Contract min term ended long ago, O2 kept charging

Silk

NFH wrote: »

I agree with you, but phrases like "end of contract", "in contract" and "out of contract" are all commonly used in the industry to refer to whether or not the minimum contract period has finished. Even prepaid customers have a contract with the network, but nobody uses the term "contract" to describe it. Some people don't even use "contract" to describe a SIM-only contract. The term "contract" is most commonly used in the industry only to describe an ongoing obligation to buy the monthly service from the network, usually including a subsidised handset. Which are using industry terminology that everyone understands.

No I would disagree, a contract that has an end date is one that has a set period of duration.
The contract that the OP took out was a service contract, which rolls from month to month with a minimum period but no end unless ended by either party after minimum term.
Which using the term "end of contract" implies it was for a set duration rather than the reality of a rolling contract with an indefinite end date.

NFH wrote: »

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.

The problem is on paper the handset is free with the agreement that the "network" contract is paid for over a minimum term.
There is nothing in the paperwork that there is a purchase price for the phone or even that the phone is "sold" as such.
If the phone had been "sold" it would have been subject to purchase agreement like HP etc.

grumbler

Silk wrote: »

No I would disagree, a contract that has an end date is one that has a set period of duration.
The contract that the OP took out was a service contract, which rolls from month to month with a minimum period but no end unless ended by either party after minimum term.
Which using the term "end of contract" implies it was for a set duration rather than the reality of a rolling contract with an indefinite end date.

Although agreeing/disagreeing on this particular point/term is absolutely OOT, I don't understand what you disagree with. The common terms used by the 'industry' are (copied directly from their websites):

24 month plan

Length - 24 months, 24 month agreement
Bundle: 24 months , 1000 mins, unlimited texts, 1 GB

24 month contract; Contract length: 24 month contract

One has either to know that this implies minimum term in fact or read the small print to realise this.

The problem is on paper the handset is free with the agreement that the "network" contract is paid for over a minimum term.
There is nothing in the paperwork that there is a purchase price for the phone or even that the phone is "sold" as such.

OOT again.

"on paper" means legalities.

The OP made it clear: "Legally, that's obvious. Morally, it's the opposite."

NFH

Silk wrote: »

The problem is on paper the handset is free with the agreement that the "network" contract is paid for over a minimum term.

Free? Not at all unless you could receive it without any payment and without purchase of anything else such as a service. I refer you to Schedule 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The goods were supplied under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which covers goods that are supplied in conjunction with a service.

Naf

NFH wrote: »

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.

NFH wrote: »

Free? Not at all unless you could receive it without any payment and without purchase of anything else such as a service. I refer you to Schedule 1 Regulation 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The goods were supplied under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which covers goods that are supplied in conjunction with a service.

On paper, as I have previously pointed out, there is no charge allocated for payment towards the handset. The agreement is for the supply of an agreed monthly usage and a handset. The customer is able to continue to use that handset and usage allowance for as long as they want, but at least for the minimum term. So although the handset is not free in the conventional sense, there's no point at which you have paid it off, as it forms part of the agreed service. This is on paper, moralities aside.
The fact that after the minimum term the customer can choose to use the same handset, and find themselves a cheaper deal doesn't alter the original contract which remains in force until the customer cancels it; that the network still provides the monthly allowance, and provided the phone as agreed.

NFH

Naf has put this in the best possible way in O2's favour - a well-reasoned post. Nevertheless I believe that the arguments in the OP's favour have more merit. That's why O2 has changed its policies in this regard.

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

Although agreeing/disagreeing on this particular point/term is absolutely OOT, I don't understand what you disagree with. The common terms used by the 'industry' are (copied directly from their websites):

You've just included my quote with what I was disagreeing with ...

Which using the term "end of contract" implies it was for a set duration rather than the reality of a rolling contract with an indefinite end date.

It refers to the point of Which saying "We’re calling on mobile companies to notify you a month before your contracts ends"
It's misleading from someone who is supposed to be advising consumers, because as we all know contracts don't end they reach minimum term, they are not fixed term.

grumbler wrote: »

24 month plan

Length - 24 months, 24 month agreement
Bundle: 24 months , 1000 mins, unlimited texts, 1 GB

24 month contract; Contract length: 24 month contract

One has either to know that this implies minimum term in fact or read the small print to realise this.

So lets take the OP's case and they think the contract just ends after 24 months.
It seems it didn't end because they were able to carry on making calls sending texts etc for two years, so what did they think was happening ?


Lets say they thought the payments reduced after the 24 months ....well that didn't happen because the payments kept coming out at the same price for 2 years, so if they thought it reduced why didn't they contest it ?


At the end of the day they took out an 18 month contract and carried on with it, without question, for three and a half years !
Hardly a fault of the network if that's what they choose to do.

mobilejunkie

NFH wrote: »

Naf has put this in the best possible way in O2's favour - a well-reasoned post. Nevertheless I believe that the arguments in the OP's favour have more merit. That's why O2 has changed its policies in this regard.

If you can read an organisation's mind you are unique.

If I could read O2's mind I'd say they changed their policies because it means they make more profit and dress it up as somehow to the customers' benefit. But then, I'm NOT clairvoyant...

NFH

mobilejunkie wrote: »

If I could read O2's mind I'd say they changed their policies because it means they make more profit and dress it up as somehow to the customers' benefit.

They did this so that consumers would see that O2 is fairer to its customers than the competition. Yes, this does result in more profit because it attracts customers.

mobilejunkie

I see. So they are altruistic and not mercenary. Hmmm......

I won't presume to know their true motives, even though you claim to.

Naf

NFH wrote: »

Naf has put this in the best possible way in O2's favour - a well-reasoned post. Nevertheless I believe that the arguments in the OP's favour have more merit. That's why O2 has changed its policies in this regard.

I disagree as to their reasoning; I think they've done it just to get customers or keep customers.
Back when I worked mobile phone sales (only about 8 years ago) it was genuinely cheaper to get your phone with the contract than it was to buy a phone and stay PAYG. SIM only deals didn't exist as far as I know, and so your standard £35 a month contract came with a phone. It just did. You might get better deals (cash back, or lower up-front costs on very cheap tarrifs which would usually charge for a good handset as the line rental was so cheap) for taking less popular/older handsets - but a contract meant getting a new handset. In a way, the networks tacitly accepted some kind of "paying off point" for the handset - as you were able to reduce your tariff after a certain length of your minimum term. The specifics varied by network and deal, and it wasn't always made clear to the customer (probably never until Phones 4U came along), but it was there.
Fast forward a couple of years, and its no longer cheaper to get a phone on contract - instead the reason for the contract (from the consumer perspective) is because you can't afford the over-inflated handset price up front. But technically its now often cheaper to buy the phone outright and stay PAYG or SIM only.
Because of this shift, consumers now perceive a point at which the phone is "paid off" - i.e. the time when they hit the point that the difference between their tariff and the equivalent SIM only one has exceeded the cost of the handset. O2 have just recognised this public perception (which I agree is morally the right one), and decided that they can get more customers to join/stay by exploiting it.