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

tightauldgit

d123 said:

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.

They contract with an individual resident at a given address to provide a service where it is 100% reasonable to expect that the service will be used at that address by the consumer. Whether it's legal or not, to try to hold someone to a contract where they can't provide the service to that address is utter BS. 

oldernonethewiser

tightauldgit said:

d123 said:

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.

They contract with an individual resident at a given address to provide a service where it is 100% reasonable to expect that the service will be used at that address by the consumer. Whether it's legal or not, to try to hold someone to a contract where they can't provide the service to that address is utter BS. 

There is no contract to provide coverage at a specific address.  

With some easy research anyone can check coverage before entering into a contract. 

nyermen

Rubbish EE coverage at my house in Rushmoor (despite “signal checkers saying great in and outdoors”), so always try and test a sim (friend etc) would be my advice.

Ironically, I use EE for broadband at the moment too, and the Wifi-calling is so unreliable for the last few months that making/receiving calls has become very difficult.  Just waiting for toob (new fibre service) to turn on our area so I can switch.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Have you spoken to EE about an external signal booter, we had one installed a few months back as our 4G hub was getting poor signal. 

It cost £100 for the install + equipment and BT gave us £40 goodwill towards to the cost. 

If this is a viable resolution for you after the install have a google of CEO email and search that site for BT to get the email for their executive customer service department, keep it brief and polite, they should call you and might offer some goodwill. 

In terms of the actual coverage requirements I'm not sure where you'd stand legally, mobile companies are regulated by Ofcom and you can complain to them, at a quick look I couldn't see anything on the Ofcom site about them having to provide coverage, the 4 operators have commitments to cover x% of landmass by certain dates. 

In terms of consumer rights rights, mobile phones are just that although I appreciate people are ditching landlines and home broadband to just use mobile at home. Although there could be an interesting debate on the matter I'm not sure you'll get an answer. 

£100 doesn't go far these days so isn't a bad deal if it fixes your issue  

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

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. 

I do actually agree that poor signal at primary residence is reason to terminate the contract, and be released without penalty. But unless there’s been a reason that the signal has gotten worse (that is down to the supplier or things outside of the consumers hands like other buildings in the area) then the time to raise these concerns is at the start of the contract, not at the 6 month mark. 

I don’t normally defend the big companies and such - especially network providers who practice shadily; but from what the OP has said - I think the provider here is in their rights to not release the contract without penalty. 

tightauldgit

oldernonethewiser said:

tightauldgit said:

d123 said:

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.

They contract with an individual resident at a given address to provide a service where it is 100% reasonable to expect that the service will be used at that address by the consumer. Whether it's legal or not, to try to hold someone to a contract where they can't provide the service to that address is utter BS. 

There is no contract to provide coverage at a specific address.  

With some easy research anyone can check coverage before entering into a contract. 

You really can't - it varies so much to a specific location. And if it was so simple to check then EE really should flag up at the time that the address on the contract has rubbish coverage. 

Mind you none of this debate helps the OP so I'll just leave it as agreeing to disagreeing. 

born_again

tightauldgit said:

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. 

Just how are they supposed to do that?
They have no idea what the house is built of, or exactly where you intend to use the phone in the house. Top floor can be fine, but go to the basement & it's a no go.

They have pages giving you a idea on coverage. 

You forget "Mobile Phone" is a major hint on what you are contracting for. It's not a "Home Phone"

d123

tightauldgit said:

d123 said:

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.

They contract with an individual resident at a given address to provide a service where it is 100% reasonable to expect that the service will be used at that address by the consumer. 

Except the networks don't contract to provide a service at a given address, in fact they usually give a 14 day cooling off period for you to check the service is satisfactory when you sign up to the service and to cancel without penalty if you are dissatisfied.

tightauldgit

born_again said:

tightauldgit said:

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. 

Just how are they supposed to do that?
They have no idea what the house is built of, or exactly where you intend to use the phone in the house. Top floor can be fine, but go to the basement & it's a no go.

They have pages giving you a idea on coverage. 

You forget "Mobile Phone" is a major hint on what you are contracting for. It's not a "Home Phone"

How are they supposed to allow you to exit the contract without penalty? I think you may have misread something in my post. 

oldernonethewiser

tightauldgit said:

born_again said:

tightauldgit said:

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. 

Just how are they supposed to do that?
They have no idea what the house is built of, or exactly where you intend to use the phone in the house. Top floor can be fine, but go to the basement & it's a no go.

They have pages giving you a idea on coverage. 

You forget "Mobile Phone" is a major hint on what you are contracting for. It's not a "Home Phone"

How are they supposed to allow you to exit the contract without penalty? I think you may have misread something in my post. 

As explained in EE's T&Cs it is possible to cancel within 14 days of the contract beginning.