Unicom Complaints

1jammy

hi im hoping some one can help unicom called me with a great offer and although i explained to them im a new business and have just taken out a contract with bt they assured me they would take care of all cancellation charges from bt so i agreed to go ahead only if i did not have to call bt or waste any of my time doing there job then soon after bt sent cancellation fee of £850 unicoms reply was they asked me to call bt ask them certain questions which i told them i will not call bt as unicom was supposed to take care of the whole thing unicom said the sales person shouldn't have said that to me so they basically lied to get a sale so i went back with bt asap they dropped there cancellation fees now unicom are taking me to court for £650 cancellation fee ive worked really hard to get debt free over the last few years which ive achieved and this one stupid thing will put a ccj on my report as they have been very unprofessional. PLEASE HELP

bootlered

So they openly admit their Sales people tell lies to gain sales. Jammy keep all corespendence for evidence against these idiots, chin up mate because they are not very clever.

Chris.Marsh

1Jammy, get hold of the recorded conversations with them and then you will have proof of what was said and a strong case for mis-selling.

Mountaindreamer

Hi 1Jammy

There is hope. I was promised by a Unicom salesman a much cheaper deal than I had with BT for a like for like service. Needless to say the actual cost was much higher than with BT and I was misled on several points. I ended my contract, moved back to BT and Unicom sent me big cancellation fees. I found a support group online for people experiencing problems with Unicom, which helped greatly.
I went to see my MP, wrote to Trading standards and contacted a consumer programme. I let Unicom know in my letter of complaint that I was doing these things. I ignored any letters or threats regarding termination fees. Then out of the blue, Unicom released me from termination fees. It was a very distressing time for me, so I know it is not easy, but there is hope.

Batrina

Oh my word!!! It's taken me all day to read these threads, I hadn't looked 'them' up on line until today, I can't begin to tell you my on going ordeal with these people (3 year contract I was duped into ended in March), safe to say you've all been there so I wont start.....we've all got better things to do.
However, you have given me strength to continue my battle with this bunch, I don't mind paying what I owe but I wont be bullied into paying what they make up as they go along, it's like talking to a very hostile brick wall.
I'll pop back for some advice, they really do take the biscuit....
Stay strong.....

fastnethenge

Hello, read most of the threads, same here, mis-sold saying no interruption to service move to them from Talk Talk better service and less fees, after 18 months, fees are twice the charges i had with Talk Talk and had 3 weeks of no connectivity - now going to BT and hit with 700 pounds of cancellation charges - my question is, most threads talk about the cancellation, but the reason we moved is becaye the broadband was so useless it was like a dial up, always crashing, downloading taking days for films and hours for downloading a paper to an ipad! so in our view, Unicom have breached the contract as they have not provided a service - have letter documenting this but they dont reply just keep ringing - but will go to court before we pay the fees as the service was terrible! so does anybody know if they have not provided a good service then they have not kept their part of the contract? is this a valid case for us? any legal bods out there? appreciated.

Pixarstem

The following Ofcom announcement should be useful to Unicom customers who are disputing termination fees and other matters

ON 29 JULY 2015 OFCOM FINED UNIVERSAL UTILITIES TRADING AS UNICOM, £200,000 FOR MIS-SELLING LANDLINE TELEPHONE SERVICES
THE DECISION ALSO REQUIRES UNICOM TO TAKE A NUMBER OF STEPS TO HELP COMPENSATE CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY THE MIS-SELLING AND TO GUARD AGAINST IT HAPPENING AGAIN.

a) paying to all affected customers it is able to identify amounts by way of compensation for loss or damage suffered by them or in respect of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to which they have been put and/or by way of ex gratia payments
b) allowing any customers who were misled by Unicom to cease their contract with it, regardless of the length of contract served, with no requirement to pay an ETC or disconnection fee and no requirement to pay any charges for services other than those the customer has used (and where the customer chooses to return to their previous Communications Provider (“CP”), this would include compensation for any charges the customer may incur in the process of returning to that provider)
c) compensating customers who may otherwise have fallen into the above category but who have already returned to their previous CP and have incurred charges in doing so

Details of the announcement can be seen here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_01125/

Mr_Trick

If either Ofcom or The Ombudsman have any evidence of deception with intent to gain financial advantage I have every confidence they will pass this evidence to the DPP.

Edited by Mr Trick; Today at 10:55 PM. Reason: 'by deception' repeated

Mr_Trick

I was pleased to see that least a few people might be compensated by Unicom. For the rest of us ... nothing.

It is interesting to see how Ofcom actually works. The rolling contract system worked well for suppliers (like Unicom) but did nothing to encourage competition. Apparently European Legislation required Ofcom to ban rolling contracts which, in fairness, they seem to have done.

Ofcom could no longer support rolling contracts that were extremely difficult to escape from but by way of compensation they could make it extremely easy for suppliers to trap customers into new contracts.

General Condition (Rule) 9.6 allows customers the option of exit without penalty if an existing contract is changed to their ‘material detriment’. It is helpful to bear in mind that we are looking at ‘regulated contracts’ or Ofcontracts here. The introduction of Rule 9.6 created a de facto Rule 9X which allows suppliers to change new Ofcontracts without giving the customer the option of leaving without penalty. A new Ofcontract can be changed to the detriment of the customer and Ombudsman Services will be pleased to point out that the changes are covered by Rule 9X. Ofcom themselves suggest anyone unhappy with an Ofcontract created using Rule 9X should seek legal advice. I remain extremely ‘unhappy’ about a contract created under Rule 9X but I have to acknowledge that legal costs would almost certainly simply add to the loss I have already made.

A recent high-profile case seems to have resulted in an overturning of Rule 9X in one case but it seems Rule 9X remains.

Unicom are reported to be ‘disappointed’ after being fined £200K by Ofcom. I can certainly understand their point of view. If they have been making up contracts since (at least) 2012 what has suddenly changed? Did they forget to mention there might be some disruption to the service? Under Rule 9X they don’t even need to mention they have added three years of broadband service to the Ofcontract let alone mention the possibility of any disruption.

Mr_Trick

My story starts in December 2012 with a phone call from Unicom. Would I like to renew my contract? Despite the bad things I’d heard about Unicom, with the lease on my premises likely to end in the next twelve months I thought it wasn’t worth looking for a new supplier for just one year. What happened next shows just how expensive talking to a Unicom salesman can be.

At the time (December 2012) we had three phone lines of which one was faulty and unused. It was agreed that the current contract with Unicom would expire in February 2013 so we had two months for Unicom to either repair the faulty line (as agreed) or ‘No contract’. It would have been convenient to have used the faulty line but no great problem to agree a new contract for the two working lines if repairs proved to be difficult or expensive.

So the contract is for two working lines for twelve months and it starts in February 2013. The transcript and original recording are available on request (PM)

I then find Unicom have invented a ‘contract’ for all three lines (one faulty) for three years and the contract started in December 2012. By changing the date Unicom clearly intended to trap me in a bogus contract that had already started instead of the contract which both parties had agreed.

The background to this is that Ofcom rules permit Telecom Suppliers to say anything they like to get a contract without regard to truth or fairness. Suppliers like Unicom can claim they will save you money, they can say they’ll include things in the contract without charge, absolutely anything - all complete nonsense but that is how Ofcom rules work. Having got a contract Telecom Suppliers are permitted (Ofcom rules) to make ‘expedient changes’ to the contract without the knowledge or consent of the customer.

In my case Unicom made about a thousand pounds worth of ‘expedient changes’ .

My case went to the Ombudsman so I have first hand experience of the way Ofcom rules work in practice. The Ombudsman ‘decided’ I should have accepted the contract made up by Unicom (three lines, one faulty, for three years), Naturally Unicom were entitled to change the start date of the contract ‘at will’ and increase the number of lines ‘at will’. The only compromise (no reason given) was that the length of the contract would be reduced from three years to one year - the conclusion being that I should pay £450 to cancel a contract which I had clearly never agreed to. Personally I am not convinced either Ofcom or Ombudsman Services are in a position to authorise expedient changes to contracts any more than the Maafia are in a position to (legally) set protection rates.

I could be wrong but I suspect there will be many more people who have made a genuine contract with Unicom only to fall foul of Ofcom approved ‘expedient changes’. The reason people don’t recall agreeing to ‘X’ is that they didn’t. Unicom’s main (only) selling point is that they will save you money. If Unicom aren’t saving you money (one bill should suffice) ... we’re immediately looking at the degree of protection Ofcom can provide to you as a customer and to Unicom as a supplier. My money (literally) says Ofcom will support the supplier every time.

Ofcom seem to have fined Unicom a relatively small amount for a loophole in the ‘say anything to get a contract’ exemption - over a relatively short time and (I suspect) in a relatively small number of cases. Not only am I underwhelmed - I still want my money back.