someone taken network due to no coverage and won

iceburn

I am looking through google ways to improve a mobile signal in a building and found this page and with all this recent discussions about can one disconnect without paying fee due to T&C, signal, pigs flying whatever throught some might be interested :-D

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/forum/consumer-rights-television-programmes/4035-bbc-watchdog-mobile-charges-but-no-signal.html

"One man took on Orange and won
Tom Prescott had an 18-month contract with Orange, but couldn't get a signal, at home, work, or just about anywhere.

Despite this, Orange wouldn't let him out of his contract - so he went to court to claim back the money he'd paid, for a service he hadn't received. Orange's legal team didn't even turn up to the hearing. The court found in Tom's favour and he was awarded £500.

When Watchdog spoke to Orange about Tom Prescott's case, the company said:
"Orange would like to publicly apologise to Mr Prescott for the poor level of service*he received trying to resolve*the network coverage issues*he*has experienced. It should not have been necessary for the case*to have reached the County Court and we will be reviewing our policies to ensure other customers facing the same issue are handled in*a more appropriate way.

"In terms of Mr Prescott's contract, while we do not offer an option*for customers*to break*their*contract for moving house, in exceptional cases*where*a customer*clearly has no*network coverage at*a new*home of residence*and has been unable to make calls,*we will look to resolve in their best interest.*"

Microstar_2

Back in the days of the 1-2-1 network I bought one of their contracts and couldn't get a signal at home. They wouldn't let me out of the 12 months contract so took them to Small Claims and won. They held £25 back as an 'admin charge' and I served a notice on them for that and got it back about a month later, plus costs.

Jon_01

He didn't technically win. Orange didn't show up in court to contest the action. Also, a court of that level does not have the power to set a president or to over turn a contract.

iceburn

very true just quoting (forgot one word) from the article.. But saying that if enough ppl went to court etc it might create event like with bank charges...

barbiepink

Having same problem, 3 orange phones in the house and signal went bad late last year. Orange admits they have had problem since Feb at local cell site but "do not guarantee coverage" so we are stuck in useless contracts!

iceburn

well barbie can always copy what he done :-D

gjchester

iceburn wrote: »

very true just quoting (forgot one word) from the article.. But saying that if enough ppl went to court etc it might create event like with bank charges...

No if enough people did it the Telco's would contest it, and enforce the T&C of the contract (which already say signal is not guaranteed) and likely set a precident that it is not a case for cancellation.

Tom got lucky Orange didn't want the expense of a laywer to argue the case.

asbokid

Jon_01 wrote: »

He didn't technically win. Orange didn't show up in court to contest the action. Also, a court of that level does not have the power to set a president or to over turn a contract.

Of course he won! Orange didn't show and judgment was awarded by default. And the word is precedent. Other cases will doubtless follow, spurred by this victory.

ultrak3wl

Just because the network writes its T&C that way it doesn't mean you're automatically out of luck. The primary function of a mobile phone is obvious (making calls) so if that really doesn't work at all anywhere that you might reasonably be located then I don't think a court would be sympathetic to the network pointing at their small print.

iceburn

Also didnt the banks have the things about bank charges in their T&C that did not stop it going to court, ppl winning, and now going to high court etc.. As Ultra is saying it boils down to is it fair cause we now have the unfair contract as well.

asbokid

ultrak3wl wrote: »

Just because the network writes its T&C that way it doesn't mean you're automatically out of luck. The primary function of a mobile phone is obvious (making calls) so if that really doesn't work at all anywhere that you might reasonably be located then I don't think a court would be sympathetic to the network pointing at their small print.

Precisely!

It is "unfair" for Orange to demand payment for the duration of the contract when network coverage is not provided in his area.

That is "Unfair" as in the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations"..........

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

the_Secretary_of_State_Himself wrote:

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1999 No. 2083

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

"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.
....
"An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.
....
"Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
....

SCHEDULE 2

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR
....
"making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;
....
"obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;
....
etc...