Massive talktalk cancellation fee

charles44944

For personal reasons we need to end a talktalk contract that has 17 of 18 months remaining. It is phone, broadband, and TV. We expected a high termination fee for this, but they're demanding £450! It would only cost us £500 to keep the contract over the next 17 months. This seems completely unreasonable. Do you have any suggestions for how I could convince them to be more flexible? (Or to formally complain?) I'm willing to pay a substantial fee, but this is outrageous.

macman

Welcome to the forum. You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word 'minimum term contract'. The ETC payable will be whatever is defined in your T&C's. Unless otherwise stated it will be the full sum left outstanding on the minimum term, so £450 on a 17 month term is perfectly reasonable (about £26 per month, which is presumably less than what you are paying now). Bear in mind that the YouView box alone costs around £220 new.
If you wish to break your contract just 4 weeks in, then the other party is entitled to be put back in the position that they would have been in had you seen out the minimum term.
So you do not have grounds for any formal complaint.

yangptangkipperbang

macman wrote: »

If you wish to break your contract just 4 weeks in, then the other party is entitled to be put back in the position that they would have been in had you seen out the minimum term.
So you do not have grounds for any formal complaint.

Macman has reiterated a basic point of Law that so many people seem quite happy to ignore.
A contract works both ways, it protects you AND it protects (surprise, surprise !) the other party.

Just what is the point of a contract if one side can just walk away from it ???

charles44944

Thanks for the fast replies. This looks like a really helpful forum.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Just what is the point of a contract if one side can just walk away from it ???

I don't want to "just walk away". I'm willing to pay a large ETC, and to pay them for the cost of the box. But I don't think it's fair for the total disconnection fee to be the same price or more as just continuing the service---in that case, they should advertise from the start that the contracts *can't* be cancelled, not that they can be cancelled with a fee.

Our charge is £30/month, so a £26/month fee for disconnection basically means that the service can't be cancelled.

I see pages from Ofcom (that I can't post links to yet, sorry) that make me think that there might be law that would support this view, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

ZhugeEX

charles44944 wrote: »

Thanks for the fast replies. This looks like a really helpful forum.



I don't want to "just walk away". I'm willing to pay a large ETC, and to pay them for the cost of the box. But I don't think it's fair for the total disconnection fee to be the same price or more as just continuing the service---in that case, they should advertise from the start that the contracts *can't* be cancelled, not that they can be cancelled with a fee.

Our charge is £30/month, so a £26/month fee for disconnection basically means that the service can't be cancelled.

I see pages from Ofcom (that I can't post links to yet, sorry) that make me think that there might be law that would support this view, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

just be glad you're not living in the USA where you'd have to pay extra for cancelling early.

But you're wrong here. I'm surprised they've even knocked off £50.

bod1467

I'm somewhat with the OP on this. As far as I know, TT can't claim both loss of revenue AND loss of profit - only one or the other. So claiming near enough the full fee for the remaining contract term could be seen as a penalty, and thus an unfair term.

And I can't believe TT's profit is only £3.53 per month on a £30 contract.

macman

charles44944 wrote: »

Thanks for the fast replies. This looks like a really helpful forum.



I don't want to "just walk away". I'm willing to pay a large ETC, and to pay them for the cost of the box. But I don't think it's fair for the total disconnection fee to be the same price or more as just continuing the service---in that case, they should advertise from the start that the contracts *can't* be cancelled, not that they can be cancelled with a fee.

Our charge is £30/month, so a £26/month fee for disconnection basically means that the service can't be cancelled.

I see pages from Ofcom (that I can't post links to yet, sorry) that make me think that there might be law that would support this view, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Your contract can certainly be cancelled early (i.e. broken). But as already explained, the other party is then entitled to full compensation for their loss. Which in this case is up to £30 per month. You can't just expect to change your mind and then pay much less than the contracted amount.
You agreed a binding contract that involved an 18 month minimum term, it's your choice to break it.

bod1467

But when it comes to consumer contracts, neither party is permitted to impose a term that is seen as a penalty or fine ... only courts (and certain other official bodies) can impose fines. If a contract is breached then the party losing out can only claim provable losses. Any term that seeks to impose a penalty may be deemed "unfair" and so fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

OP - you might get a wider, more-contract-knowledgeable audience for this question in the Consumer Rights board.

yangptangkipperbang

bod1467 wrote: »

But when it comes to consumer contracts, neither party is permitted to impose a term that is seen as a penalty or fine ...

They are not doing that .............as has already been explained the LAW says that the person affected by a breach of contract is entitled to be put in the same position he would have been in if the contract had not been breached - if that includes making a fat profit then that is what they are entitled to !!!

bod1467

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

They are not doing that .............as has already been explained the LAW says that the person affected by a breach of contract is entitled to be put in the same position he would have been in if the contract had not been breached - if that includes making a fat profit then that is what they are entitled to !!!

Link to support this statement? I know it has been explained already (in this thread) - I just don't necessarily agree.

I can't point my finger at a link to support my "feeling". That's why I'm suggesting the OP checks with Consumer Rights board - I'm pretty sure I've seen this question addressed before.

And anyway - why should a telecomms/ISP provider be any different to any other supplier? Look at that board - you'll find that what you have stated is likely not correct.

charles44944

bod1467 wrote: »

OP - you might get a wider, more-contract-knowledgeable audience for this question in the Consumer Rights board.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try asking on that board.

And thanks to all for the replies. I appreciate it!