Contract min term ended long ago, O2 kept charging

macman

Presumably you would also like o2 to come round and put it on charge for you when the battery goes flat as well?

20aday

OP I can appreciate you and your OH feel aggrieved at being charged £500 over the last two years after her minimum term with o2 expired however the onus would be on your OH to either upgrade the handset at the time of renewal, switch to SIMO or end the agreement as per the terms and conditions.

I'm guessing your OH is still with o2? If so maybe it's time to cancel said airtime agreement!

Kernel_Sanders

macman wrote: »

So you'd prefer that the phone co. just disconnected the phone at the end of the minimum term?

If that had been the case, then the OP would have been on here complaining that her service had been suddenly terminated without notice, because she forgot to ring up and get the contracted extended.

Whumpie

Wow. Thanks - really useful; so much information I didn't have before!

Did you spot the subtle sarcasm there?

Now, if you'd like to try again to get the point...

If O2 (insert any mobile company there; I suspect they are all the same) were a company that gave a stuff about customers (some companies do, believe it or not) then they would have contacted her to tell her the minimum term was ending. That's just basic customer service.

If they were a company that gave a stuff about customers they would have had their current product approach years ago; there was nothing stopping them. The fact that they can promote it now as a 'benefit' just shows how bad things are.

Companies do not have carte blanche to do the legal minimum. The deal is supposed to be that they offer the best possible deal and service for the best price. They are not supposed to aim to make their customers waste their money.

The market has failed here - and always does with mobile providers. The theory is that the company that offers these simple advantages on their products gets more business. The truth is that none do so that they can all get away with being just that bit more !!!!! to their customers. You find the same with banks, and you do wonder if they get together once in a while to ensure a consistent level of !!!!!ness.

You can be as self-rightious as you like; if you accept that kind of crap from your suppliers then more fool you. Perhaps if you were less willing to take it and fought back now and again we may all get better treatment.

Yes, my other half has been daft. But don't pretend the company has no part in it; that's just massively naive. Other industries are held to account and don't get away with this stuff; I suggest that the high horses are stabled while you ask yourselves why this forum is full of complaints. It's because you lot just take the bad treatment because "it's legal".

Rant over.

Rev

Whumpie wrote: »

Wow. Thanks - really useful; so much information I didn't have before!

Did you spot the subtle sarcasm there?

Now, if you'd like to try again to get the point...

If O2 (insert any mobile company there; I suspect they are all the same) were a company that gave a stuff about customers (some companies do, believe it or not) then they would have contacted her to tell her the minimum term was ending. That's just basic customer service.

If they were a company that gave a stuff about customers they would have had their current product approach years ago; there was nothing stopping them. The fact that they can promote it now as a 'benefit' just shows how bad things are.

Companies do not have carte blanche to do the legal minimum. The deal is supposed to be that they offer the best possible deal and service for the best price. They are not supposed to aim to make their customers waste their money.

The market has failed here - and always does with mobile providers. The theory is that the company that offers these simple advantages on their products gets more business. The truth is that none do so that they can all get away with being just that bit more !!!!! to their customers. You find the same with banks, and you do wonder if they get together once in a while to ensure a consistent level of !!!!!ness.

You can be as self-rightious as you like; if you accept that kind of crap from your suppliers then more fool you. Perhaps if you were less willing to take it and fought back now and again we may all get better treatment.

Yes, my other half has been daft. But don't pretend the company has no part in it; that's just massively naive. Other industries are held to account and don't get away with this stuff; I suggest that the high horses are stabled while you ask yourselves why this forum is full of complaints. It's because you lot just take the bad treatment because "it's legal".

Rant over.

Name one single service provider who calls at the end of the minimum term to tell you you can now start to pay them less money if you'd like?

Silk

Whumpie wrote: »

The 18-month minimum term on my wife's contract with O2, it has turned out, expired over two years ago. Since then she's been paying the £35 a month that included paying for the phone. that means she's paid £500 over the odds since then when she should have switched to SIM Only.

How come, when you took the contract out, neither you nor your wife understood what happens after the minimum term?
Did you not think to ask ?

mobilejunkie

Networks and dealers get away with nothing with me. That's because I take care to understand exactly what I'm signing up to and my obligations and ensure I do what I need to do to ensure I meet them.

That's the way it is and always will be - and I'm not at all sure their "current product" is a better way - there is even more downside to that.

Maybe you should get a personal bank manager to watch the bank account transactions and check that everything you do is as you intended?

It's absolutely laughable to blame the network for not checking your bank statement in over two YEARS.

redux

Mobile phone contracts have been like this for 30 years.

But I doubt that there is anyone still on a deal that old.

mobilejunkie

Unless they don't check their bank statements...

19lottie82

You can't take a provider to court because you don't agree with their morals, I'm afraid.

Legally, everything is in the T&Cs that you agreed to.

Of course you have the free right to challenge 02 if you wish, but will you get your desired outcome? I doubt it very much. in fact I'll bet my house on it. Sorry.