O2 terms and conditions change?!

grumbler

alanmillar wrote: »

(obviously you read all terms and conditions grumbler)

Yes - if I have plans of downgrading.

alanmillar wrote: »

I would imagine this is why O2 recently changed the name "free upgrade" to O2 refresh.

I don't think that they changed.
'Refresh' is a new original product and now they just offer two types of contracts.

NFH

alanmillar wrote: »

So this is about the price of the phone then? I've changed my phone once in 6 years or 3 contracts. So then it wouldn't matter how often I changed my tariff.

So you continue paying for the phone after the end of the minimum contract term, even after you have repaid the cost of the phone? Why don't you keep it simple and get a SIM-only contract and buy the phone separately? In most cases, you'll end up paying less overall.

alanmillar wrote: »

If "free upgrades" aren't free then surely this is false advertising, therefore illegal.

Specifically, it would be a breach of Schedule 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

mije1983

alanmillar wrote: »

If "free upgrades" aren't free then surely this is false advertising, therefore illegal.

No, because the phone IS technically free as you pay nothing. However, as I said, the trade off for this is a more expensive tariff compared to the same one on a sim only deal.

As an example from the O2 site:

iPhone 5s, £0 upfront cost, £47 per month unlimited minutes/texts and 5GB data. 24 month contract.

Sim only deal for the same tariff is £26 a month for 12 month contract.

So effectively you are paying £21 a month for the phone itself.

alanmillar

NFH wrote: »

So you continue paying for the phone after the end of the minimum contract term, even after you have repaid the cost of the phone? Why don't you keep it simple and get a SIM-only contract and buy the phone separately? In most cases, you'll end up paying less overall.


This is one of my points. It was only recently (Friday) I learnt that I was paying for the phone. I was never informed that the phone was included in the price of the contract. When I'm offered a "free upgrade" I don't expect to have the price of the phone included.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, in my opinion, O2 haven't been anywhere close to transparent with me about my contracts, my rights as their customer. In fact I think they've been pretty underhanded in the way they advertised the products they have to offer.

NFH

mije1983 wrote: »

No, because the phone IS technically free as you pay nothing.

Where do you get this drivel from? If the supply of the phone is dependent on paying for something else (i.e. the service), then it's not free, technically or otherwise. To claim it is free would be a breach of Schedule 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as I stated above.

NFH

alanmillar wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make here is that, in my opinion, O2 haven't been anywhere close to transparent with me about my contracts, my rights as their customer. In fact I think they've been pretty underhanded in the way they advertised the products they have to offer.

You might have a point, and your words reflect the misunderstandings of many consumers. However, to be fair to O2, their new Refresh concept makes everything more transparent, as it decouples the price of the goods and the service. This is how it should be, and O2 is the first network to do this.

alanmillar

mije1983 wrote: »

No, because the phone IS technically free as you pay nothing. However, as I said, the trade off for this is a more expensive tariff compared to the same one on a sim only deal.

As an example from the O2 site:

iPhone 5s, £0 upfront cost, £47 per month unlimited minutes/texts and 5GB data. 24 month contract.

Sim only deal for the same tariff is £26 a month for 12 month contract.

So effectively you are paying £21 a month for the phone itself.

Is this acceptable these days? Am I being a little sensitive? Technically this means I've paid £756 for a phone I got 3 years ago. Is everyone here saying that that's ok?

NFH

alanmillar wrote: »

Is this acceptable these days? Am I being a little sensitive? Technically this means I've paid £756 for a phone I got 3 years ago. Is everyone here saying that that's ok?

Have you deducted the price of an equivalent SIM-only contract from this total? Given that the monthly charge covers both goods and service, you have to deduct the service cost to calculate the effective price of the goods.

No, I don't think this is acceptable. I would like to see unbundling of the goods and the service to promote competition and transparency. We need an end to the cost of mobile phones being subsidised by monthly charges because this:

• Encourages consumers to acquire handsets they cannot truly afford through an unhealthy "buy now pay later" consumer debt culture with a disguised loan from the mobile network.
• Distorts competition by disguising the true price of the handset and of the service, as opposed to a SIM-free handset and SIM-only service.
• Encourages wasteful acquisition of new handsets because consumers mistakenly believe they are receiving the handset for free or for very little.
• Necessitates long contract durations in order to spread the cost of the handset, which inhibits competition by preventing consumers from switching networks.
• Causes consumers to continue paying the inflated monthly charge even after they have paid off the subsidy of the handset, unless they remember to take action at the end of the minimum contract period.

Subsidised handsets are usually SIM-locked which:

• Inhibits competition by making it more difficult to switch networks.
• Prevents consumers from using local SIM cards abroad, allowing UK networks to impose unreasonably high roaming charges by excluding foreign competition.

For these reasons, Ofcom should encourage unsubsidised SIM-free handsets and competitive SIM-only contracts to become the norm, as is common in many other countries. At the very least, networks should be forced to unbundle the monthly handset subsidy repayment and the monthly charge for service (as O2 has started doing), itemising the two separately with independent contract durations and an APR for the loan (as Giffgaff is doing). The monthly handset subsidy repayment should not be allowed to continue after the cost of the handset has been paid off.

alanmillar

NFH wrote: »

Where do you get this drivel from? If the supply of the phone is dependent on paying for something else (i.e. the service), then it's not free, technically or otherwise. To claim it is free would be a breach of 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008[/URL], as I stated above.

So are you saying that since 2008 all mobile phone companies have been breaking this regulation? It's only recently that "free upgrades" have started to disappear.

mije1983

NFH wrote: »

Where do you get this drivel from? If the supply of the phone is dependent on paying for something else (i.e. the service), then it's not free, technically or otherwise. To claim it is free would be a breach of Schedule 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as I stated above.

No company seems to pay attention to it, and it's normal to see my 'drivel' on most websites.

Pretty much every mobile phone retailer offers a 'free' phone only when you take out a certain tariff. Sky offer a 'free' box when you join them etc. I could go on.....