Contract min term ended long ago, O2 kept charging

mobilejunkie

I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't notice the direct debit going out for over 2 years has no grounds whatsoever for labelling the network "exploitative". Someone throwing mud and calling the other party names deserves the comments they've got.

NFH

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't notice the direct debit going out for over 2 years has no grounds whatsoever for labelling the network "exploitative".

You've missed the point; it's not about noticing direct debits. Although the OP was aware of the direct debits, he didn't realise that O2 was disingenuously taking this money partially to fund goods that had already been paid for in full.

The fact that O2 has since stopped doing this demonstrates that it was a disingenuous practice.

mobilejunkie

I don't think I missed the point. The OP is attacking the network when it was fully within their knowledge at every stage to cancel the contract. If they were aware of the direct debits going out (which beggars belief given their complaint) they were either completely negligent or knew the contract was continuing. What O2 now does on certain contracts was also attacked by MSE because of the way it affects their credit agreements - and is not necessarily a better scenario. Do O2 notify customers when their airtime element of a contract reaches its minimum term? As far as I've seen (and I stand to be corrected) all that happens is that at some point the handset cost or charge disappears and the tariff therefore reduces at some point part way through the contract.

grumbler

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.

mobilejunkie wrote: »

...anyone who doesn't notice the direct debit going out for over 2 years has no grounds whatsoever for labelling the network "exploitative". ...

NFH wrote: »

You've missed the point;....

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I don't think I missed the point.

You obviously did.

mobilejunkie wrote: »

...Do O2 notify customers when their airtime element of a contract reaches its minimum term? As far as I've seen (and I stand to be corrected) all that happens is that at some point the handset cost or charge disappears and the tariff therefore reduces at some point part way through the contract.

The OP's point was that the notification was needed for switching to a cheaper sim-only deal, not for cancelling the contract. For Refresh this switch is automatic, so no notification is needed.

mobilejunkie

The "switch" isn't exactly a switch and is on the same bundle though? If the bundle was too high why didn't they change it to a lower one or a new contract (whether sim only or not) rather than keep paying a higher amount than necessary? Any sensibile person would certainly have taken a look. This smacks of sour grapes because they now realise they don't need a higher bundle - over two years after the event.

NFH

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I don't think I missed the point. The OP is attacking the network when it was fully within their knowledge at every stage to cancel the contract. If they were aware of the direct debits going out (which beggars belief given their complaint) they were either completely negligent or knew the contract was continuing.

You've missed the point again. The OP has not said that he or his wife didn't notice the direct debits going out. That is not the point here. The point is he didn't realise for a long time that part of that monthly charge was disingenuously paying for goods that had already been funded in full. O2 should have dropped the price to service-only when the goods had been paid for. O2 has recently started getting this right for new customers and is the market leader in this respect. The OP is suggesting that O2 should retrospectively do so in his wife's case.

mobilejunkie

I don't agree. It was a contract with a set minimum term and the OP knew that and what that term was. When the minimum term was passed, they took over two years to do anything at all about it - whether that be changing the tariff, terminating the contract and/or going elsewhere.

NFH

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I don't agree. It was a contract with a set minimum term and the OP knew that and what that term was. When the minimum term was passed, they took over two years to do anything at all about it - whether that be changing the tariff, terminating the contract and/or going elsewhere.

You haven't explained why the OP's wife should be paying for a handset after she has paid for it. It was disingenuous of O2 to charge for goods that had already been paid for.

cookie365

She isn't continuing to pay for a handset. She's paying the monthly amount she agreed to pay every month.

NFH

cookie365 wrote: »

She isn't continuing to pay for a handset. She's paying the monthly amount she agreed to pay every month.

Wrong. The monthly charge did include a handset. When the handset had been paid for in full, the charge should have been adjusted accordingly to reflect this.