EE Treating Customers as Fair Game

MOgilby

Just in relation to the zero tolerance, smug, self righteous replies. A quick Google search reveals my situation is a widespread "issue" with numerous articles about the same. Yes, it was an oversight on my part, but I don't expect a company to take advantage and shaft me for it. 

MOgilby

MOgilby said:

eDicky said:

MOgilby said:

I've also just found out the reminder that their contracts were coming to an end, was sent to THEIR phones and being kids they of course didn't know the significance.

Where would you expect the reminder to be sent to, other than the relevant phone number? The agreed contract continues as before until cancelled or ported away from, as is usual, your being unaware of that is hardly EE's responsibility.

I would expect it to be sent to me, the bill payer.

I disagree, it is partially EEs responsibility to not have bad behaviour baked into their contract. If having my legs broken after 24 months was in the T&Cs and I didn't realise and agreed, would you think that's OK? 

MOgilby

So by your logic, no matter what is the T&Cs, no matter how unethical, the company bears no responsibility whatsoever if the customer agrees unwittingly, even if there's something really terrible in there. Take my other example I gave, if my legs were to be broken or my bank account was to be emptied, that's OK in your book. Weird take.

Obewan_2

Not EEs fault. It is up to us to keep track of things. Good news you can leave them now. Check all you other subscriptions in case they don't tell you either 

MOgilby

Neil_Jones said:

MOgilby said:

Neil_Jones said:

They are not "overcharging".  It's almost certainly out of contract/full price, which doesn't make it "shady" and you would have agreed to happened when you joined, its probably in the T&Cs and you go onto a rolling contract.  That's normal because the alternative is to say we'll give you x, y, z for 18 months and then we'll cut you off regardless.

Doing the latter would just cause problems all over the place and so the default position for many years has been to fall onto a rolling contract in the assumption that the customer still wants the service - and if they don't they need to intervene/say that they don't want it either by cancelling, by switching or by speaking to them.  This applies to all manner of services and providers.

They are overcharging. Other companies revert to the SIM only charge on the rolling contract. And just because it's in the T&Cs doesn't make it bad business practice.

What other companies do at this stage is irrelevant to this discussion.  Its what EE do (or don't do as the case may be) is what you need to look at, and your contract is with them so that's what you've agreed would happen.  If you didn't read your T&Cs then that's not EE's fault.  But that's your contract and if it says we will continue to charge you full/out of contract price until you advise us otherwise, that's what will happen.  And that is probably what has happened.

From a legal point of view, you are correct. From an ethical point of view you are wrong.

Bradden

MOgilby said:

Neil_Jones said:

MOgilby said:

Neil_Jones said:

MOgilby said:

Actually no, the last 2 providers I have had automatically reverted to the SIM only charge after the mandatory contract period - that is good and fair business practice. You've missed the point about the difference between what is legal and what is good and ethical business practice. 

Doesn't change the basic fact though that it took you ten months to notice in the first place...

That's right, I took my eye off the ball, as I acknowledged in my first post. I've had a lot on my plate lately. That doesn't change the fact that EE deliberately have this baked in to their policy, knowing full well they are overcharging. It's shady to say the least. But lesson learned, I will never be a customer EE again. I don't expect a company to shaft me just because I'm not all over something.

They are not "overcharging".  It's almost certainly out of contract/full price, which doesn't make it "shady" and you would have agreed to happened when you joined, its probably in the T&Cs and you go onto a rolling contract.  That's normal because the alternative is to say we'll give you x, y, z for 18 months and then we'll cut you off regardless.

Doing the latter would just cause problems all over the place and so the default position for many years has been to fall onto a rolling contract in the assumption that the customer still wants the service - and if they don't they need to intervene/say that they don't want it either by cancelling, by switching or by speaking to them.  This applies to all manner of services and providers.

They are overcharging. Other companies revert to the SIM only charge on the rolling contract. And just because it's in the T&Cs doesn't make it bad business practice.

I wasn't aware of this.. apart from companies who split the contract between the hardware and the calls. Which companies automatically do this? It would be  useful for when I get a new phone in a few months. Thanks

JSmithy45AD

It's never a good sign when the OP starts to reply to their own posts. Especially when they disagree with themselves