Who's right? Eclipse Internet

ElkyElky

Many thanks for the replies. I'll take it to the ombudsman if need be. Everything else has been great, speed and stability etc. Even their website is decent enough, has detailed usage, options to request static IPs free of charge and such.

Good news is I'm only on a 12 month fixed term rather than the 18 month they offer so if it all goes t*ts up later, I don't have too long a wait to move.

I don't necessarily want a refund, I just want the second half of my installation completed as per their terms and if they won't do that, I'll be expecting either a partial refund or full.

JimmyTheWig

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

It seems the fee would have been £100 even if the website were worded correctly and stated that no engineer would visit. I suspect it reflects the wholesale cost of migration and what you got is exactly what the wholesale cost covers.

Would you have gone ahead on that basis, or would you have stayed with your current provider as you wouldn't migrate without an engineer coming to plug the new router in for you?

I agree that this is the pertanent question.

ElkyElky wrote: »

The service I received wasn't as described.

I agree. In which case you are entitled to cancel the service. You are _not_ entitled to get the service as advertised.

Lets say I am selling cans of coke on the internet. They are £1 each. I decide to do a special offer - buy 2 get 1 free. However, when I type up the offer my finger slips. By accident my website says "Cans of coke £1. Buy 2 get 11 free."
You see my advert. 13 cans for £2. Sounds good. You order some.
I say sorry it was a mistake. I meant 1 not 11. I'll send you 3 for £2.
At this point you have a choice. You either take the offer that I meant to give you (i.e. 3 cans for £2) or you cancel the order. You don't get the right to 13 cans for that price. But equally I don't get the right to hold you to the £2 you said you'd give me in exchange for 3 cans.
You don't lose out by my finger slipping. You're being offered exactly what you would have read if my finger didn't slip.
But you don't gain by my finger slipping, either.

ElkyElky

I received an email from Eclipse today, before I had even put my complaint in officially.

They're offering me a 50% refund of the £100 installation charge but continue to state that the charge is valid since the engineer went to the exchange... this is in contrast to what their terms and conditions say.

Decided to accept the offer since they have after all, completed half of the stated installation. Though I've made the suggestion that they update the terms and conditions and the written information on their website to reflect that engineers may not visit for fibre to fibre migrations AND the terms define installation as being at the exchange rather than someone's property (as it currently does now).

kwikbreaks

Well done. I'm surprised they coughed up. I will say that I'm 99% sure nobody did anything physical at the exchange either though as all your FTTC cabling was already in place. All that changed was the end point of your routing through the BTw network (from BT Retail to Eclipse) and sfaik that is a keyboard only operation same as for ADSL.

ElkyElky

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Well done. I'm surprised they coughed up. I will say that I'm 99% sure nobody did anything physical at the exchange either though as all your FTTC cabling was already in place. All that changed was the end point of your routing through the BTw network (from BT Retail to Eclipse) and sfaik that is a keyboard only operation same as for ADSL.

Oh yes, I'm positive it was done through the computer rather than someone physically going to the exchange. However, it was done nonetheless.

I still think I could go for the whole £100 fee. After all, they wouldn't be offering me a 50% refund if they are certain they were in the right but I'm a fair person and I received half of the installation service they stated so it's only right I pay half the fee.

JimmyTheWig

ElkyElky wrote: »

They're offering me a 50% refund of the £100 installation charge but continue to state that the charge is valid since the engineer went to the exchange... this is in contrast to what their terms and conditions say.

I believe that the charge is valid as they fully intended to charge you it. I believe that their terms and conditions are incorrect.

I've made the suggestion that they update the terms and conditions and the written information on their website to reflect that engineers may not visit for fibre to fibre migrations

If they don't do this you may consider reporting them to Trading Standards. It won't help you, personally, but might get them to put things right.
In my example above with the cans of coke, if I had deliberately written "11 free" to get people interested then I would be in trouble. If I didn't change it even after it had been pointed out to me then I think that could get me into trouble, too.

JimmyTheWig

ElkyElky wrote: »

I still think I could go for the whole £100 fee. After all, they wouldn't be offering me a 50% refund if they are certain they were in the right

Not necessarily.
They might be doing it to keep a customer happy.
Or they might be doing it because it is cheaper to offer you £50 than it is for them to keep arguing with you about it.

ElkyElky

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I believe that the charge is valid as they fully intended to charge you it. I believe that their terms and conditions are incorrect.


If they don't do this you may consider reporting them to Trading Standards. It won't help you, personally, but might get them to put things right.
In my example above with the cans of coke, if I had deliberately written "11 free" to get people interested then I would be in trouble. If I didn't change it even after it had been pointed out to me then I think that could get me into trouble, too.

But the terms and conditions being incorrect would make the charge invalid? I agreed to the terms as it was presented to me and the charge wasn't in line with what I had agreed to. There isn't a single sentence in the terms which relate to installation at the exchange or that a charge would apply in that instance. It defines installation as being at the customer's property - and for installation at my property, a charge of £100 would apply.

Anyhow, I received an email back from them today saying they'll speak to their legal team to ensure the terms and conditions are made clear for all of their customers so one can only hope they update it so no more customers face this misinformation.

The guys on the live chat didn't deal with this too well but the person who emailed me thereafter sorted it swiftly so kudos to them. :T I can delete my official complaint letter now, after spending an hour or so writing it.

kwikbreaks

ElkyElky wrote: »

I can delete my official complaint letter now, after spending an hour or so writing it.

I'd be more inclined to extend it to include the latest info. A typical ADSL migration only has a 12 month minimum term and costs nothing. I see no reason why it should be any different for an FTTC migration.

Incidentally I can't see why you went to Eclipse anyway as their pricing seems to me to be high for limited download products even if overnight is unlimited.

ElkyElky

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to extend it to include the latest info. A typical ADSL migration only has a 12 month minimum term and costs nothing. I see no reason why it should be any different for an FTTC migration.

Incidentally I can't see why you went to Eclipse anyway as their pricing seems to me to be high for limited download products even if overnight is unlimited.

I agree. It probably cost very little and one or two buttons pushed on a computer to get me up and running but I did agree and was willing to pay the installation charge.

I went with them because of all the good things I had read about them and they offer things that no other (perhaps very little?) isp offers to residential customers.

Aside from this little disagreement about the installation, I'm happy with them so far.