Right to Cancel when service not available on new address

Fosterdog

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

There is no right answer.

There is a right answer, the one that the law backs up which is that you are in a contract and if you break the contract, whatever the reason and no matter how genuinely justified you think it is, they can charge you for this. You may not like it but that doesn't stop it from being right.

If you don't like contracts with minimum terms there are companies out there that allow a monthly rolling contract instead but they would cost so much more that nobody wants to go for it and they don't usually do free setup, you pay which can be £200+

Cornucopia

You misunderstand me.

There is no right answer in the context of the forum.

I am able to make up my own mind about this topic, and exercise that opinion as I see fit. I can indeed take it up with the authorities and even if they decide against me, it still does not preclude me holding my opinion.

In reality, I am likely to be able to exercise sufficient pressure on my ISP as to encourage them to make me an offer for on-going service that is acceptable to both parties....

Imagine if you moved and went into your chosen supermarket chain and they wanted to charge you more because you were no longer taking service from them at your old address. "But we took your shopping to your old supermarket... what about out costs?" The idea is ludicrous, but that is what the Telecoms industry is doing. If there are high costs involved in service start-up, that can only be because the industry has created an inflexible model. Let them sort that out, rather than penalising customers.

WTFH

The OP compared broadband providers with mobile phone providers.

Well, there may be similarities, but there's a big difference...
A mobile phone is just that... MOBILE.

A broadband service involves a cable running to the property and some gubbins in the property. It's a bit like electricity or water. There are physical things physically attached to a physical property.
With a mobile phone, there isn't.

When you choose to move house. And yes, it always is a choice, just maybe not a willing choice, then you choose to break the contracts that you had in the old property.
For some utilities, in an attempt to keep you as a customer, they will offer to provide the same service in your new property. That's not showing preferential treatment, that's trying to keep the business.
If they are unable to provide that service, then your choice to leave your property means you broke the contract. At no time did they break the contract.

Now, if you feel this is unfair, then the best thing to do is to make sure that the property you choose to move to already has capabilities to receive all the utilities you want, be that water, electricity, gas, phone, cable, etc.
If you choose a property that doesn't have access to the utility you want, it's not that provider's fault. They don't force you to move out of one house and they don't force you to move into a different one.

smalltimepro

Fosterdog wrote: »

Why can't you choose to move to another address that they can provide the service on?

Are you implying that the choice of residence should be governed by which provider i am chained to? Do you think that is reasonable?

wealdroam

Cornucopia wrote: »

Imagine if you moved and went into your chosen supermarket chain and they wanted to charge you more because you were no longer taking service from them at your old address. "But we took your shopping to your old supermarket... what about out costs?" The idea is ludicrous, but that is what the Telecoms industry is doing. If there are high costs involved in service start-up, that can only be because the industry has created an inflexible model. Let them sort that out, rather than penalising customers.

Not quite sure what youare saying here, but in that scenario did you have a fixed term contract to buy your shopping at a particular supermarket branch before moving?

As you say...the idea is ludicrous.

Fosterdog

Cornucopia wrote: »

You misunderstand me.

There is no right answer in the context of the forum.

Yes there is, right is right and wrong is wrong in this context, there are laws in place for it which have previously been challenged and still held up. You seem to be confusing facts with opinions.

Opinions can differ and there are no right or wrong opinions but facts are facts and no matter what your opinion a fact doesn't stop being so just because you don't like it or don't agree with it.

The FACT is the company is doing nothing at all wrong and are abiding by contract law. The FACT is you don't like this and want to challenge it.

your OPINION is that the company are wrong and that you are right to challenge it. Most Other posters' OPINIONS back up and agree with the FACTS instead of agreeing with you, some posters agree with you but it still doesn't change the FACTS.

smalltimepro

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

The thing is with tv/phone/net. Most companies don't own the infrastructure. So not only are they paying for equipment, they are paying a fixed rental for x amount of time on the line, exchange, maintenance, etc. Hence minimum contracts.

You are right, but then neither do electricity or gas companies. You are correct in saying that most companies rent space on the exchange and transfer mediums, but this is generally done in bulk and not on individual basis.
Having said that, I am not so much against minimum contracts but I would want to see those contracts terminate automatically (with reasonable notice period) if the person under contract moves away from the residence.

smalltimepro

OlliesDad wrote: »

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.

As the starter of this thread, what I was actually lobbying for was "the right to terminate contract IF moving away from residence and service is not available on new residence" - I am not against minimum period contracts in principle.

smalltimepro

Fosterdog wrote: »

There is a right answer, the one that the law backs up which is that you are in a contract and if you break the contract, whatever the reason and no matter how genuinely justified you think it is, they can charge you for this. You may not like it but that doesn't stop it from being right.

If you don't like contracts with minimum terms there are companies out there that allow a monthly rolling contract instead but they would cost so much more that nobody wants to go for it and they don't usually do free setup, you pay which can be £200+

Can you provide a link to any one company that charges £200+ for setup. I hope that you are not just making this up. Usual setup charges are around £50.

WTFH

What would you consider a "reasonable notice period", and how long would you need to have been in the contract for before it became "reasonable"?