How to end mobile contract for failure to meet contractual standards?

tightauldgit

SiliconChip said:

Surely the time to check coverage offered by a new provider is before you switch, not after? That's why I switched to SMARTY, after I confirmed that the best 5G coverage at my home address was provided by the 3 network.

It's not always possible to tell. Sometimes they say it's good but for whatever reason in your specific location it isn't. If I check my old work address for 3 it says 'Very good service' but I couldn't get usable data at all and had to get them to cancel my service and refund me. 

I do appreciate that generally you get a cooling off period and that's the time to raise the issue - it does seem a bit weird to be raising it 6 months in. 

oldernonethewiser

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

The company appear to be able to provide the service as data is available but not everywhere as is made clear by all mobile companies. 


Nothing dodgy about it. 

The painter analogy doesn't work. 

Money_Grabber13579

Jenni_D said:

Shirker_Bee said:

If you have a home network, connect your phone to your Wi-Fi. Problem solved. 

This ^^^^^

Who doesn't use the home WiFi on their phone (except to test the data connection)?

Anyone who uses the data connection on their phone as their home wi-fi!

km1500

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

the problem is that all mobile companies are perfectly capable of providing data services but they are not capable of providing data services everywhere

this is despite the name of EE being everything everywhere!

it's not a breach of contract because they have never claimed or warranted to be able to provide data in every single part of the UK.

tightauldgit

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

The company appear to be able to provide the service as data is available but not everywhere as is made clear by all mobile companies. 


Nothing dodgy about it. 

The painter analogy doesn't work. 

Not to the person they entered the contract with though.

If the painter can reach other people's ceilings that really doesn't make a difference to me at my house. 

Unless OP was told their house would get poor coverage before they signed.

tightauldgit

km1500 said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

the problem is that all mobile companies are perfectly capable of providing data services but they are not capable of providing data services everywhere

this is despite the name of EE being everything everywhere!

it's not a breach of contract because they have never claimed or warranted to be able to provide data in every single part of the UK.

They contracted to provide a service to an individual resident at a given address and they are unable to provide the service to that address. 

Whether that amounts to a breach of consumer law or unfair trading regulations is arguable, but in my view it definitely SHOULD do. 

I'm not quite sure why so many people are running to defend the mobile company here, people don't buy mobile contracts to have coverage in every random part of the UK - but they certainly expect it in their home, place of work, and other places they will regularly be. 

If a company isn't able to provide the service to the consumer through no fault of the consumer there should be easy ways for the consumer to end that contract without a penalty. 

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

km1500 said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

the problem is that all mobile companies are perfectly capable of providing data services but they are not capable of providing data services everywhere

this is despite the name of EE being everything everywhere!

it's not a breach of contract because they have never claimed or warranted to be able to provide data in every single part of the UK.

They contracted to provide a service to an individual resident at a given address and they are unable to provide the service to that address. 

Whether that amounts to a breach of consumer law or unfair trading regulations is arguable, but in my view it definitely SHOULD do. 

I'm not quite sure why so many people are running to defend the mobile company here, people don't buy mobile contracts to have coverage in every random part of the UK - but they certainly expect it in their home, place of work, and other places they will regularly be. 

If a company isn't able to provide the service to the consumer through no fault of the consumer there should be easy ways for the consumer to end that contract without a penalty. 

I think because it is generally accepted that mobile signal is somewhat unreliable indoors. My old work was in an older building with thick walls, and steel reinforcements. Basically meant that signal was patchy for internet (but generally okay for texts, and passable for phone calls). 

I think to expect a phone company to be able to guarantee that the phone signal would be guaranteed to work in your house or business is unreasonable. And I don’t think that any company actually says that they do (everything everywhere is hyperbolic like Red Bull gives you wings or best pizza in town). 

Additionally, worth noting that this is the reason all coverage maps have the ‘does not form a guarantee’. The service also isn’t just related to one location - this isn’t a broadband connection. It’s a mobile connection which is in its nature mobile and not static. 

Your analogy of painter painting the ceiling not being able to fulfil the promise is also a bit odd. At that point, the painter would be able to tell you that the service was not possible. In the case of a network provider, that’s then coming to your home and telling you if the issue is your house, your phone or the network in the area. If they leave and say ‘oh yeah - you’re never going to get signal in here because of this reason’ you’d be able to make an argument for exiting the contract. 

The question that the OP hasn’t answered is why did they not contact the supplier prior to the 6 month mark? I can understand if it’s been a regular back and forth for the past 5 months (past the 14day cooling off period) and this has now hitting a boiling point; but the way I’ve read it (and not seen anything to say the opposite) is the OP is only just raising these issues now. If that’s the case, I think the OP should pay the exit charge and find someone else. 

d123

tightauldgit said:

I km1500 said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

the problem is that all mobile companies are perfectly capable of providing data services but they are not capable of providing data services everywhere

this is despite the name of EE being everything everywhere!

it's not a breach of contract because they have never claimed or warranted to be able to provide data in every single part of the UK.

They contracted to provide a service to an individual resident at a given address and they are unable to provide the service to that address. 

TBH, I don't think any mobile phone network contracts to provide a service at any specific given address, they contract to provide a mobile service over (a not very well defined) xx% of the area of the country.

km1500

I agree - in fact they specifically do not contract to guarantee to provide a service at any particular address or location

it is not like landline broadband where of course in that case you would be correct - there would be a contract to provide a service at a particular address

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

km1500 said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

Has the service changed recently or have you moved? it seems a bit odd that you would raise an issue of poor coverage 6 months into a contract. Generally you would have had a 14 day cooling off period on the contract where you could have changed your mind, 6 months into the contract I think things are more restricted. 

You'd have to look at the terms and see exactly what you were promised but I absolutely agree that on the face of it if you can't access data at your home address then it should be a breach of contract. Whether it is or not legally though is a different question

I think the options you have would be either to keep plugging away at them in the hope they see sense. Or you look to see if there is an option to reduce your contract to something cheaper and write it off. 

If you want to push the matter then you could write to them and tell them that you consider the lack of data to be a breach of contract and you will no longer be making payments on the contract until data is reinstated, cancel your payment method and then see if they come after you for the debt. 

Or if you want a less risky approach, cancel the contract and pay the exit fee under protest and then raise a small claims action to recover it.

Looking at the advice offered online then you need to look and see if your contract offers a network guarantee - if it does you're on stronger ground, if not then I think it's a shakier position. 

Other ways to exit the contract? - if they raise the prices you may well have the option to terminate, or you might be able to get another provider to buy you out.

I would doubt that very much.  The companies do not provide coverage everywhere so unless the OP has, in writing, a guarantee that EE will work in their home then unfortunately they are unlikely to get any joy pursuing this.

Did you read the next sentence I wrote? 

As I said I believe that it SHOULD be a breach of contract, but whether it is or not is a different question. 

Why do you think it should be a breach of contract?

Because if you contract to provide a service (data for your phone) and you are unable to provide that service (your network is incapable of providing date for the phone) then I believe it should be considered a breach of contract. 

If a painter came round to paint my room but didn't do the ceiling because he didn't own a ladder I would say that should be a breach of contract. And saying 'well i didn't guarantee I could reach the ceiling' shouldn't really change that. 

I appreciate the law may say differently but if so then the law is flawed on this point in my opinion. 

I think there's a lot of things in the mobile/telephone/broadband space that are just downright dodgy practice and this would seem to be one of them. 

the problem is that all mobile companies are perfectly capable of providing data services but they are not capable of providing data services everywhere

this is despite the name of EE being everything everywhere!

it's not a breach of contract because they have never claimed or warranted to be able to provide data in every single part of the UK.

They contracted to provide a service to an individual resident at a given address and they are unable to provide the service to that address. 

Whether that amounts to a breach of consumer law or unfair trading regulations is arguable, but in my view it definitely SHOULD do. 

I'm not quite sure why so many people are running to defend the mobile company here, people don't buy mobile contracts to have coverage in every random part of the UK - but they certainly expect it in their home, place of work, and other places they will regularly be. 

If a company isn't able to provide the service to the consumer through no fault of the consumer there should be easy ways for the consumer to end that contract without a penalty. 

I think because it is generally accepted that mobile signal is somewhat unreliable indoors. My old work was in an older building with thick walls, and steel reinforcements. Basically meant that signal was patchy for internet (but generally okay for texts, and passable for phone calls). 

I think to expect a phone company to be able to guarantee that the phone signal would be guaranteed to work in your house or business is unreasonable. And I don’t think that any company actually says that they do (everything everywhere is hyperbolic like Red Bull gives you wings or best pizza in town). 

Additionally, worth noting that this is the reason all coverage maps have the ‘does not form a guarantee’. The service also isn’t just related to one location - this isn’t a broadband connection. It’s a mobile connection which is in its nature mobile and not static. 

Your analogy of painter painting the ceiling not being able to fulfil the promise is also a bit odd. At that point, the painter would be able to tell you that the service was not possible. In the case of a network provider, that’s then coming to your home and telling you if the issue is your house, your phone or the network in the area. If they leave and say ‘oh yeah - you’re never going to get signal in here because of this reason’ you’d be able to make an argument for exiting the contract. 

The question that the OP hasn’t answered is why did they not contact the supplier prior to the 6 month mark? I can understand if it’s been a regular back and forth for the past 5 months (past the 14day cooling off period) and this has now hitting a boiling point; but the way I’ve read it (and not seen anything to say the opposite) is the OP is only just raising these issues now. If that’s the case, I think the OP should pay the exit charge and find someone else. 

Completely agree on the point on timing and have said as much but disagree with your point that the supplier can't guarantee signal in your home. I'm not saying they should be forced to provide a signal, or that they MUST tell a consumer beforehand whether they can or can't get one - simply that not being able to get a signal in your house at the contracted address should be reason to exit the contract without penalty. The fact nobody actually knows and can't come round and check is MORE reason why this should be the case not less of one. 

I'm also perfectly fine with the idea that mobiles move and you can't get coverage in some places - if he was visiting his aunty in Oban for a week and had bad reception I wouldn't be saying that's a breach of contract. Nor is a bad signal for a few days at his home. But permanently no data at the contracted address because of the quirks of their network? Sorry, I don't see how that's defensible.