New - to me - Terms & Conditions

polymaff

From TOTO T & Cs

9.3 Paying by direct debit means:
...
...
...
9.3.8 Where you are the sole adult occupant of the property you are not of pensionable age.

So, being a pensioner, the terms of the contract are broken if my wife dies? What does it mean? Is it legal?

Is this a common requirement in modern-day T & Cs?

System

Considering they let the lawyers loose - as they put it - they really haven’t done a very good job. I haven’t seen this type of condition in an energy contract before: whether it is legal or not is up to a Court to decide. I cannot see how a death would breach the existing contract: whether Toto would allow you to take out another fixed term contract is another matter.

On a practical level, how will Toto ever find out? If you, or your spouse, continue to pay them then they will just continue to supply.

footyguy

polymaff wrote: »

From TOTO T & Cs

9.3 Paying by direct debit means:
...
...
...
9.3.8 Where you are the sole adult occupant of the property you are not of pensionable age.

So, being a pensioner, the terms of the contract are broken if my wife dies? What does it mean? Is it legal?

Is this a common requirement in modern-day T & Cs?

Section 9.1 offers 4 different forms of payment.

Why would you think the term is illegal? Which statute do you think it may contravene?

Every supplier has their own version of their terms and conditions.

System

footyguy wrote: »

Section 9.1 offers 4 different forms of payment.

Why would you think the term is illegal? Which statute do you think it may contravene?

Every supplier has their own version of their terms and conditions.

The potential issue here, I think, is:

The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012 and it is now unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age unless:

the practice is covered by an exception from the ban

good reason can be shown for the differential treatment (‘objective justification’)

For example, it might be legally justifiable to discriminate on the basis of income but not on age.

As Toto are not asking for proof of age or income on sign up, it is, in my opinion, a pretty short-sighted contract provision that could put off many pensioners from switching to them.

polymaff

Hengus wrote: »

The potential issue here, I think, is:

The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012 and it is now unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age unless:

the practice is covered by an exception from the ban

good reason can be shown for the differential treatment (‘objective justification’)

For example, it might be legally justifiable to discriminate on the basis of income but not on age.

Thanks, Hengus, exactly my point.

Hengus wrote: »

As Toto are not asking for proof of age or income on sign up, it is, in my opinion, a pretty short-sighted contract provision that could put off many pensioners from switching to them.

They did ask for my date of birth

System

polymaff wrote: »

Thanks, Hengus, exactly my point.

They did ask for my date of birth

I would like to think that is more to do with a listing on the Priority Services Register and nothing to do with a consumer's ability to pay.

polymaff

It also seems odd that this is a T&C stated as part of the conditions for paying by what they call a Standard Direct Debit

That's as against paying by what they call a Flexi-Save Direct Debit.

A what?