Virgin Media - Moving to a Non Service Area

Anoneemoose

Seems clear enough to me:

K1 - moving home - they will provide service but cannot guarantee to.
K2 - if you move J2 will apply
J2 - if you move, you have to pay an etf.

There is no circular thing - that is it. You moved to an area where they are unable to provide service. It clearly details what charges you would pay...no more than you would pay for your normal services less any discount you receive.

I take it these T&C's are on their website in which case, they are clear and presumably available all the time for you to have viewed before you signed. In addition, by using and not cancelling the services within any cooling off period, you are deemed to have accepted these terms.

By all means try, but don't get your hopes up. Anything they offer will be goodwill. It still astounds me that people only take time to read t&c's AFTER they sign up to something.

Jordanderve

Thanks Anoneemoose, my hopes aren't raised but I think the terms aren't drafted correctly. I am not disputing the terms I have signed upto, I am questioning whether they are in line with OFCOMs guidance when moving under term K2. I personally do not think that they are, in OFCOMs words 'absolutely clear' and therefore not deemed fair by OFCOMs definitions. The strict reading of these terms says the circumstance outlined in section K. Section K is 'moving home'. The remaining terms of J2 become redundant as circumstance under section K exclude you from the remainder of section J2. Why have they made specific reference to point J3 instead of Section J but not specific reference to K1 & K3? I guess because of Section J, on point J3 is the only exclusion. They should not have referred to section K in one chunk when one of the parts should be omitted i.e K2. That is my legal reading of it and even if that is not the case, it is by no means 'absolutely clear'. Again just my opinion. On the termination fee, 3 separate individuals within Virgin have not been able to identify exactly how the termination fee has been arrived at. I was on the phone for over 49mins trying to get an answer at lunch. The problem is, the computer says it is x amount. Therefore, if employees of Virgin can't work it out, how is the consumer meant to be able to? Again, another requirement of OFCOMs in order for the termination fee to be deemed 'fair'. For £240, it is worth challenging IMHO

Anoneemoose

Jordanderve wrote: »

Thanks Anoneemoose, my hopes aren't raised but I think the terms aren't drafted correctly. I am not disputing the terms I have signed upto, I am questioning whether they are in line with OFCOMs guidance when moving under term K2. I personally do not think that they are, in OFCOMs words 'absolutely clear' and therefore not deemed fair by OFCOMs definitions. The strict reading of these terms says the circumstance outlined in section K. Section K is 'moving home'. The remaining terms of J2 become redundant as circumstance under section K exclude you from the remainder of section J2. Why have they made specific reference to point J3 instead of Section J but not specific reference to K1 & K3? I guess because of Section J, on point J3 is the only exclusion. They should not have referred to section K in one chunk when one of the parts should be omitted i.e K2. That is my legal reading of it and even if that is not the case, it is by no means 'absolutely clear'. Again just my opinion. On the termination fee, 3 separate individuals within Virgin have not been able to identify exactly how the termination fee has been arrived at. I was on the phone for over 49mins trying to get an answer at lunch. The problem is, the computer says it is x amount. Therefore, if employees of Virgin can't work it out, how is the consumer meant to be able to? Again, another requirement of OFCOMs in order for the termination fee to be deemed 'fair'. For £240, it is worth challenging IMHO

Again, I think you're reading too much into it. As far as I can see, they are absolutely clear. No more than you would pay if you stayed with them basically. And as long as what you have been quoted is less than what it would have cost you to see out your contract, then it doesn't matter how it's calculated really. There will be a way, and maybe the advisors don't know the specific formula, which although probably needs addressing as a training issue, does not mean it'll get you out of paying.

If you are able to read it from a legal point of view, that would suggest you probably don't need to ask on here, in which case proceed if you think you have a case. No harm in trying.

If you are not legally trained, again, I truly believe you are seeing things that aren't there. Most of the other posters here read it as you have to pay if you move to another area. And adjudication would take this into consideration - what an average person interprets it as. In addition, Ofcom will not look at it for you..they do not deal with individual cases. They will however note your concerns and give you a reference to take back to VM. This might make them do something but if they think their T&C's are legally sound (which I suspect they do), they will likely defend themselves.

Anoneemoose

Also, I am trying to see what you're saying but I do not agree at all. To me, it is simple - as I said earlier.

Jordanderve

Ok Anoneemoose, thanks. I appreciate that OFCOMs won't take on my case but it can get referred. I'll keep all posted with the outcome. I still stick by my strict reading of the terms.

Buzby

Afraid I still don't see the issue - it is simply a cost of moving and factored in as such. Until minimum terms are outlawed (and we're all hit with higher charges as a result). OFCOM are an irrelevance here - they are not a consumer arbitrator but ensure firms within their remit act with fairness and transparency. You obligation is to pay the balance of your minimum term, the cost of which will be based on the standard tariff NOT any discount that may have applied based on the extra services you signed up for.

As to the criticism for not serving a new build home - Virgin have not extended their network in the way you appear to expect. Infrastructure build is expensive and hasn't been undertaken due to the need to make money from existing unused infrastructure without out adding more - how many of those 70+ new homes would guarantee to take service? If just 10% then no chance.

The solution is when house builders agree to provide the ducting to the properties and VM can cheaply send in a crew to pull in the new cables and hook in the new customers, always assuming there is capacity in the sector the properties are based.

If the developers couldn't be bothered to arrange this - it is their loss, and for some purchasers, they don't care - they'll believe ADSL is fine (and more fool them).

Jordanderve

As I understand the new builds Buzby, the builders put the services contract out to tender. Virgin didn't pitch for the business but Sky and BT did. BT won the contract and as a result, only BT can service the properties now with Fibre Optic broadband. As the development is aimed at young and middle aged people, I suspect almost every household is taking out a BT contract. Furthermore, phase two takes the development to c.150 properties. Phone (mobile) reception is poor in the area due to being semi rural. No discount is being applied, it is a notional figure used by Virgin to side step the guidance that says that they can only charge within the termination fee the amount of the remaining contract less savings they will make from not servicing my property. If the terms are wrong, they are not allowed to charge a termination fee, simple as which is similar to many other historic loopholes identified by MSE. The intention of the terms are irrelevant if these have drafting errors.

Jordanderve

The transparency of the termination is vital to consumers as if I understand the breakdown of the figure, I can ascertain whether reducing any of my services into a lower tariff will a) reduce the termination fee and b) enter me into a new contract. As you have said, transparent is the key.

custardy

Jordanderve wrote: »

The transparency of the termination is vital to consumers as if I understand the breakdown of the figure, I can ascertain whether reducing any of my services into a lower tariff will a) reduce the termination fee and b) enter me into a new contract. As you have said, transparent is the key.

You are under contract. So why would you think you could reduce the services you agreed to?
You have 8 months outstanding. A new contract would be 12 months minimum.
So you would need to take it down to under £20 a month for that 12 month period.

tomtontom

I'm thinking this is simple too, but just to clarify:

How much do you pay each month?
How long do you have left in your contract?

No ramble please. Just the two figures.