Virgin cancellation charge

Supersaint13

One of my daughters has a contract with Virgin for broadband and TV.

She has just moved house, to an address where Virgin does not provide a service.

In spite of them not having coverage to my daughter's new house, they are insisting that she pays a contract cancellation charge of £240!! They have said to her that she shouldn't have moved house whilst she was in a contract with them......as if!!

Surely they cannot charge a cancellation charge for a service they cannot deliver? She would have been more than happy to stay with Virgin, and has with reluctance changed to Sky.

Any guidance / suggestions please?

Many thanks in advance

class2ldn

We had the same nothing you can do however I thought they had knocked this on the head because of complaints about it.

donnac2558

Some one else wrote this earlier this week in fact.
Same question comes up a few times a week. Same answer, you pay.

Not Virgin's fault you decide to move house to an area outside their services. You signed up for a set period you pay for that set period.

Supersaint13

Grossly unfair nevertheless.

You honestly believe that their are within their moral rights to charge for a service THEY cannot provide? It isn't as if she has decided to cancel for any other reason than moving house.

So glad I'm with Sky - they have their faults but nothing as ridiculous as this pure highway robbery.

System

Sky are the same. They would charge the cancellation fee if you moved to a house where you weren't allowed to have a dish. Happens all the time to people moving from one flat to another where the new flat doesn't have a dish and doesn't allow for one to be put up.

[Deleted User]

Supersaint13 wrote: »

Grossly unfair nevertheless.

You honestly believe that their are within their moral rights to charge for a service THEY cannot provide?

Moral rights have nothing to do with it. If Virgin had full coverage all over the country any customer moving would still be obliged to continue with their minimum term contract. It's a legally-binding contract, not a morally binding one!

Supersaint13 wrote: »

So glad I'm with Sky - they have their faults but nothing as ridiculous as this pure highway robbery.

if you move to a place that cannot receive Sky while in the minimum term then Sky will behave in exactly the same manner!!!!

The answer is to either not move while in a minimum term or simply not to subscribe if a move is imminent.

Early Termination of Contract (ETC) fees are universal across the industry.

JJ_Egan

Supersaint13 wrote: »

Grossly unfair nevertheless.

You honestly believe that their are within their moral rights to charge for a service THEY cannot provide? It isn't as if she has decided to cancel for any other reason than moving house.

So glad I'm with Sky - they have their faults but nothing as ridiculous as this pure highway robbery.

Most if not all ISPs charge if you break your contract .This question comes up weekly with the same answers .
They can provide the service as contracted to at the address .
Problem is that its the user who wants to stop the service not the ISP .
Suggest the user takes out a rolling 30 day contract in future as that only requires 30 days notice .

[Deleted User]

class2ldn wrote: »

I thought they had knocked this on the head because of complaints about it.

If they routinely let people leave earlier than the minimum term, that would significantly impact their bottom line.

Virgin have to re-coup their installation costs etc

So ETC fees aren't going away whoever complains...

[Deleted User]

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Suggest the user takes out a rolling 30 day contract in future as that only requires 30 days notice .

That isn't possible with Virgin or Sky?