Mobile phone monthly contract

Guys_Dad

JethroUK wrote: »

....................the company can charge new customers whatever they like but they do not have a case for not adhering to the agreement for a few lousy months and few lousy £s

they cant

But they can! And they all did last year and now it looks like it's going to be an annual thing, although I believe the regulator is looking into it.

I agree they should not be allowed to raise the costs within the initial agreed period, but we are where we are and as long as they comply with their t&c, there is not much we can do till the regulator rules against it - other than spend much more per minute/text etc on PAYG.

macman

O2 are the only mobile telcom who have stated that they will not raise prices within minimum term.

MillicentBystander

macman wrote: »

O2 are the only mobile telcom who have stated that they will not raise prices within minimum term.

The company that can't be discussed on any thread but its own dedicated thread have also given this pledge. In fact, they were the first to sign up to the Which 'fixed means fixed' campaign

macman

Would that be the one that rhymes with Futility Sparehouse?

MillicentBystander

macman wrote: »

Would that be the one that rhymes with Futility Sparehouse?

Shhhhhhh....the walls have ears, you know.


Which estimate the main mobile telcos have made £53 million by implementing these 'sneaky' rises. Whether it's in the T&Cs or not isn't really the point - they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, simple. Have you ever been asked to pay an increase in your car insurance haf way through the year for no reason?

JethroUK

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But they can! And they all did last year and now it looks like it's going to be an annual thing, although I believe the regulator is looking into it.

I agree they should not be allowed to raise the costs within the initial agreed period, but we are where we are and as long as they comply with their t&c, there is not much we can do till the regulator rules against it - other than spend much more per minute/text etc on PAYG.

Mobile companies do whatever the hell they like it seems - just because they have the power to destroy someone's credit history

but breeching "an agreement" is still against the law in this country and were any cases to go to court they would not have a chance of convincing a judge otherwise

and contrary to some peoples belief - it doesn't matter what mobile companies put in their T & C (small print) - they can put "...and we will sell your first born into slavery" but it will not hold up in court

and like you say - I am glad they are being investigated because they are now acting like Gods and need reeling back in

couple of $multi-million retrospective claims for mal-practice should do it

JethroUK

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Shhhhhhh....the walls have ears, you know.


Which estimate the main mobile telcos have made £53 million by implementing these 'sneaky' rises. Whether it's in the T&Cs or not isn't really the point - they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, simple. Have you ever been asked to pay an increase in your car insurance haf way through the year for no reason?

I agree - there is no reason the phone company cant eat a few lousy pence for a few lousy months to honour 'the agreement' they made with you in the first place

and it's not our fault that the money grabbing morons extended contracts (commitments) from 1 year to 2 years

we 'agreed' top pay £x for 24 months - they 'agreed' to give us service for 24 months

if they cant control their business costs for that 2 years they should flippin eat it - or stop making 2 year commitments they have no intentions of honouring

<end of vent>

time for a cuppa

thatsean

JethroUK wrote: »

its just plain wrong and it flies in the face of everything understood in law by the word "agreement"

true its not much, but equally, if its not much then why can company break the "agreement" over few pence

the company can charge new customers whatever they like but they do not have a case for not adhering to the agreement for a few lousy months and few lousy £s

they cant

So you don't read contracts before you agree to them? If you don't like what's in there why take the service when you can see that the company intend to run it as a variable contract?

It's in there...

macman

But it's not a fixed price agreement! It's a agreement to supply services in return for a variable sum of money, which can be varied by them at any time. And always has been.
The difference is that telcoms are only now enforcing their existing right to raise prices within minimum term.

JethroUK

macman wrote: »

But it's not a fixed price agreement! It's a agreement .....

It's NOT a "promise not to boil your children agreement" either

that doesn't mean they can :rotfl:

there are no 'types' of agreement - just 'agreements'

and just because a company 'types' their agreement doesn't disqualify any other agreement

cant beleive I'm actually having to point this out