Right to Cancel when service not available on new address

Cornucopia

Not sure that is the tone adopted in the many PPC threads.

Whatever happened to the customer knowing best?

Slowhand

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not sure that is the tone adopted in the many PPC threads.

Whatever happened to the customer knowing best?

They all to often don't

wealdroam

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not sure that is the tone adopted in the many PPC threads.

What is a PPC thread?

Sorry if it is something that I should know, but it's always good to explain a TLA (three letter acronym) at the first time of using.

Cornucopia

PPC = Private Parking Company.

Slowhand wrote: »

They all to often don't

In which case you've misunderstood the meaning of the phrase.

The customer is always right because (even if they are technically wrong) you ultimately have to give them what they want for (a) good service and (b) to keep them.

Slowhand

Cornucopia wrote: »

PPC = Private Parking Company.



In which case you've misunderstood the meaning of the phrase.

The customer is always right because (even if they are technically wrong) you ultimately have to give them what they want for (a) good service and (b) to keep them.

And how is this relevant to this thread?

Slowhand

So the customer knows best = the customer is always right? Can I suggest that = a crock of shit?

Cornucopia

Slowhand wrote: »

And how is this relevant to this thread?

Double-standard.

On PPCs, I don't see anyone here defending the "contracts" of the PPCs or the more general point that drivers probably knew what they were getting into when they parked their cars.

Slowhand wrote: »

So the customer knows best = the customer is always right? Can I suggest that = a crock of shit?

Can I suggest you are in the wrong forum.

halibut2209

I'm pretty sure that if a broadband company tried to charge you £10,000 for leaving a contract early, that contract would not be defended here

OlliesDad

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.

As i stated earlier, the reason why I think that consumers should be held responsible for the contract which they agree to is because the costs incurred by these companies would be passed on to other bill payers through increased prices. This is the consumer rights board, not the consumer wants board.

OlliesDad

Cornucopia wrote: »

"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.

If it is predictable the customer should not be entering the agreement??

The law states that contracts should be fair to all parties.. by giving the consumer the option to unilaterally withdraw from the contract it would not be fair to both sides.