Right to Cancel when service not available on new address

Fosterdog

smalltimepro wrote: »

Utilities provided at residences (gas, elec, water) are normally locked to an address, and so if you do a minimum period contract with any such utility provider, the contract remains on the residence and not on you (in case you move during that period). This is enforced through regulation. The contract does not remain on the residence, a contract has to be agreed to by all parties involved so if a new person moves in a new contract starts.

On the other end of the spectrum mobile service providers give a contract on the person regardless of where he moves to. This is because you have signed up for a mobile contract to be used in multiple places, it's not a contract to supply something to an address but to a SIM card. If you move to an area that no longer gets mobile coverage you still can't cancel penalty free as you entered the contract based on them providing a service to an area they do cover.

The providers are doing nothing wrong at all, their costs to terminate a contract with two months left is lower for them than the cost to terminate a contract with ten months let so a fixed £20 to £30 for everyone wouldn't work.

OlliesDad

smalltimepro wrote: »

Utilities provided at residences (gas, elec, water) are normally locked to an address, and so if you do a minimum period contract with any such utility provider, the contract remains on the residence and not on you (in case you move during that period). This is enforced through regulation.

No its not. If the new occupier moves into the property and wants to change supplier, the utility company cannot hold them to the previously agreed minimum contract.

OlliesDad

Cornucopia wrote: »

I wouldn't want to be paying much more than 2x monthly payment.



My heart bleeds for them.

If it's not profitable for them to offer service on the not unreasonable basis that some of their customers might need to move home during the contract period, then we have a problem.

If you are cancelling the contract it is perfectly reasonable that you cover the costs that they incur.

jacques_chirac

smalltimepro wrote: »

I meant 60-70% of the cost per month multiplied by remaining months on the contract. Sorry for being ambiguous on that. I agree that it is a fair way of calculating if you terminate of your own accord. However I still feel that it is unfair if the provider is unable to provide the service at the new address.

Again I agree that the enforcement of contractual right is not an unfair act in itself. My point is that, it is the conditions in the contract (in the case described above) which is unfair.

Utilities provided at residences (gas, elec, water) are normally locked to an address, and so if you do a minimum period contract with any such utility provider, the contract remains on the residence and not on you (in case you move during that period). This is enforced through regulation. On the other end of the spectrum mobile service providers give a contract on the person regardless of where he moves to. Broadband providers are using best of both kinds in there favour. They are locking the contract on the combination of the person and the address. This in itself is a bias that can rightly be viewed as unfair. i.e. favouring one party of the contract.

I am arguing that ofcom must step in to stop providers from penalising consumers when they cannot continue the service on a new address.

A fairer way in my opinion would be a reasonable fixed charge instead of multiplying by amount of remaining months. This charge should ideally be the same as cease/termination charge usually around £25-30.

Are you suggesting that someone should be able to take out a contract, then cancel after a month (or even less) and only pay £25? You are aware that it costs the service provider to install and maintain these services?

smalltimepro

tykesi wrote: »

OP - you do realise Virgin don't force people to move, don't you?

If you wish to avoid term fees for moving to an area they don't provide service, the answer is quite simple - don't move!

Not their fault you sign up to a contract and then change the conditions!


EDIT as I missed this the first time:

"You must note that nobody moves address just for the fun of it. Such situation result only from unavoidable needs"

This ridiculous statement makesme regret replying at all to this clearly deluded fool.

I am sorry that you were offended by anything I said. The implicit point of that statement was that people would not move to simply get a free early termination. If you feel that this is a delusion or a deluded view then we can part on that disagreement.

By your 'simple answer' of 'dont move' - are you seriously implying that people should not move if they have a utility contract on the address.

The point remains. Displacement is an everyday scenario, and utility contracts should not impediment to it. It is the regulator duty to ensure that. I am not trying to change conditions on my contract, heck I dont even have one now. I am merely campaigning for a consumer right. Every consumer right that you have now was campaigned for at some stage. Nothing was gifted to us by the supplier and corporations themselves. I assumed this was the right place to discuss consumer rights rather then contractual conditions and obligations.

jacques_chirac

smalltimepro wrote: »

I am sorry that you were offended by anything I said. The implicit point of that statement was that people would not move to simply get a free early termination. If you feel that this is a delusion or a deluded view then we can part on that disagreement.

By your 'simple answer' of 'dont move' - are you seriously implying that people should not move if they have a utility contract on the address.

The point remains. Displacement is an everyday scenario, and utility contracts should not impediment to it. It is the regulator duty to ensure that. I am not trying to change conditions on my contract, heck I dont even have one now. I am merely campaigning for a consumer right. Every consumer right that you have now was campaigned for at some stage. Nothing was gifted to us by the supplier and corporations themselves. I assumed this was the right place to discuss consumer rights rather then contractual conditions and obligations.

Your consumer right in this case is choice. You choose to commit to a one year contract or you choose to take a one month rolling contract. I don't see how that can be unfair? Nobody forced you to take the longer offering.

tinkerbell28

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Cornucopia

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

No need for that - you simply have a different view on this to other people.

There is no right answer.

tinkerbell28

Cornucopia wrote: »

No need for that - you simply have a different view on this to other people.

There is no right answer.

I don't have a view, I have EXPERIENCE. I also can say that this has been questioned before and deemed to be acceptable. So crown employees get paid allowances for this purpose on moving.

OlliesDad

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is no right answer.

At the moment there is a right answer. You may wish to lobby against it, however, what you are essentially lobbying against is minimum contracts overall which would be time consuming and require a huge backing of support. I personally would oppose it as the cost increase to the people willing to honour their contracts would be significant.