They're threatening me with debt collectors!

BargainGalore

3 were on watchdog other day about poor reception, they rely too much as do other networks on reception checkers that are not 100% accurate particularly for localised conditions

bookworm1363

If they flog the alleged debt to a DCA, great. That means they have washed their hands off you, and cut their (alleged) losses by selling it on. At that point, when the DCA starts chasing, you can tell them nicely or not so nicely to sod off, as you have no contractual obligation with them. They'll threaten you with court, bailiffs and what not, but in the end, they can not prove that you owe them any money (which you don't. You might have had with the phone company, but you most certainly don't to the DCA).

Don't communicate with the debt collectors by phone, tell them you want everything in writing, and if they insist on phoning, just refuse to go through the "security questions", they can't discuss things with you under the Data Protection Act unless they have confirmed thast it IS you.

You could try to sort things reasonably with the telephone company, but in my experience, that doesn't work so well... My brother is still being houded 2 years on for a bill he paid, has proof he paid, sent proof he paid, and the tel company still flogged off the debt to a DCA who are not interested in whether he owes the money or not, they just want a return on what they paid for it.

Oh, and for all the posters who say: "it's in your T&Cs", we could have a long argument about acceptance by conduct and Felthouse v Bindley. There's also the question as to whether the OP was actually miss-sold the product in the 1st place which could invalidate the following contract anyway. There is also the scope to argue that the onus as placed on the customer is both an unfair term under the UTCCR99 and the new CPUT Regs 2008. Furthermore, it could be argued that even if all the above didn't apply, the fact he phoned them and they confirmed that his contract was due to end and tried to flog him to another one means that at the very least, the 30 days notice would run from then, and they had no grounds to then charge him for more than 1 month from the date of that phone call.

So in summary, to OP: you can try to discuss things reasonably with 3 and see if you can come to an amicable resolution. If that doesn't work, then you can wait until they sell the debt to a debt collector and then fight them.

For more advice on DCAs and their dodgy practices, you can click on my sig and check the Debt Forum, we have templates etc and like here, it's all free.

sporedude

bookworm1363 wrote: »

If they flog the alleged debt to a DCA, great. That means they have washed their hands off you, and cut their (alleged) losses by selling it on. At that point, when the DCA starts chasing, you can tell them nicely or not so nicely to sod off, as you have no contractual obligation with them. They'll threaten you with court, bailiffs and what not, but in the end, they can not prove that you owe them any money (which you don't. You might have had with the phone company, but you most certainly don't to the DCA).

Don't communicate with the debt collectors by phone, tell them you want everything in writing, and if they insist on phoning, just refuse to go through the "security questions", they can't discuss things with you under the Data Protection Act unless they have confirmed thast it IS you.

You could try to sort things reasonably with the telephone company, but in my experience, that doesn't work so well... My brother is still being houded 2 years on for a bill he paid, has proof he paid, sent proof he paid, and the tel company still flogged off the debt to a DCA who are not interested in whether he owes the money or not, they just want a return on what they paid for it.

Oh, and for all the posters who say: "it's in your T&Cs", we could have a long argument about acceptance by conduct and Felthouse v Bindley. There's also the question as to whether the OP was actually miss-sold the product in the 1st place which could invalidate the following contract anyway. There is also the scope to argue that the onus as placed on the customer is both an unfair term under the UTCCR99 and the new CPUT Regs 2008. Furthermore, it could be argued that even if all the above didn't apply, the fact he phoned them and they confirmed that his contract was due to end and tried to flog him to another one means that at the very least, the 30 days notice would run from then, and they had no grounds to then charge him for more than 1 month from the date of that phone call.

So in summary, to OP: you can try to discuss things reasonably with 3 and see if you can come to an amicable resolution. If that doesn't work, then you can wait until they sell the debt to a debt collector and then fight them.

For more advice on DCAs and their dodgy practices, you can click on my sig and check the Debt Forum, we have templates etc and like here, it's all free.

If the OP did not request 30 days notice when he phoned up, Then it would not be set. Its obvious the T+C's of the contract where not read, As mostly all/if not all UK networks require 30 days notice to be set when cancelling a contract. As 30 days notice was not set, They did have grounds to charge him over the 18 months as it would become a 30 day rolling contract.

Dave101t

thats how they get you with introductory periods on everything, internet, tv, phones. you need to spend more time on MSE!

bookworm1363

sporedude wrote: »

If the OP did not request 30 days notice when he phoned up, Then it would not be set.

Why not? It was quite clear from the conversation that he didn't want to stay with them, surely the obvious thing to do for the operator at 3 would have been to make sure that he didn't leave the OP under the belief that his contract would be ended on the anniversay date?

Its obvious the T+C's of the contract where not read,

As noted by the appeals court in the banks test case, most people will not read all the literature given to them. If you ask of the person selling you the contract in the 1st place to explain it to you, and they don't tell you that after the 18 months the contracxt will become a rolling one, why should you be expected to check? You purchased an 18 mths contract, you expect it to end at the end of the 18 mths, it's fairly logical. This is where the mis-selling aspect will come in play.

They did have grounds to charge him over the 18 months as it would become a 30 day rolling contract.

I don't think there is any argument over the 1st 18 mths. OP fulfilled his part of the contract in good faith. The questions are:
- Is it a fair term to expect someone to remember on the 17th month to cancel an 18 months contract?
- shouldn't the telecoms companies be held to the same terms as all the other companies which are expected to send a reminder of the expiry of current contract / renewal so as not to trap unknowing customers?
- Was the OP even told of the change to rolling contract when he was first sold the contract?
- If OP stopped using the phone at deadline, his behaviour indicates that he in fact under the belief that he was no longer in that contract. There is therefore no acceptance by conduct (keeping on using the product after deadline) and Felthouse could be used.
- If 3 were to try and take it to court (instead of just flogging it a DCA, which is what they'll probably do anyway), they would have to show what actual loss they have sustained by not terminating the contract: If OP hasn't used the SIM to make or receive calls, what loss is there to show?

I think the telecoms companies' T&Cs are well overdue for being scrutinised and overhauled myself. There is far too great an imbalance towards the customer with precious little recourse when things go wrong.

sporedude

It may be logical that you want an 18 month contract to end after 18 months. But if the OP didnt read the T+C's of what they where signing up to, Then it is not 3's fault. They arent required to send a reminder, This is what the T+C's are for, Telling you to give 30 days notice when the contract is about to expire. Its not the networks responsibilty to tell someone when a contract is about to expire, Its the customers.

omen666

I would try and blag it and say you called and gave notice or wrtoe and gave notice they are so shabby at keeping records and they know that themselves that you would probably swerve it

bookworm1363

sporedude wrote: »

It may be logical that you want an 18 month contract to end after 18 months. But if the OP didnt read the T+C's of what they where signing up to, Then it is not 3's fault. They arent required to send a reminder, This is what the T+C's are for, Telling you to give 30 days notice when the contract is about to expire. Its not the networks responsibilty to tell someone when a contract is about to expire, Its the customers.

Simply because you sign to T&Cs doesn't necessarily bind you to them. Under the UTCCR 99, any term which is deemed unfair is non-binding and non-enforceable in its entirety.

As for "not the network's responsability", why not? Your car insurance, house insurance, mortgage, BNPL, all companies with fixed contractual terms which are going to change and rely on your acceptance, by conduct or otherwise, have to send a reminder at least 1 month before the terms change. Why do the telecom companies think they're exempt?

sporedude

From the 3 Terms and Conditions:

"On 30 days' notice, outside the Minimum Term. You can end the agreement if your Price Plan does not contain a Minimum Term, or if you want to end the agreement at the end of your Minimum Term or any time after your Minimum Term has expired, provided you give notice to 3 Customer Services at least 30 days before the date you want to end the agreement. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.) "

So anyone can just say this is unfair then get out of it under UTCCR 99?

Ste_C

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Why do the telecom companies think they're exempt?

Why do consumers always have to blame the companies instead of accepting they've made a mistake or were careless?

Companies exist to make money, everyone knows this, and as such people should exercise caution and COMMON SENSE.

Consumers need to stop expecting companies to wipe their backsides for them all the time.