ASA Slams Virgin Media For 2 Misleading Ads.

oldharryrocks

Thee Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has announced that it has upheld two complaints regarding adverts for Virgin Media's broadband services.

Both complaints came from customers claiming they had signed up to Virgin's 12-month broadband contract, only to be told they would face an increase in their monthly charge, before their minimum term was over.



http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2015/07/asa_slams_virgin_media_for_mid_contract_price_hikes/

visidigi

oldharryrocks wrote: »

Thee Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has announced that it has upheld two complaints regarding adverts for Virgin Media's broadband services.

Both complaints came from customers claiming they had signed up to Virgin's 12-month broadband contract, only to be told they would face an increase in their monthly charge, before their minimum term was over.



http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2015/07/asa_slams_virgin_media_for_mid_contract_price_hikes/

Nothing new, they all do it.

And 'slammed' is very Daily Mail.

VisionMan

Everyones adverts have been slammed and pulled over recent years.

Nothing new here.

niftyone

Even if the pair of you are not interested others might be. I was.....

Buzby

Only someone with unreasonable expectations would think a service contract locks in a price for the minimum term. It doesn't - and the ASA trying to say it should simply enforces the misunderstanding.

A minimum term is just that - it is not a fixed price or fixed term contract either. It will run until you cancel it. The terms of service do state price rises may occur, but if it is in excess of 10% you have a right (as a consumer) to seek a no blame termination. However, as the competing service is usually instep with the increases, theres untimately no benefit.

Do remember, the ASA has a track record for nonsensical decisions - like allowing firms to advertise 'fibre' connections when the customer only gets copper... god knows what they'll do when fibre is really provided!

cajef

Buzby wrote: »

- like allowing firms to advertise 'fibre' connections when the customer only gets copper... god knows what they'll do when fibre is really provided!

Once again as you have been told many times you choose to ignore the fact that there are two kinds of fibre connection FTTC and FTTP, in the area I live in many people are getting FTTP including me for nearly two years now.

Maybe if you differentiated between the two in your posts your statements about fibre provision in the UK would be correct, but do not make it appear with misleading statements that no one gets fibre direct to their premises.

kwikbreaks

A VM price hike is often a blessing in disguise. They always include the "you can cancel within 30days" bit at the bottom and if you call in to do that you can often blag a deal cheaper than you were on before the hike. I've done that several times. I eventually got sick of the frequency I had to do that after the third smallish increment in less than 6 months and actually did move on. I suspect that the majority CBA to phone in every time and end up paying considerably more than new customers and more than they actually need to.

LazyTyper

Buzby wrote: »

Only someone with unreasonable expectations would think a service contract locks in a price for the minimum term. It doesn't - and the ASA trying to say it should simply enforces the misunderstanding.

A minimum term is just that - it is not a fixed price or fixed term contract either. It will run until you cancel it. The terms of service do state price rises may occur, but if it is in excess of 10% you have a right (as a consumer) to seek a no blame termination. However, as the competing service is usually instep with the increases, theres untimately no benefit.

I don't think it is unreasonable for any consumer to expect their price to be fixed for their minimum contract term. If someone signs up for 18 months then it is fair to expect the price to remain as agreed at the start of the minimum term. Out with the minimum term yes, prices can go up, unless signed up for another 12/18/24 months or whatever. But one can only dream of such a day.

Did anyone ever manage to successfully use the "material detriment" reason to avoid the price increase if the rise wasn't great than the RPI?

Ofcom did try with their "fixed means fixed" but rushed it out with a big loophole.... most providers now state they WILL increase the monthly price annually.

The get-out clause is generally if the annual price increase is more than the RPI then you can get out penalty free (and get a refund on Line Rental Saver... with a bit of arm twisting needed).