Five major events set to impact your personal finances in 2022

Section62

Deleted User said:

Why should they shuffle the cost onto non-roamers? They've clearly done the maths regarding their fees; remember that roaming isn't a core service and can be deactivated.

Ok, so you are now agreeing that it is a commercial decision to reintroduce these charges, rather than something the companies "have to" do?

It's absolutely fine if the companies have decided to pass on any additional costs they might have in a way that they determine (on a commercial basis) within the regulatory framework they operate in.

But please don't pretend the companies have no option but to do this.

Deleted User said:

You clearly have a poor grasp of contract law;

It didn't take long for you to move on to the ad homs....

Deleted User said:

if you didn't you'd realise why they phase new charges in on fix priced contracts.

....but although I'll happily confess that I'm no expert on consumer law, I've not yet come across a consumer contract which didn't give the company rights to vary the terms or charges in some way, or in extremis to terminate the contract, except in cases where they are prohibited from doing so by regulation (e.g. domestic energy contract SVR/capping).

So if the increased costs (the "allow you to use the local EU/EEA network are no longer regulated" bit) you claim the companies now face are so high the companies need or "have" to pass them on to the consumer directly, then I'd be very surprised if any mobile contracts aren't constructed in a way which allows the company to do so, or to withdraw the service.

If you have an example of one of these "fix price contracts" which you believe doesn't allow either price changes, or withdrawal of service, then please share.  I'll attempt to use my limited knowledge of consumer law to see if I can find the company's 'get out of jail' clause for you.

The issue here is whether the mobile companies have seen an opportunity to increase their charges and made a commercial decision to do so, or if they have had no option but to do so.  As yet nobody has presented convincing evidence of the latter, despite their claims.

Thrugelmir

Seems as if the freezing of personal tax allowances has been missed off the list. 

[Deleted User]

Section62 said:

Deleted User said:

Why should they shuffle the cost onto non-roamers? They've clearly done the maths regarding their fees; remember that roaming isn't a core service and can be deactivated.

Ok, so you are now agreeing that it is a commercial decision to reintroduce these charges, rather than something the companies "have to" do?

It's absolutely fine if the companies have decided to pass on any additional costs they might have in a way that they determine (on a commercial basis) within the regulatory framework they operate in.

But please don't pretend the companies have no option but to do this.

Deleted User said:

You clearly have a poor grasp of contract law;

It didn't take long for you to move on to the ad homs....

Deleted User said:

if you didn't you'd realise why they phase new charges in on fix priced contracts.

....but although I'll happily confess that I'm no expert on consumer law, I've not yet come across a consumer contract which didn't give the company rights to vary the terms or charges in some way, or in extremis to terminate the contract, except in cases where they are prohibited from doing so by regulation (e.g. domestic energy contract SVR/capping).

So if the increased costs (the "allow you to use the local EU/EEA network are no longer regulated" bit) you claim the companies now face are so high the companies need or "have" to pass them on to the consumer directly, then I'd be very surprised if any mobile contracts aren't constructed in a way which allows the company to do so, or to withdraw the service.

If you have an example of one of these "fix price contracts" which you believe doesn't allow either price changes, or withdrawal of service, then please share.  I'll attempt to use my limited knowledge of consumer law to see if I can find the company's 'get out of jail' clause for you.

The issue here is whether the mobile companies have seen an opportunity to increase their charges and made a commercial decision to do so, or if they have had no option but to do so.  As yet nobody has presented convincing evidence of the latter, despite their claims.

They can't and are no longer obligated to provide it on the same terms as before as the local EU/EEA networks are now no longer obligated to cap their prices; plain and simple.

kaMelo

Deleted User said:

Section62 said:

Deleted User said:

Why should they shuffle the cost onto non-roamers? They've clearly done the maths regarding their fees; remember that roaming isn't a core service and can be deactivated.

Ok, so you are now agreeing that it is a commercial decision to reintroduce these charges, rather than something the companies "have to" do?

It's absolutely fine if the companies have decided to pass on any additional costs they might have in a way that they determine (on a commercial basis) within the regulatory framework they operate in.

But please don't pretend the companies have no option but to do this.

Deleted User said:

You clearly have a poor grasp of contract law;

It didn't take long for you to move on to the ad homs....

Deleted User said:

if you didn't you'd realise why they phase new charges in on fix priced contracts.

....but although I'll happily confess that I'm no expert on consumer law, I've not yet come across a consumer contract which didn't give the company rights to vary the terms or charges in some way, or in extremis to terminate the contract, except in cases where they are prohibited from doing so by regulation (e.g. domestic energy contract SVR/capping).

So if the increased costs (the "allow you to use the local EU/EEA network are no longer regulated" bit) you claim the companies now face are so high the companies need or "have" to pass them on to the consumer directly, then I'd be very surprised if any mobile contracts aren't constructed in a way which allows the company to do so, or to withdraw the service.

If you have an example of one of these "fix price contracts" which you believe doesn't allow either price changes, or withdrawal of service, then please share.  I'll attempt to use my limited knowledge of consumer law to see if I can find the company's 'get out of jail' clause for you.

The issue here is whether the mobile companies have seen an opportunity to increase their charges and made a commercial decision to do so, or if they have had no option but to do so.  As yet nobody has presented convincing evidence of the latter, despite their claims.

They can't provide it on the same terms as before as the local EU/EEA networks are now no longer obligated to cap their prices.

The UK network can introduce charges & vary the pricing terms of existing consumers ; but the consumer will correspondingly be able to exit the contract early whilst retaining a subsidised handset -  so they either take the hit with absorbing non-capped roaming fees until the expected end of minimum term or the hit on the handset.

A contract doesn't automatically end post minimum term, it's a rolling contract that's why the roaming fees will only apply to contracts taken out after a certain date. Contracts still running from before that date will not have roaming fees added to them irrespective of whether they are within a minimum term or not.

What I'm amazed at with this thread is two things,
1. Some people are still whining over Brexit and never cease to bring it up no matter what the subject.
2. Roaming charges sitting at No.1 in the list. £2 a day is not "significant impact" In terms of impact it will barely make the top 100.

Rollinghome

IanManc said:
Maybe after five years its time for you to stop grieving.

We were 47 years in the EU and EC and Farage and his ilk never did get over that.  So 5 years after an action that even Cummins now concedes may turn out to have been a mistake isn't so much. Obviously, many of those who voted for it will take far longer to admit to their gullibility. 

But as the younger generation takes control while the oldies make their exit, they'll have their chance to reconsider and reverse our position and the even younger generation may wonder what on earth their grandparents were thinking.

kaMelo

Rollinghome said:

IanManc said:
Maybe after five years its time for you to stop grieving.

We were 47 years in the EU and EC and Farage and his ilk never did get over that.  So 5 years after an action that even Cummins now concedes may turn out to have been a mistake isn't so much. Obviously, many of those who voted for it will take far longer to admit to their gullibility. 

But as the younger generation takes control while the oldies make their exit, they'll have their chance to reconsider and reverse our position and the even younger generation may wonder what on earth their grandparents were thinking.

As every new generation has done since time immemorial. This generation is no different.

IAMIAM

I definitely see the impact of energy.
My bills are now circa £125 a month and used to be £60 a month with Avro, now on Avro Flexible with Octopus. 
I am hoping the interest rate rise is slow, as I only fixed for 2 years and 100% contemplate fixing for 5 years at the end of 2022

born_again

kaMelo said:

What I'm amazed at with this thread is two things,
1. Some people are still whining over Brexit and never cease to bring it up no matter what the subject.
2. Roaming charges sitting at No.1 in the list. £2 a day is not "significant impact" In terms of impact it will barely make the top 100.

1. Truth at last.

2. If you can afford to go abroad for a holiday, then roaming charges are not a issue.. If they are then stay in the UK 👍