They're threatening me with debt collectors!

RobertoMoir

jon_boy75 wrote: »

I would suggest they DO have the resources, given the millions in profit they make. An 18 month contract should be just that, unless you opt back in. The default position should be that the contract ends.

Simple. Common. Sense.

Simple common sense would actually be expecting grown adults of being able to run their own lives without constant hand holding.

Godders

3 rang me to tell me my contract was due to expire and I was due for an upgrade giving me plenty of warning - (I was planning to cancel as soon as I coiuld anyway) but they didn't tell me that it would be a new 18 month contract until I asked!

But despite this and regardless of what people think mobile companies should do isn't a contract whatever you sign and agree it to be? The onus is surely on you to read and agree to the terms and conditions before signing on the dotted line, (unless the terms used are purposely misleading).

In the case of a contract with 3 it quite clearly states on the back in the terms and conditions that you are agreeing to a minimum term (not a fixed term) and you can cancel with 30 days written notice (not a phone call) at the end of that term - my original receipt also clearly states "Minimum term 18 months"

So I'm going to write them a letter, stating the end date of the contract and telling them the date of the final direct debit I will be authorising them to take, and after that they can issue me a final bill with the correct dates on for line rental (none of this bill a whole month then refund me afterwards) and a request for written confirmation within 14 days of receipt of the letter. This will be sent recorded delivery (it's only a couple of quid or so at the post office) and I will check every couple of days to make sure they have signed for it.

Bitter experience has taught me that ringing companies and expecting reliable results is pointless, do everything in writing, recorded delivery and state minimum response times is the least you should do!

sinstar

Customer services confirmed that my contract was due to end

They were right in a way, you wanted the contract to end, and it sounds as though they knew at 18 months it COULD end (due to possibly end), but it is not their fault you didn't actually read it properly and do what was required of you to end it.

Well I suppose the moral of this thread is to READ YOUR CONTRACT. Also, don't just ignore letters/statements/bills just because as far as you are concerned they are wrong - did you really think you would recieve a bill from them if they were of the opinion your contract had ended? As soon as you recieved that first unexpected bill you could have begun to try to resolve the issue and saved yourself some money (and saved employees of 3 some time, they could better use their time helping people who actually read their contract).

d123

bookworm1363 wrote: »

You purchased an 18 mths contract, you expect it to end at the end of the 18 mths, it's fairly logical.

That would actually be totally illogical, can you imagine how many unhappy people there would be who wake up on month 18 + 1 day and find their mobile line is dead because the 18 months is up!

There are millions of users who are on 30 day rolling contracts (I am one of them), to think everyone should have to run about ensuring their phone isn't disconnected due to some arbitary date is just stupid.

This whole problem is pretty simple, the OP was naive and possibly a little ignorant, it's common knowledge (and easy enough to find out) that mobile contracts are for a minimum term, not a fixed term. He should have given notice as millions of other users manage to do every year.

bookworm1363

seangenius wrote: »

Bookwork its called "The Weasel Clause" people try and weasel out of them because it doesnt suit them.

No, it's called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, actually, because it protects the consumer from unfair terms in contracts. Does exactly what it says on the tin. :cool:

d123

bookworm1363 wrote: »

No, it's called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, actually, because it protects the consumer from unfair terms in contracts. Does exactly what it says on the tin. :cool:

How can it be an unfair term?

A contract is signed for a minimum term of 18 months with a reasonable termination clause of 30 days from month 17. There are no hidden penalties or subterfuge involved.

Most normal people would find this eminently reasonable, far more reasonable than allowing the provider to terminate thousands of lines without any reason other than the fact 18 months is up.

Have you actually stopped and thought about this before banging on about legislation, which isn't even really relevant?

bookworm1363

Absolutely.

Have you actually bothered reading my posts properly instead of banging on about them?

I didn't say it was an unfair term, I said it may be. Only a judge can decide whether it is.

Have you bothered reading the UTCCR before banging on about what an unfair term may entail? Let me clarify this for you: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded 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.” (5.1) The key words are "significant imbalance". Placing the onus solely on the consumer to remember at month 17 to cancel a contract without the other side being under any duty to remind them of the approaching end of this contract may well be deemed to create a significant imbalance in that the company stands more to gain and nothing to lose by not reminding the customer whilst the customer will lose automatically if he doesn't know or remember to cancel at the anniversary minus 1 month.

By the way, however hard a concept it may be to comprehend for you, the legislation is relevant: ANY contract drawn between a consumer and a company comes under that legislation, it's not something they can opt out of (although many try).

Oh, and for the "well, thousands of people manage it, why not him?", AKA the "I'm-all-right-Jack" brigade, that argument is about as valid as saying that because most people can walk, we shouldn't supply wheelchair access for those who can't.

Anyway, that's enough from me, I have told the OP what I think, other people have expressed their views, the OP will do whatever he thinks it's best.

I'll leave you all with this prediction though:

The BNPL didn't use to have to warn their customers when the interest-free period was due to end, now they do.

Credit card companies didn't use to have to warn their customers when fixed rates were due to end, now they do.

Mortgages, loans, insurance companies, even bank accounts, they all have to send a reminder when their contractual terms are about to vary.

It won't be too long before the telecoms companies are made to do the same. No doubt they'll be very unhappy about this lost source of profit.