t_mobile cancel ignored because of unused pak number

grumbler

What 'criteria'?
What we have is:

• contract,
• contract law,
• some 'manual' known only to the networks.

How come this manual overrides the contract and the law if the customer doesn't confirm explicitly the cancellation of the earlier given notice?

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

What 'criteria'?
What we have is:

• contract,
• contract law,
• some 'manual' known only to the networks.

How come this manual overrides the contract and the law if the customer doesn't confirm explicitly the cancellation of the earlier given notice?

They conform with Ofcom, have a look for the manual
The OP was given notice of the PAC situation although failed to read it, it would stand up in court

Herongull

The law of contract still applies irrespective of industry manuals.

If the customer has give notice in accordance with the contract and has not revoked the notice, then the contract ends. End of story.

Industry manuals, sending texts after the notice has been given, whatever, cannot prevent the contract from ending unless it is explicitly built into the contract.

If the person that OP spoke to when they cancelled the contract had asked if the person wanted to revoke the notice when they requested the PAC and the OP had said yes, then the notice would have been revoked.

Sending a text or a letter or whatever after the notice has been given, stating that the customer has to take some additional action in order to prevent the notice from being revoked cannot not have the effect of revoking the notice. The notice is given and unless the person revokes it, then it stands and the contract ends.

Otherwise you could sign a contract, say to buy a house for £x. If the other party sends you a text at a later stage saying that unless you take action y, the price paid will double. Do you really think that this would be enforceable, unless it was built into the original contract?

The phone contract ended after the notice was given as per the contract. The phone company hasn't a leg to stand on.

Silk

Herongull wrote: »

If the customer has give notice in accordance with the contract and has not revoked the notice, then the contract ends. End of story.

Therein is the problem, the customer revokes the cancellation when the PAC is issued end of story.


If you wish to dispute this then have a read of Ofcom http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/number-portability-info/ and take it up with them.


I posted the link to the relevant pdf for you (#21)which is found by following the link on the above page under "mobile number portability"

grumbler

Silk wrote: »

Therein is the problem, the customer revokes the cancellation when the PAC is issued end of story.

No, it's not the end.
The customer has to revoke the note explicitly, not implicitly.
Why do you ignore the above example with a house selling/buying?

If you wish to dispute this then have a read of Ofcom http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/number-portability-info/ and take it up with them.

Yes, you can, but Ofcom isn't the law and, fortunately, doesn't have the last word. It's well known for the contradicting/misleading information, incompetence, and decisions overruled by courts.
As the above 'manual' was most likely produced by the same Ofcom, it's naive to expect from them an unbiased consideration of your complaint, although, if used sensibly, the manual doesn't contradict the law.

I posted the link to the relevant pdf for you (#21)which is found by following the link on the above page under "mobile number portability"

Well, this was just some 'manual'. Are we not speaking about the law?
As I posted above, networks can easily comply with both the law (contract) and the 'manual' but for some reason prefer not to do this. For me the reason was clear, but you are welcome to offer another explanation.