Three Cancellation Dilemma

geographyphil

Hi there,
I've got a 24 month iPhone 4 contract with Three and am 6 months in. I'm a student so live at University during term time and at home in the (long!) holidays.
I used to have signal at home and at university, however coming home at the end of term last week I discovered I no longer have any signal at home, phone shows No Service.

I rang Three up and to their credit were helpful and honest. They explained that they used to share Orange's 2.5G network but don't anymore in my area and therefore I won't get any signal with them. They agreed this was their fault and have offered to cancel the contract with no fee and port my number out if I return the phone or a £10/month discount on my bill.

Having an expensive phone I can't use at home isn't great so I'm tempted to cancel the contract and take out a new iPhone contract with a new operator (get perfect signal with O2/Vodafone/Orange). My dilemma is, since I paid £99 upfront for the iPhone (and being a poor student ) I can't afford to pay it again on another network. On the phone they said they couldn't refund the upfront cost, but do you think I would have an argument to have it refunded, at least pro-rata for the remaining months of the contract? Where do I stand on this? They have admitted I can cancel the contract because they are at fault but what is the position of the upfront cost?

Thanks in advance for your help! Read these boards often but this is the first time I've needed to post

Silk

Hi Phil,
The way I see it they have broken the contract due to no longer being able to supply you with a signal at your home ...I'm sure you wouldn't have taken the contract out with no sigal at home

Because of that you would have to be put back in the position you were before the contract ie if they want the phone back you would have to have your money back less your usage costs for the service you have used up to now.

If it was me I would write to them with an offer of either that you would be happy with.

Usualy on paper the phone is given free as the incentive for taking out the contract but you would have to check the T&C's that applied when you took the contract out with them.

Rusty!

If they've broken the contract then you're entitled to leave without penalty and keep the phone, as it is separate to the airtime contract.

Buzby

Sorry, thats nonsensical. Not only that, the phone isn't faulty, so there's no entitlement to anything.

They have broken no terms, NOTHING - they never guaranteed service, and as a goodwill gesture are doing the decent thing by letting you out.

Expecting to get an iPhone free because of this is just laughable - we'd all be at it! You could certainly argue that as you are returning the handset you are expecting the amount you paid to be refunded, they may go that extra mile - but it will be at their discretion and goodwill.

Silk

Buzby wrote: »

Sorry, thats nonsensical. Not only that, the phone isn't faulty, so there's no entitlement to anything.

Hi Buzby,
It makes every sense due to the fact that they provided a service which they can no longer provide due to no fault of the OP.

If your electic provider removed the substation in your area and stopped providing electric would you still be paying your electric bill ????
Would you cancel the agreement with them and move to another provider or would you move house ???
Would you have taken out an agreement with that provider if they didn't provide electric to your area at the time ???

This isn't a case of a weak signal at the time nor is it a case of the OP moving house as is the case with a lot of complaints of this nature.

As far as the phone is concerned it's a case of the OP has already provided a substantial payment already towards the phone both in the upfront payment and also the increased charges as opposed to sim only etc so why should he give something back that he has paid a proportion of ???

gjchester

The OP has a good signal at his primary (term time) address, not having it at his parents is like If I went on holiday to cornwall and had no service in the holiday house. It's just one of those things

No mobile service is guaranteed everywhere. Comparing a luxury like a smartphone type mobile phone to something likel electricity is just silly.

The OP needs to decide what they want, Three have allowed him to cancel even though they could hide behind the T&C that say no service everywhere. Send the phone back cancel the contract and don't be greedy.

Silk

The whole point of whether it's a primary home or a term one is not the issue ....the issue is that they provided a service which they have now removed ...it makes no difference whatsoever about what coverage is like elsewhere.

The issue is that the OP enjoyed a service that was recognised and paid for at his home address which he is no longer is able to enjoy due to a removal of the networks equipment.

The network has the option of replacing the equipment or cancel the contract

ruggedtoast

Contract

There is a precedent for the carrier having to cancel the contract without penalty if they cant offer a service to the areas the customer needs it. This went to court with Orange, who were found to be at fault and ordered to make reparations.

Most carriers seem to have accepted this now even in circumstances where you change address or jobs. 3 are not offering the OP any sort of special favour by releasing him from the airtime contract especially now they cant provide service.

Phone

This is separate to the airtime contract and is owned outright by the OP.

Personally I would give them the phone back if they refund the £60.

Silk

gjchester wrote: »

The OP has a good signal at his primary (term time) address, not having it at his parents is like If I went on holiday to cornwall and had no service in the holiday house. It's just one of those things

That is different .....I spend a lot of time at the Lakes and have never got a decent signal on any of the networks. However if there was a mast next to the house in the Lakes that gave me reason to take out a particular contract which was removed 6 months later it would give me grounds to cancel.

gjchester wrote: »

No mobile service is guaranteed everywhere. Comparing a luxury like a smartphone type mobile phone to something likel electricity is just silly.

Its agreed theres no gurantee about providing a service everywhere but thats not the issue here.
The issue is not about a smart phone either as it could be any phone because it's about receiving a signal.
Comparing it to electric is not that far away as it happens as these days it's acceptable that a phone line (either land or air) is classed as a utility. Whilst maybe not yet as personal utility it would certainly be classed as a utility if the OP was in buisiness.
In fact it's becoming more popular these days for people just to have airtime contracts and do without landlines meaning they rely on signal strengths more and more.

gjchester wrote: »

Send the phone back cancel the contract and don't be greedy.

I don't see the OP as being greedy at all ...the OP has made substantial payment towards the phone as in the £99 up front and lets say an extra premium of 6 months at say £10 a month that would be £160ish .... if they were to insist on the phone back the OP would be entitled to those payments back to put him back to square one.
That would depend though on the T&C's as to when title to the phone transfers ie does it only transfer at the end of the contract ???
If they insisted on the phone back the OP could always send it back as a box of bits though :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

geographyphil

Thanks for everyone's replies!
I phoned Three again today and they have agreed to refund the £99 and wave the last bill, which I've accepted. Anyone know the best iPhone deal on at the moment...!?

gjchester

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Contract

There is a precedent for the carrier having to cancel the contract without penalty if they cant offer a service to the areas the customer needs it. This went to court with Orange, who were found to be at fault and ordered to make reparations.

No there isn't.

I assume you are refering to the Tom Prescott case. It went to the small claims court, Orange didnt contest it so he won by default. Orange were not at fault as such they simply didn't turn up to defend the case. Defaulting by not showing up is different to being tried in court and losing.

However small calims court does not create legal precidents, need to be a county court or higher if memory serves correctly. Defaulting by not turning up would have not created a precident even if the court was high enough.