Right to Cancel when service not available on new address

jacques_chirac

smalltimepro wrote: »

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.

You're not against min term contracts, you just want them to be massively biased in favour of the customer?

WTFH

smalltimepro wrote: »

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.

I can provide a link to a company that charges £140 for setup, will that do?

BT.

If you order Infinity from them and they need to install the box, they will charge you £140, but it gets included in the overall contract cost, so you don't pay it as an upfront fee.
I guess if you didn't want to sign a contract, you'd have to pay that (and more).

OlliesDad

smalltimepro wrote: »

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.

I have just agreed a new contract with a gas and electric supplier. I fully understand their are costs involved if I leave while in the contract period.

To think of it another way.. say you bought your box instead for £200 and agreed a 12 month contract, however 2 months down the line they stopped supplying the area and they said "its not our fault you are no longer able to receive a signal", would you think it acceptable to just cancel the contract and they wouldn't have to return the money outlaid at the start by you?

smalltimepro

WTFH wrote: »

The OP compared broadband providers with mobile phone providers.

As opposed to the I provided it only as a point of reference along with gas/elec providers. I was pointing out that broadband/phone providers are picking best of both the models (mobile and immobile services) to their own advantage and leaving out the part from both that favours the consumer.

If this is an immobile services then why is are the contracts not structure in the same was as gas, electricity and water. Why should we as consumers not lobby for it to be regulated in the same manner.

jacques_chirac

smalltimepro wrote: »

As opposed to the I provided it only as a point of reference along with gas/elec providers. I was pointing out that broadband/phone providers are picking best of both the models (mobile and immobile services) to their own advantage and leaving out the part from both that favours the consumer.

If this is an immobile services then why is are the contracts not structure in the same was as gas, electricity and water. Why should we as consumers not lobby for it to be regulated in the same manner.

Many of the fixed term gas/ elec contracts have an exit fee. If you don't want to pay an exit fee, you don't tie yourself into a contract, or you pay higher ongoing rates that have a premium built into the price.

Now where have I heard that before?

OlliesDad

smalltimepro wrote: »

As opposed to the I provided it only as a point of reference along with gas/elec providers. I was pointing out that broadband/phone providers are picking best of both the models (mobile and immobile services) to their own advantage and leaving out the part from both that favours the consumer.

If this is an immobile services then why is are the contracts not structure in the same was as gas, electricity and water. Why should we as consumers not lobby for it to be regulated in the same manner.

There is, as far as I am aware, not a large initial outlay for the gas and electric suppliers. The broadband/TV suppliers provide equipment free of charge - this costs them money which i recouped through the monthly payments.

Gas and Electric suppliers do charge exit fees unless you are on a higher rate tariff.

Fosterdog

smalltimepro wrote: »

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.

I'm not going to hunt around for individual prices, mostly because the no fixed tern contract fees are not usually publicised and you have to call each company to get the prices.

However a few years ago I moved to a new house and wanted my phoneline with BT and broadband with Virgin. Because I didn't have them as a package I had to pay set up fees to both even though I signed to a 12 month minimum term for each. I had to pay £110 to BT to reconnect the line to the property and another £70 to Virgin for them to lease the line to provide my broadband.

Anytime you move to a new property if the phoneline hasn't been used for a certain amount of time there should be a charge of over £100 to reconnect, BT do often have a free reconnect promotion to do it free or greatly reduced, when I moved and needed a reconnection there was no such offer on.

Cornucopia

Fosterdog wrote: »

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.

No. I am very much not confusing fact with opinions. It is my opinion that there is some potential unfairness here. End of story.

The facts are very much more complex, and include the fact that contracts are not absolute, and can be overruled by regulators or by courts. Another fact is that the Unfair Contract Terms legislation does what it says on the tin.

A further fact is that contracts can be varied with the agreement of both parties, and this is what I shall invite my ISP to do, if the issue arises.

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.

"Abiding by contract law". Hmmm.... Creating a contract that is disadvantageous to consumers in the event of something happening that is entirely predictable more like.

I don't understand the dogmatic approach from some posters on this issue. This is MSE. We are here to-

- warn people about unexpected costs,
- help them avoid unexpected costs (within the law),
- campaign to change things if they are unfair,
- support the idea that things can be better for the consumer.

smalltimepro

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't understand the dogmatic approach from some posters on this issue. This is MSE. We are here to-

- warn people about unexpected costs,
- help them avoid unexpected costs (within the law),
- campaign to change things if they are unfair,
- support the idea that things can be better for the consumer.

You stole the words out of my mouth. I started the thread as a campaign for fairer terms in 'predictable and likely scenarios' as you put it. I certainly did not expect so many people aggressively defending corporate rights on a consumer rights forum.

Slowhand

smalltimepro wrote: »

You stole the words out of my mouth. I started the thread as a campaign for fairer terms in 'predictable and likely scenarios' as you put it. I certainly did not expect so many people aggressively defending corporate rights on a consumer rights forum.

So before you committed to your contract what did you ascertain about the predictable and likely scenarios?

This is a consumer rights forum not a consumer wants forum BTW.