Cancellation charges of a deceased

Topcat2007

My husband is the Executor of his friend's estate. He has contacted Zen to cancel the landline & internet service, but they want to charge a hefty cancellation fee for early termination. There is no possibility of the service continuing as there was a fire in the house.We can provide a death certificate but they didn't want it. Can they do this? I have looked at Zen's T&Cs but there is no mention of this situation. Thank you.

ChiefGrasscutter

The contract will become null and void upon death, so I'd go back and "explain this" to them.

Topcat2007

We did try that - but because my husband said he had to get it all sorted out for Probate, they said there was obviously some money in the estate and we would have to pay! Money grabbing whatsits!

We have asked the bank to hold all DDs, but they still want their money.

Marktheshark

Tell them to GET ******
A service contract expires on death.

Ignore them.

DigForVictory

They want money, for not providing a service (as fire), to a dead person?!

Hullo, trading standards & the local media...
A poignant tweet might work better & be more controllable though?

macman

The contract became null and void upon death, it's not clear from your post if the death resulted from a fire?
If a fire resulted in death at a later date, then that is the date the contract ceased-not the date of the fire, even if the house was destroyed.

Mr_Lawnmower

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

The contract will become null and void upon death, so I'd go back and "explain this" to them.

There is no general rule in the law of England and Wales that contracts are void on the death of a party. The service can still be performed even though one party is deceased, so it is very unlikely that the death terminates the contract by frustration. I haven't thought it through in detail, but think it is unlikely that the fire frustrates the contract, as it would be relatively straightforward for Zen to restore working service to the site. The pointlessness of restoring service seems likely to be immaterial.


If there was any insurance covering fire, check to see if that covers termination of unusable utilities. If so, leave the matter in the hands of the insurer.

If there is no relevant insurance cover it's a case of checking for specific terms in the contract relating to death. If there are no termination rights in the contract, it will be necessary to negotiate early termination with Zen. It is probably worth reaching out to Zen in the hope that they will waive part or all of the termination charge in these sad circumstances, but that is at their discretion and cannot be obtained by asserting purported legal rights that do not exist.

I'm struggling to think of any scenario where the estate can simply walk away without resolving the matter. Cancelling the direct debit and doing nothing could lead to action being taken against the estate, which will just make the executor's life more difficult.

skintpaul

I would lodge a formal complaint.

If that fails, or even as a double whammy, ask them to explain their 'deceased person cancellation' fee on a public forum, such as twitter, facebook etc,, with hashtag #ripoff - the public will soon change their mind..

I once worked for a telephone co, and we wouldn't dream of adding cancel charges to a deceased person's account.

In normal circumstances (ie, customer still alive), if someone cancelled during normal term of contract, the ISP are ALLOWED to ask for remaining months to be paid up, but it is a discretionary charge..

Mr_Lawnmower

skintpaul wrote: »

I once worked for a telephone co, and we wouldn't dream of adding cancel charges to a deceased person's account.

In normal circumstances (ie, customer still alive), if someone cancelled during normal term of contract, the ISP are ALLOWED to ask for remaining months to be paid up, but it is a discretionary charge..

The ISP has the right to hold the customer to performing their obligations in full, including the right to pursue the customer in the courts for breach of contract if the customer fails to perform in full. The ISP can agree to vary the terms of the contract in a way that releases the customer from all or part of their remaining obligations, but the customer cannot insist on variation.

In other words, early termination arrangements that are not in the terms of the contract are at the ISP's discretion, but the starting position is that the customer must fulfil their obligations in full.


Cautious use of public pressure may well result in a more sensitive approach being taken in this case, but that is at the ISP's discretion. What is reasonable depends on all the circumstances, including whether an insurer is liable for early termination charges following the fire and death.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Mr_Lawnmower wrote: »

The ISP has the right to hold the customer to performing their obligations in full, including the right to pursue the customer in the courts for breach of contract if the customer fails to perform in full. The ISP can agree to vary the terms of the contract in a way that releases the customer from all or part of their remaining obligations, but the customer cannot insist on variation.

In other words, early termination arrangements that are not in the terms of the contract are at the ISP's discretion, but the starting position is that the customer must fulfil their obligations in full.


Cautious use of public pressure may well result in a more sensitive approach being taken in this case, but that is at the ISP's discretion. What is reasonable depends on all the circumstances, including whether an insurer is liable for early termination charges following the fire and death.

The problem with your argument is that the customer is no longer around. He is deceased.

The ISP could, I suppose, sue the Executor of the estate, but all the executor has to do is resign to make any writ null and void, and appoint another one. This could go on ad infinitum or until the ISP gets fed up with paying out for court writs.

System

The ISP could sue using the name of the deceased and the resulting costs would fall upon the estate.

The alternative is that this is a debt upon the estate and if the executor failed to deal with it before the estate was signed off then that executor is liable.