NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
MSE News: Phone stores 'misleading' on prices
Former_MSE_Guy
Former MSE 1.7K Posts
in Mobiles
"The majority of mobile stores fail to explain possible price rises, a study says ..."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Other campaigns to launch:
"Unlimited Means Unlimited"
"12 Month Contract Means 12 Month Contract" (not open-ended with 12 month minimum term).
Or maybe
"It Has To Be What It Says On The Tin"?
"God Save Queen's English" - it's under threat from mobile operators?
.withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
.definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
should have, NOT should of .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
That's all very well and people should make themselves aware of basic terms before they commit but it is quite common for the terms and conditions to be many pages long and in about 2 point font size and that is not reasonable especially for those firms who hide unfair conditions deep on page 8.
The results from the Which? exercise are hardly a surprise - either sales staff are deliberately misleading customers to get their commission, or they (like many customers) also believe that a published tariff price with a fixed term means that the price of the contract is fixed for the term.
This really isn't rocket science and the relevant watchdog/regulator should pull their finger out. All that really needs to happen to clean this up is either for mobile networks to be required to hold the initial monthly price plan cost for the fixed period (unlikely), or for the fact that the monthly price can be increased during the fixed period to be made much clearer to customers (i.e. written in a clear, readable form in every sales brochure, advert, window display, etc where a monthly tariff is quoted). The only reason for NOT doing so is surely because the retailers know that a small minority of customers will choose not to take up the profitable fixed term monthly contracts and will instead opt for the alternatives (rolling contract, pay as you go) which I assume earn the shops considerably less commission?
Even the staff were unaware that this could happen, our manager claimed he was oblivious to the fact that this could happen and it was not mentioned in any of our training. I subsequently tried to find the clause in the T&Cs in the contract that customers sign with no success.
I feel that the sales advisers are portrayed as deliberately misleading customers when in fact it is a training issue, the companies do not invest the time in their staff. It is not unusual for new starts to be plonked on the sales floor on their first day on the job.
So quite how they can put the price DOWN for new customers, and UP for existing customers - mid-contract, on the basis of inflation - I don't quite understand.
On the topic of this being (un)fair or (un)expected, while I didn't read a word of the T&Cs, I do fully expect ALL companies T&Cs to include a clause that basically says they can change what they like when they like. It's a normal contract clause. So I'm not at all surprised this is the case, however I do think it's very unfair on consumers and that the information is not clear or explained up front.
In fact, the information is misleading on three counts; first, that it appears as though it's a fixed price, when it isn't. Second, that employees don't know these terms, so they mis-sell contracts, and third that it's not possible to move or cancel without a penalty.
Where's that campaign?
EDIT: You can use the link above the pledge your support to the Which? Fixed Means Fixed campaign. I have.
[Save on!]
That's all very well but it should run in parallel with the "If you don't like our t&c that lets us raise contract prices mid term, then try and find a network who doesn't have similar t&c " campaign.
The idea that a fixed price contract should mean fixed price for the initial period is right and proper. It does NOT, however, mean that the networks raising their prices last year was in any way illegal as their CURRENT t&c allows for that.
The sooner that there is more above board clarity the better.
I think anyone in business has to be disallowed to redefine such unambiguous words like 'fixed' and 'unlimited'. If the true meaning of such words doesn't fit their needs, they have to find some other, more vague terms, that do need clarification in the T&C.
.withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
.definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
should have, NOT should of .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
I am with you on the use of "unlimited" and I could never see why the regulator allowed a different meaning of the dictionary definition to apply to data, but I don't recall seeing the networks ever using the word "fixed" in any of their literature - although I could be wrong.
If 3rd parties use that word when selling 24 month contracts, then it is they who are in the wrong. ( I am not sufficiently clued up on the legal splits between network shops and the actual mobile service company.)