Leaving the UK, TalkTalk want disconn fees+++

zagfles

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Are you actually serious? And my post was nothing to do with the OP's actual predicament as he knew it was a tie in when he signed up, it was more a way of generally stating that 12/18 month tie ins should be outlawed. And to be honest none of the counter arguments in this thread have been at all convincing

And your argument to ban them is? :rotfl:

yvonne13_2

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Are you actually serious? And my post was nothing to do with the OP's actual predicament as he knew it was a tie in when he signed up, it was more a way of generally stating that 12/18 month tie ins should be outlawed. And to be honest none of the counter arguments in this thread have been at all convincing

Why are most companies trying to tie people into 18 month contracts? Where has all the 12 month contracts gone?

Also if you're outside of your contract how come some companies automatically tie you into an 18 month contract?

Jamie_Carter

MillicentBystander wrote: »

I'm sorry, I got there first with that comment and at least mine was based on fact. I think you probably know by now that your assertion that prices would rise because there would be no introductory offers then going on to explain that these offers are eventually paid back over the life of the tie in was a bit of an own goal.

No wonder foreign companies come and buy up our utilities, we are seemingly such a resigned to status quo nation. I despair sometimes. At least I try and take a stand on these things (and practice what i preach, neither my gas and electric or phone and broadband had any min term tie ins when I took them out. And i don't think I'm paying over the odds either)

You don't know much about how large businesses operate do you?

Jamie_Carter

yvonne13 wrote: »

Why are most companies trying to tie people into 18 month contracts? Where has all the 12 month contracts gone?

Also if you're outside of your contract how come some companies automatically tie you into an 18 month contract?

They don't, unless you make any additions to your contract. When minimum terms are up, you are then on a rolling contract.

zagfles

yvonne13 wrote: »

Why are most companies trying to tie people into 18 month contracts? Where has all the 12 month contracts gone?

Also if you're outside of your contract how come some companies automatically tie you into an 18 month contract?

Do they? TalkTalk never have with me - once the contract was up I was on a rolling contract which I could cancel at any time. But they often offer discounts or "freebies" if you sign up to a new contract. In my case I signed up to an 18 month contract which included a YouView box as well as unlimited broadband and landline calls 24/7 which was a bargain.

kwikbreaks

MillicentBystander wrote: »

And to be honest none of the counter arguments in this thread have been at all convincing

Nothing will convince someone who takes an entrenched position. That cuts both ways of course but far more contracts are 12/18 month minimum term suggesting that most people find them more attractive than the alternatives.

MillicentBystander

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Nothing will convince someone who takes an entrenched position. That cuts both ways of course but far more contracts are 12/18 month minimum term suggesting that most people find them more attractive than the alternatives.

So it's just me who has an entrenched position because i don't agree with your view? Interesting take on the discussion. When you get a counter argument that basically suggests the reason we have to take a 12/18 month min term commitment is so that companies can offer introductory offers that are then paid back over the course of the contract what position am I realistically supposed to take? Then we had a suggestion that saw no reason why a supermarket like Tesco shouldn't tie their grocery customers in for 12 months just as long as it was in the T&Cs:rotfl: Like I said before, one look at threads like these makes me realise why foreign companies are chomping at the bit to take over UK utilities. We simply revel in being ripped off seemingly. Oh well. Not my loss.

kwikbreaks

MillicentBystander wrote: »

So it's just me who has an entrenched position because i don't agree with your view?

No - that's why I said "it cuts both ways". My view is certainly entrenched - offer choice rather than your approach of banning minimum term contracts.

Minimum term contracts are rather like HP - there is a total cost involved in providing the service and spreading that cost across some fixed term rather than requiring an up front initial charge is attractive to many. If you don't like it - and you obviously don't - there is an alternative but not necessarily from the same provider.

jpsartre

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Are you actually serious?

Why wouldn't I be? Something a bit like it already exists with Tesco's Delivery Saver plan where you pay in advance for free deliveries. And it wouldn't be hard to imagine a scheme where people agree to have deliveries for a certain amount at a certain day every week for a discount. I see nothing laughable about that, in fact it seems to me a good product to offer. Of course, if you care to provide some arguments as to why such a scheme would be problematic I'd be happy to reconsider my position in light of them. I can't think of any but perhaps I'm less imaginative than yourself. Note that responding with a laughing face or simply labelling something a rip-off does not constitute arguments.