Orange/ee withdrawing my free monthly tariff and replacing with paid tariff

boatman

d123 wrote: »

That's a pretty stupid statement and analogy. Since when did National Trust sell products using the Orange terms and conditions?

Why do you find it so difficult to understand that Orange never sold OVP Virgin as a lifetime product?

I've even linked to the T&C's above, if you would only make the effort to read them...

I would say 'What's stupid is to not understand I'm using analogy', but that would be sinking to your sometimes rude and abrupt style.:rotfl:

mobilejunkie

boatman wrote: »

No one knows, including you, so why comment?
Its not 'my account', its the op's.

If the op feels it's a lifetime tariff, then I don't think he should just accept that it is being shutdown. Time and again it's being shown that particularly mobile companies think they can do what they like.

It was you who stated "by all accounts" ignoring the facts in in contradiction to other peoples' views.

The OP doesn't have tro accept it. They can find and (this time - 20 years later) actually read what they committed to or rant, rave and accuse (as you are) the network of acting unfairly as some sort of pantomine villain.

In the ludicrous comparison to the National Trust, perhaps you should read the t&c of their lifetime contracts. What has that to do with an entirely different contract with an entirely different product?

boatman

mobilejunkie wrote: »

It was you who stated "by all accounts" ignoring the facts in in contradiction to other peoples' views.

The op doesn't like what Orange are doing, its his account, no one else.

In the ludicrous comparison to the National Trust, perhaps you should read the t&c of their lifetime contracts. What has that to do with an entirely different contract with an entirely different product?

Be it a phone contract or the National trust, they are still governed by the same law, so perfectly comparable.

boatman

d123 wrote: »

If someone made a stupid comment or analogy you wouldn't feel it was appropriate to say "that's a stupid analogy/comment" and explain why? Seriously?

I would do it in a polite way.

As I've said (more than once):
1)I am also an OVP Virgin customer
2)I've had it since it's inception (so around 2004)
3)When I worked in mobile phone retail we used to sell OVP contract and no POS material that I saw said it was a lifetime deal
4)I have posted the relevant term from the Orange T&C's
5)I have even posted a link to the full T&C's

and you'll keep arguing because "the op feels it's a lifetime deal"? Or brought up "but the National Trust sells lifetime memberships".

You can't see the stupidity in those arguments?

If you think I'm wrong (and who knows, it can happen) then post proof via a link to show where Orange promised this was a lifetime deal, I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong, as I can then probably also negotiate a much better deal when Orange eventually contact me to give me termination notice.

We still don't know if its OVP, however many times you mention it.

d123

boatman wrote: »

We still don't know if its OVP, however many times you mention it.

So you haven't even read the OP properly then?

nickwar wrote: »

I have retained the numbers for which are on a Orange Virgin EQ tariff.

Orange Virgin EQ tariff is another name for OVP Virgin, you don't even know that and you want to argue the terms involved?

:rotfl:

mobilejunkie

boatman wrote: »

The op doesn't like what Orange are doing, its his account, no one else.

Except that they asked for opinions and you clearly gave yours:-

If the op feels it's a lifetime tariff, then I don't think he should just accept that it is being shutdown. Time and again it's being shown that particularly mobile companies think they can do what they like.

As for the law - it is. That means they have unique t&c that apply to those contracts. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the law in general and a contract in particular. Perhaps you think you can compare anything to anything.

Be it a phone contract or the National trust, they are still governed by the same law, so perfectly comparable.

boatman

d123 wrote: »

So you haven't even read the OP properly then?

I have, but EQ could mean anything. You've only just mentioned that EQ is the same as ovp, could have been a spelling mistake.

boatman

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Except that they asked for opinions and you clearly gave yours:-

Makes no sense, the op gave his account, that was the account I referred to.

As for the law - it is. That means they have unique t&c that apply to those contracts. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the law in general and a contract in particular. Perhaps you think you can say anything

Ultimately it still comes back to the law, you can say what you like in a contract, but makes no difference if it doesn't comply with the law. So I'll say again, it's a perfectly good analogy, it's a contract which needs to comply with law.

d123

boatman wrote: »

I have, but EQ could mean anything. You've only just mentioned that EQ is the same as ovp, could have been a spelling mistake.

I think the others who answered presumed people would have some basic knowledge of what they were talking about before posting (I know I did).

OVP Virgin plan = Orange Value Promise Virgin plan

also known as

Orange Virgin EQ Plan = Orange Virgin Equivalent plan

d123

boatman wrote: »

Makes no sense, the op gave his account, that was the account I referred to.


Ultimately it still comes back to the law, you can say what you like in a contract, but makes no difference if it doesn't comply with the law. So I'll say again, it's a perfectly good analogy, it's a contract which needs to comply with law.

So exactly how doesn't it comply with the law?

You've made that claim more than once without any facts to back up your claim.

It just seems like you like arguing from a position of ignorance, that can't be right, surely?