how do i get out of my mobile phone contract when emigrating

karatedragon

easy wrote: »

But the WHOLE point is that you KNOW, when you enter into the contract, that you have the phone and so many minutes per month available to you.

If the phone co. changed the contract terms part way thru, that would be unfair (and with the banks, many of us had accounts for YEARS, but now and then received a leaflet that said "our Ts & Cs have changed").

And a proportion of that future payment is something you have already received the benefit of i.e. the handset itself.

And when you enter into a contract with a bank account you KNOW how large any authorised overdraft is and the cost of using it. You also KNOW you will be charged hefty fees for going illegally overdrawn and allowing items to bounce...

So why was this deemed unfair and caused a national uproar? Yet people seem to be defending Mobile Cancellation fees as fair?? I know what you agree to but I am saying I think they are unfair. Just as people KNOW what their bank charges are but then say they are unfair when they get hit by them.

And I will reiterate again - as you clearly havn't read back. I know the future payment includes the handset. I am saying that a cancellation fee should just be for the remainder of the handset NOT the remainder of the Airtime as well.

I really do not know how to explain this more clearly. I am not saying there should NOT be a cancellation fee but that the fee should be fair.

Also - out of interest do you think it is right that Mobile Phone companies say a handset is "free" when actually it is not? It is actually paid for in the airtime agreement?

lucylucky

karatedragon wrote: »

My Analogy is that Bank Charges became a National scandal and the populus (and this entire website) deemed they were unfair. If you read some threads you will see that not everyone championed the cause to fight bank charges

I am just surprised that Mobile Contract Cancellation fees are not seen just as unfair considering you are paying for something you are not getting when you cancel. I.E. The future unused airtime.

You might want to widen your crusade to involve Gym memberships and other such "unfair" contracts

easy

karatedragon wrote: »

And when you enter into a contract with a bank account you KNOW how large any authorised overdraft is and the cost of using it. You also KNOW you will be charged hefty fees for going illegally overdrawn and allowing items to bounce...

So why was this deemed unfair and caused a national uproar? Yet people seem to be defending Mobile Cancellation fees as fair?? I know what you agree to but I am saying I think they are unfair. Just as people KNOW what their bank charges are but then say they are unfair when they get hit by them.

And I will reiterate again - as you clearly havn't read back. I know the future payment includes the handset. I am saying that a cancellation fee should just be for the remainder of the handset NOT the remainder of the Airtime as well.

I really do not know how to explain this more clearly.

Oh for heavens sake .... READ WHAT I WROTE..

In a HUGE number of cases, bank account terms and conditions changed radically between people opening an account, and charges being imposed. Yes you receive a leaflet or email if the contract terms change, but by that time your account is in place. Furthermore, bank charges were recurring (£30 for going over-drawn, we write to you, charge you for the letter, that sends you overdrawn again, we write to you .......). The mobile phone charges are clear, transparent and finite.

karatedragon

easy wrote: »

The mobile phone charges are clear, transparent and finite.

I don't call advertising a handset as "free" and then actually charging for it via the airtime charges clear and transparent.

I can't see that said anywhere on the T-Mobile or Vodafone sales website by the "free" handsets being peddled. "This is free but actually we charge you for it in the airtime".

If you got a free sample of Daz in the door and then a week later got an invoice for it you'd soon kick off.

Kilty_2

I don't know why people have such an attitude towards mobile phone contracts. You are effectively borrowing £45 x 18 or whatever and paying it back to them - would you take out a loan and then try to "get out" of paying it back?

It's all in the Terms and Conditions - although the kind of people that do such things or argue that contracts are unfair wouldn't dare read those, would they?

Lost count of the number of people that would phone up when I worked for O2 and insist that they just weren't going to pay their bill that month but, of course, I was the bad guy when I insisted that their service would be restricted.

Only industry I know of where customers routinely expect to be able to use the service they're paying for without actually paying for it!

easy

karatedragon wrote: »

I don't call advertising a handset as "free" and then actually charging for it via the airtime charges clear and transparent.

I can't see that said anywhere on the T-Mobile or Vodafone sales website by the "free" handsets being peddled.

ARRRRRRGH !!!!

But the handsets are only "FREE" because you commit to paying £45 (or whatever) per month. And that is VERY clear .....

If you commit to paying X pounds per month, and then you stop paying X pounds per month, you have broken the contract, and the phone company are entitled to recover the remaining amount, because that is what a CONTRACT is about.

They don't change their terms part way through, and neither can you (by failing to pay). Although my phone company do allow me to change part way through, they allow me to change my tariff if I want to (so that, in effect, is more than fair).

Kilty_2

easy wrote: »

ARRRRRRGH !!!!

But the handsets are only "FREE" because you commit to paying £45 (or whatever) per month. And that is VERY clear .....

If you commit to paying X pounds per month, and then you stop paying X pounds per month, you have broken the contract, and the phone company are entitled to recover the remaining amount, because that is what a CONTRACT is about.

They don't change their terms part way through, and neither can you (by failing to pay).

:T

People just don't get this...... I don't know why :rotfl:

Jon_01

The 'free' phone model is the problem, the networks need to find a new term (deferred payment, maybe).

The term 'free' creates all kind of problems, as seen here !!

karatedragon

easy wrote: »

ARRRRRRGH !!!!

But the handsets are only "FREE" because you commit to paying £45 (or whatever) per month. And that is VERY clear ......

Right so they are either free - costing £0.00 totally or they are not free?

Definition of free from Concise Oxford:

adv.1. In a free manner; without restraint.
2. Without charge.

And we all know that handsets are paid for via the airtime charges. So they are not "free" or "without charge". The whole thing is laughable and I am surprised they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.

So we not only have "free" handsets that really aren't "free" we also have "unlimited" web browsing that actually means so many MB in the small print. What a bunch of con artists.

I will half expect a letter from my Council telling me my council tax is free - but only if I pay all of it via my water bill.

lucylucky

I have just seen an offer for a free bottle of wine at a branch of Pizza Express.

Only drawback is to get this free bottle I need to spend £20.

Can you start a campaign against them too please?