anywhere I'll post it! Good luck.

hillendale

I had the same problem with orange recently so i decided to bite the bullet & buy myself out of my contract it cost me £250 , know have a sim only deal with o2 so only tied in for 30 days at a time it was worth every penny i had to pay to just get out of the contract. My advice is to buy yourself out & go the sim only route its the future i think
regards