EE contract termination

cricketfanatic

Hi, 
Has anyone had issues with terminating their EE mobile contract? 
My brother's contract was ending in May, so he rang them in April to say that he wanted to end the contract and not renew as he was going SIM only elsewhere.  He asked when he was paid up to etc, and asked EE to end from that date. They gave him some SIM only options to consider, but as they were much higher then other providers he didn't call them back about them.   He assumed that his contract had terminated on the original end date and cancelled his direct debit and got a SIM with a new provider.  However, it looks like EE didn't effect the termination, and he's now received two letters threatening to terminate his service and asking for money (looks like they are after x months charge, which has increased by one month between first and second letter).  He's not mobile or tech savvy, so is relying on speaking to the EE store staff to resolve this, but they dont seem interested .. 
Anyone know what his rights are? Can the original contact just be rolled on without him signing anything?  He hasn't used the EE after the date his last payment covered.  I'm worried that if this isn't resolved soon he'll rack up a big debt, and as he's a pensioner he can't afford that.  I live 100 miles away from him, so am only able to relay advice over the phone.
Thanks for any advice

eDicky

If your brother didn't specifically give notice of cancellation, as seems likely, the contract continues as before and the monthly charges are due. Cancelling the direct debit was a mistake, probably causing his credit files to be trashed.

The simple ways of terminating a mobile contract are outlined by Ofcom:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/switching/switching-mobile-phone-provider

King_Of_Fools

eDicky said:

If your brother didn't specifically give notice of cancellation, as seems likely, the contract continues as before and the monthly charges are due. Cancelling the direct debit was a mistake, probably causing his credit files to be trashed.

The simple ways of terminating a mobile contract are outlined by Ofcom:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/switching/switching-mobile-phone-provider

Yes, all contracts do the same. You have to ask for a PAC to port to another network or a STAC to not port the number.

cricketfanatic

King_Of_Fools said:

eDicky said:

If your brother didn't specifically give notice of cancellation, as seems likely, the contract continues as before and the monthly charges are due. Cancelling the direct debit was a mistake, probably causing his credit files to be trashed.

The simple ways of terminating a mobile 

Yes, all contracts do the same. You have to ask for a PAC to port to another network or a STAC to not port the number.

Thanks for the info.  I've never heard of a STAC, so I've learned something today! 
 He did ask for, and received, a PAC.  However, I don't think he tried to activate it to his new network until after 30 days, so I suspect it had expired.  That must then invalidate any request to terminate, and he didn't ask for a new PAC as he decided that he would just use the new number from the new provider.
What a mess.  Looks like he will have to pay the money then.  Seems odd that contracts just roll on, although that works in their favour.

southsidergs

The non use of the PAC explains it, clearly states the PAC has to be used before expiry otherwise the service continues

eDicky

cricketfanatic said:

King_Of_Fools said:

eDicky said:

If your brother didn't specifically give notice of cancellation, as seems likely, the contract continues as before and the monthly charges are due. Cancelling the direct debit was a mistake, probably causing his credit files to be trashed.

The simple ways of terminating a mobile 

Yes, all contracts do the same. You have to ask for a PAC to port to another network or a STAC to not port the number.

Seems odd that contracts just roll on, although that works in their favour.

It's not odd at all, when you consider the alternative - phone service suddenly terminated and number lost at the end of minimum contract term. Even if notified by the network a lot of people would neglect doing anything...

Neil_Jones

cricketfanatic said:

Seems odd that contracts just roll on, although that works in their favour.

Much like any other service the status quo is to assume you're already in it and you still want it, otherwise you'd opt out yourself.  No different to when your gas/electricity tariff expires, you don't get cut off on the end date, you just roll over onto some ridiculous rate instead.  When your car insurance period is due to run out and you do nothing, you don't lose the insurance, they'll just renew it for you due to the need for continuous insurance, but often at a higher premium.  When your Sky TV deal runs out it falls onto full price, but it doesn't stop.

jnm21

OP alas your brother will be best to pay ASAP & use a STAC (text STAC to 75075 from the EE SIM IIRC - Google "OFCOM text to switch" to confirm - EDIT Yep, see https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/text-to-switch-simple-to-switch-mobile-network) urgently to minimise.  The sooner he uses the STAC, the sooner the charges end.

I would firmly but politely pursue with EE - you are looking a goodwill gesture alas, but argument is he gave notice on X date, didn't realise asking for the PAC changed this & genuinely expected the contract to be cancelled (they will see the lack of use & one would hope that as a minimum they will remove the unpaid marks from his credit file as it was a genuine mistake).

I think that there is a big issue here - the flawed car insurance example is a good example of how the language suggests things work.  Car insurance is described as an annual contract & that is how it used to work - cover ceased after 12 months with no auto renewal.

This is how a mobile contract is described (whether it be 12m, 18m or 24m) - I said it just recently, that they are actually all 30-day rolling contracts, with various lengths of minimum term (30 day to 24 months).

Had the contract the OP's brother taken been described as "a 30-day rolling contract with a 24 month minimum term", he may just have avoided this hassle.