When does a Vodafone contract end?

d123

Carpetman wrote: »

Now I don't know that much about contracts, but I would have expected one that states it ends on 27th May should end on 27th May unless I authorise Vodafone to extend it.

I can just imagine the hundreds of thousands of unhappy customers if the networks summarily terminated their phone service just because the contract had reached it's minimum term...

"Your service was terminated because you didn't tell us to keep it going, your number? Sorry it's gone, do you want a new one?"

Does this rank in the top 10 of stupid ideas?

grumbler

Well, many insurances work exactly this way (unless you specifically opt-in for an automatic renewal). Some time before it expires customers get a reminder to renew it if they wish. Can you imagine "thousands of unhappy customers" that got 6 points and a fine for driving uninsured?
I guess sending a reminder would be even easier for a mobile provider.

How do PAYG customers survive? Is there any essential difference between, say, a 12-months' contract and a one-month bundle? How do customers with capped contracts survive when they reach the cap?

I am not saying that it has to be this way. My point is that this isn't a 'stupid idea' and that this is possible. And click the link that I posted above. Do you see "Agreement length" there? Any problem with writing "Minimum term" on the tin instead?

Anoneemoose

grumbler wrote: »

Well, many insurances work exactly this way (unless you specifically opt-in for an automatic renewal). Some time before it expires customers get a reminder to renew it if they wish. Can you imagine "thousands of unhappy customers" that got 6 points and a fine for driving uninsured?
I guess sending a reminder would be even easier for a mobile provider.

How do PAYG customers survive? Is there any essential difference between, say, a 12-months' contract and a one-month bundle? How do customers with capped contracts survive when they reach the cap?

I am not saying that it has to be this way. My point is that this isn't a 'stupid idea' and that this is possible. And click the link that I posted above. Do you see "Agreement length" there? Any problem with writing "Minimum term" on the tin instead?

Although I agree with your sentiments, I think it is actually less hassle the way it is currently done. As D123 says, can you imagine the amount of peope saying they didn't receive the reminder to tell them to call to keep their number? It is my opinion that would be worse for a customer than failing to check how they cancel.

Also, in most cases, people do want to keep their number (whether on the same or another network), therefore it is necessary for there to be some form of continuation. If people's accounts were just stopped, it would mean they had to call in to get it reinstated, meaning more time queuing on the (already nightmareish) phone lines. Or they would have to put an automated system in place to reactivate. Bearing in mind although most transactions within the systems are immediate, it is still common practice to be told up to 24 hours for any changes to an account. I can just imagine all those people who were expecting to receive 'the most important phone call of their life' at the very moment their account is disconnected!

But I do see what you're saying!

d123

grumbler wrote: »

Well, many insurances work exactly this way (unless you specifically opt-in for an automatic renewal). Some time before it expires customers get a reminder to renew it if they wish. Can you imagine "thousands of unhappy customers" that got 6 points and a fine for driving uninsured?
I guess sending a reminder would be even easier for a mobile provider.

Car insurance is not a utility, the comparison would be landline, gas, electricity, broadband etc.

How many of those cut your supply off on the last day of the minimum term?


Also, car insurance is generally a fixed term contract £x for 12 months cover, which is renewed for a further 12 months on expiry if the customer requests it.

I think you are arguing just for the sake of it, Grumbles

Anoneemoose

Also, I think with PAYG and capped contracts, customers are aware of the limits and generally prepare for them. In my experience, most of those on minimum term contracts, expect to just be able to use them without thinking too much.

grumbler

d123 wrote: »

Car insurance is not a utility, the comparison would be landline, gas, electricity, broadband etc.

And? Does this make any real difference?

My PAYG phone stops working as soon as the balance gets zero. Why can a contract phone not stop working similarly giving me a choice between extending/changing the contract and cancelling it by doing nothing?

How many of those cut your supply off on the last day of the minimum term?

Well, if they don't, this doesn't mean that it is 'stupid' to do. And PAYG meters aren't uncommon in energy too.

Also, car insurance is generally a fixed term contract £x for 12 months cover, which is renewed for a further 12 months on expiry if the customer requests it.

Yes, but why is it 'stupid' for a mobile contract to be the same?

I think you are arguing just for the sake of it, Grumbles

No, I am arguing because I don't see anything 'stupid'.
If we get used to something, this doesn't mean that this is the only possible way and all alternatives are stupid. If you get used to something, it's wrong to assume that all other people think like you.

grumbler

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Also, in most cases, people do want to keep their number (whether on the same or another network), therefore it is necessary for there to be some form of continuation.

I don't see any problem.
Unless you make some arrangements, minimum term ends and service stops. Like with some PAYG, you have, say, 1 month, to do something - before you lose your number.

If people's accounts were just stopped, it would mean they had to call in to get it reinstated, meaning more time queuing on the (already nightmareish) phone lines.

Firstly, people can have choice between a fixed-term contract and open-ended (= auto-renewal to a 'rolling' contract). Secondly, most people will do this in advance - like we do with insurances.

macman

To state the obvious, the mobile networks clearly have no financial interest in promoting fixed term contracts, and there would be potential legal ramifications if people were disconnected at term-end ('I was never informed, didn't get the letter/text email, was disconnected, and then I missed that crucial call and now want £££ compo'...).
Cost would also go up, because every day they'd have to handle thousand of contract renewals.
That apart, what baffles me is why so many people still think that contracts are fixed term? They never have been, so it's not as though it's a legacy thing that people are still getting used to switching over from.

grumbler

macman wrote: »

To state the obvious, the mobile networks clearly have no financial interest in promoting fixed term contracts,

Absolutely, but they can just offer them, not 'promote'.

That apart, what baffles me is why so many people still think that contracts are fixed term? They never have been,

Because many people are new to mobile contracts and don't know/care about the history of mobiles industry. For many of them a mobile contract is their first ever 'utility' contract, and it's mainly mobile providers who are notorious for stubbornly keeping saying "agreement length" (and similar) instead of just clearly saying "minimum term" to avoid any possible confusion.

Silk

macman wrote: »

That apart, what baffles me is why so many people still think that contracts are fixed term? They never have been, so it's not as though it's a legacy thing that people are still getting used to switching over from.

I don't think it's that many to be honest.


If you look at the figures there's over 83 million mobile phone subscriptions in this country alone and 93% of the adult population have one.
The number of rants you see about it must be miniscule to the vast majority even if you say only a minor proportion complain about It IMO