Redten Internet offer FREE computer woth £500 if you sign up for 3 years @ £19.99 pm!

benjimoron_2

rebellion_x wrote: »

nothing been said on here that isnt true that im aware of, besides i have already been informed by someone when i have called that they had noticed i had posted a few times on here

Alot of speculation has been posted that probably shouldn't.

Also the title of the new site may not do us any favours.

Harlzter

benjimoron wrote: »

Alot of speculation has been posted that probably shouldn't.

Also the title of the new site may not do us any favours.

But why have we had to speculate? Because Redten have been less than open with us from the start of this whole sorry affair in march, they virtually made themselves uncontactable so its only natural that people will speculate and come to their own conclusions, most of whats been said on here was just bouncing ideas around off each other to try and build the bigger picture that we have not been given.

Ironside

Hugo_Rune wrote: »

Get yourself out of this then Mr Shariz Jessa

YOUR original 2006 T&Cs that state!
check out clause's:
3.7 - disputes
5.0 - Provision of FREE PC
5.10 - "This introductory offer of a FREE PC is subject to these Terms & Conditions."
6.1 - "If you enter in to a Contract for the Broadband Service,....."
7.5 - ".......we will not apply a limit without giving you prior notice"
12.12 - ".....we will provide you with 14 days written notice and the increase or modification will take effect....."
17.11 - "Should you receive goods that do not match our advertised specifications we will offer a full refund."

Ver. 144002XIMJE06
http://web.archive.org/web/20061210103032/http://www.redteninternet.com/pdf/Redten_terms_and_conditions.pdf

Thanks Hugo,

I ordered in November 2006, so these are the T&Cs that apply to myself - have you noticed that the registered address of Redten is given as the Luton one? That is the address I sent my recorded delivery letter to and it has been returned.

benjimoron_2

Harlzter wrote: »

But why have we had to speculate? Because Redten have been less than open with us from the start of this whole sorry affair in march, they virtually made themselves uncontactable so its only natural that people will speculate and come to their own conclusions, most of whats been said on here was just bouncing ideas around off each other to try and build the bigger picture that we have not been given.

I agree with you on that, but there has been other speculation that I expect MSE have deleted.

Harlzter

benjimoron wrote: »

I agree with you on that, but there has been other speculation that I expect MSE have deleted.

Ha I must have missed that, well either that or just not took it in!

benjimoron_2

Harlzter wrote: »

Ha I must have missed that, well either that or just not took it in!

It's not anything bad as such but it's not worth saying something that might harm you in court!

philtheman

Found this interesting comment on Ofcoms website:

Last February Ofcom introduced General Condition 22 (GC22), which amongst other measures, imposed a deadline of five working days for internet service providers (ISPs) to provide customers with a Migration Authorisation Code ( MAC ). The MAC is used by a consumer when switching from one provider’s service to another, where that service is being provided via DSL. In the 12 months since the introduction of this General Condition and the opening of Ofcom’s enforcement programme to ensure compliance with this condition, the number of MAC -related complaints received by Ofcom has fallen, from 825 in March 2007 when the programme began to 517 in January 2008. In the same period, the number of consumers requesting a MAC from their ISP has increased. Although the level of compliance with GC22 has therefore improved significantly over the period of the enforcement programme, we are concerned that the rate of improvement has not been maintained in recent months.

If we all complain to Ofcom about not recieving MACS within 5 days, they should take more notice.

cageyr

Ironside wrote: »

I ordered in November 2006, so these are the T&Cs that apply to myself - have you noticed that the registered address of Redten is given as the Luton one? That is the address I sent my recorded delivery letter to and it has been returned.

Consumer Direct advised me that I should write to the current address registered at Companies House ie the Docklands address, where RT are obliged to receive mail.
Perhaps your letter advising you of the change of address was (like mine) lost in the post!

hamish72_2

philtheman wrote: »

Found this interesting comment on Ofcoms website:

Last February Ofcom introduced General Condition 22 (GC22), which amongst other measures, imposed a deadline of five working days for internet service providers (ISPs) to provide customers with a Migration Authorisation Code ( MAC ). The MAC is used by a consumer when switching from one provider’s service to another, where that service is being provided via DSL. In the 12 months since the introduction of this General Condition and the opening of Ofcom’s enforcement programme to ensure compliance with this condition, the number of MAC -related complaints received by Ofcom has fallen, from 825 in March 2007 when the programme began to 517 in January 2008. In the same period, the number of consumers requesting a MAC from their ISP has increased. Although the level of compliance with GC22 has therefore improved significantly over the period of the enforcement programme, we are concerned that the rate of improvement has not been maintained in recent months.

If we all complain to Ofcom about not recieving MACS within 5 days, they should take more notice.

I have seen that but with the proviso that your minimum contract period was over which in this case would seem to be 3 years so dont hold your breath in fact Ofcom seem to take forever with most things

cageyr

hamish72 wrote: »

I have seen that but with the proviso that your minimum contract period was over which in this case would seem to be 3 years so dont hold your breath in fact Ofcom seem to take forever with most things

I would imagine that, where a contract is breached (as here) then the minimum period would not apply.