MSE News: O2 to hike its prices by 2.7% - can you leave your contract penalty-free?

ChilliP2012

Take a swatch here

V_For_Verminator

Good man, thanks very much for that. I have approximately £360 left in terms of monthly payments so using MCOL would *only* cost me £35. I was expecting a minimum of £250.

For the cost of a month's tariff it will be worth taking them to court.

ChilliP2012

Just an update.

Status of this claim is as follows:

You submitted a claim on 15/03/2014 at 23:44:06
Your claim was issued on 17/03/2014
Telefonica UK Ltd issued an acknowledgment of service on 20/03/2014

During which, O2 have sent Moroncroft (Moorcroft) after me as I am refusing to pay them their remaining monthly line rental. I am refusing to pay O2 not only because the matter is now in the hands of MCOL, but also for a breach of contract.

Now I will wait and see if they submit a defence or not. If they defend then I will submit a statement of claim and go from there. More to follow.

ChilliP2012

Just received my Acknowledgement of Service which states Kirill Albrecht, acting on behalf of O2, intends to defend all of the claim. They now have 28 days to file a defence.

V_For_Verminator

I'm very surprised that they intend to defend.

ChilliP2012

V_For_Verminator wrote: »

I'm very surprised that they intend to defend.

Half expected it really. Will wait to see what happens then hit them with what will hopefully be a good case for me.

V_For_Verminator

The very best of luck with it. Will you be defending yourself?

ChilliP2012

Yes, I'll be defending myself using the information that RC has provided and various other bits I have picked up along the way.

RandomCurve

Some more ammunition for you regarding O2 trying to say that you agreed to the price rise by ticking a box (if you ordered online)


http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/guidance/OFT311/Groups/Group18e/




18.5.4 Declarations can be acceptable if they are of matters wholly and necessarily within the consumer's knowledge (for example, their age), and a free choice is given as to what to say. But whether any declaration is in fact fair will depend on how it is used. If consumers are routinely told or given to understand that they must say one thing for the contract to go ahead, the declaration is just as likely to be considered unfair and legally ineffectual as if the written words gave no apparent choice. The Regulations apply to unwritten as much as to written terms.


18.5.5 'Have read and understood' declarations. Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them (see Part IV). Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.


18.5.6 In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not. The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all – see Group 9.

ChilliP2012

As usual RC you're a scholar & a gent