No Phone signal but still have to pay for contract

grumbler

Why huge if the contract was taken just a few months ago?
560/20=28 - not the highest monthly price, even if it's after 1/6 discount.

pawlala

Are you not able to switch the signal to T-Mobile and see what that gives?

robbies_gal

its the same now and most are on ee -mines switched over already

Earthworm

What handset do they use? There is a possibility UMA is available depending on the model. This would use the homes WiFi to give you a signal boost.

diamonds

Yup Signalboost (UMA) probably only way forward !

prowla

I think they should allow people to back out of contracts if they can't provide a service to their house.

It would surely be a small(ish) number of people.

And of course, it is ridiculous to chastise the OP for not placing the availability of a mobile phone signal at the top of their list when they moved house.

macman

No, there are still huge areas of the UK where there is no mobile reception at all.

Earthworm

prowla wrote: »

I think they should allow people to back out of contracts if they can't provide a service to their house.

It would surely be a small(ish) number of people.

And of course, it is ridiculous to chastise the OP for not placing the availability of a mobile phone signal at the top of their list when they moved house.

How ridiculous is it really though? It depends on how important a mobile phone is to you. It is the same with Virgin Media fibre optic broadband and to a certain degree whether there is a BT landline in a property you are moving to.

I am not saying that you should turn down a dream house over mobile phone signal, but if you cant live without phone reception in your house then it isn't completely ridiculous to go online for 1 minute to check signal at your new post code.

Networks have one thing in mind... Profit. If they started letting people out of contract for moving to areas without signal naturally the amount of people claiming to move to these areas would increase. This would result in lower profit margins and ultimately price increases. It would be more reasonable to expect a network to allow withdrawal from contract if phones were worth £50 but when they're worth 10 times this it is understandable that they do not.

Ultimately the best option in this scenario would have been to purchase the device outright on PAYG and take either a 30 day SIM only or a PAYG deal... This way you are free to move network whenever you need to.

Herongull

This are many reasons not to have contract phones, and this is one of them.

If you have a contract and move to an area with a poor signal, then that's hard luck.

If you live in an area which had a good signal, but the signal stops working (due to problems with a mast or whatever), then this is different, and you would have a case.

Guys_Dad

prowla wrote: »

I think they should allow people to back out of contracts if they can't provide a service to their house.

It would surely be a small(ish) number of people.

And of course, it is ridiculous to chastise the OP for not placing the availability of a mobile phone signal at the top of their list when they moved house.

Some networks do allow this - within the first 7 or 14 days of a contract, but it is unrealistic for them to cancel if you move subsequently to an area or house where their signal strength is not good. You know that there are black holes in all network services, and it is unfortunate if you move to an area where the signal is poor.

Certainly PAYG or 30-day sim solves that problem, as long as you have an unlocked mobile as well to switch.