O2 terms and conditions change?!

NFH

alanmillar wrote: »

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.

Yes, if they say that something is free after 26th May 2008 when it is conditional upon paying for something else. The word "free" might have been used over the phone (which is harder to prove), but I doubt you will find it in any printed advertisements etc since the regulations came into force.

SimonSays

How do you think the networks pay for these phones? On the never never?

grumbler

NFH wrote: »

Yes, if they say that something is free after 26th May 2008 when it is conditional upon paying for something else. The word "free" might have been used over the phone (which is harder to prove), but I doubt you will find it in any printed advertisements etc since the regulations came into force.

http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/upgrade/deal-finder

You'll see the word 'FREE' under all phones.

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/upgrade/deal-finder

You'll see the word 'FREE' under all phones.

They should be using more appropriate wording such as "£0 upfront" or "No upfront payment required". This web page misleads the consumer into believing that they are receiving something for free, whereas in fact the goods are funded by the charge for the service. Alanmillar's comments above suggest that consumers are misled by the misuse of the word "free" and that is why the regulations exist to outlaw this misleading advertising.

cookie365

I don't doubt what you say about the regulations, but does this mean that not a single person with any influence over their enforcement has bought a mobile phone in the last neearly-six years?

You'd think they'd have noticed and done something about it

NFH

cookie365 wrote: »

You'd think they'd have noticed and done something about it

I could name countless consumer laws that are broken by large businesses on a widespread basis and which the authorities don't bother to enforce. It's a shambles that we have such robust legislation without proper enforcement.

mije1983

cookie365 wrote: »

I don't doubt what you say about the regulations, but does this mean that not a single person with any influence over their enforcement has bought a mobile phone in the last neearly-six years?

You'd think they'd have noticed and done something about it

Or taken out a Sky subscription, or bought a packet of Duracell batteries, or a pack of promotional Kit Kats...

grumbler

Well, my understanding of

Describing a product as ...‘free’... if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.

is that just saying that a phone is 'FREE' is 'unfair'.
If so, saying "FREE from £37 per month", like CPW do, is fine and doesn't breach any regulations.

NFH

Yes, I think that where a price is shown immediately together with "free", it is reasonably obvious but still not clear enough for some consumers such as the OP. But in the past, the networks used to advertise phones as "free" until you read the small print about a monthly charge.

cookie365

But taking the CPW example, how is 'From £37 a month' 'the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item'?

My reading of the SI says that's still caught.