Amend the law - contract tie-ins and mid contract price increases

CplSmudge

I have 2 points to raise, both of which should be pointed out to consumer groups such as ML and Which etc as they can raise the issue and effect change.
1. If you spend hours of your time deliberating and calculating costs between comparable products - such as insurance, tv packages, broadband etc, you should not be accepting of the costs involved, including a minimum term contract period and THEN be told oh and there's a delivery charge (or whatever) to pay which is extra. The practice is both misleading - because it is not included in the costs and / or savings discussed or described, and it is deceptive.
2. The more recent practice of tying a consumer into a minimum term of 18 or 24 months which really says that I am happy to pay for this service at this amount for x pounds, provided that you provide it, but then having to pay an increase every year. The particular point about this is that it is not just an increase at CPI, but an increase at CPI plus x% that they wish to charge. If these suppliers offered a 12 month contract instead, fair enough because then you have choice, but they don't. They are trying to tie you in for as long as possible and then charge extra for doing nothing more. In reality, especially with the comms providers, their costs are actually reducing, while they charge more.

sheramber

I have 2 points to raise, both of which should be pointed out to consumer groups such as ML and Which etc as they can raise the issue and effect change.

Have you done that?

Aylesbury_Duck

On (1), surely the hours of deliberating will include factoring-in any additional costs or charges, so that they are comparable?  Or are you saying that those additional charges are completely unknown at the time you sign the contract?  If the latter, can you give us an example?

On (2), the answer is not to tie yourself in to a long-term contract.  You trade potential discount for flexibility, so if prices rise and you want to jump ship, you can do so.  What suppliers and services are you talking about?  Are you talking about a market where there are only long-term contracts available?

Exodi

I don't really see how first point (showing the delivery cost at the end) is different to any online purchase.

Delivery costs vary by destination and order, it's impractical and uncommon for this to be shown on the product pages. You'd really need to challenge every online retailer on this.

Your second point I can agree with, it is annoying. I'm glad there are some service providers trying to break this model by offering no mid-contract price rises, or allow you to cancel mid-contract.

As eskbanker has pointed out though, it's strange to say "THIS MESSAGE SHOULD GO TO ML AND WHICH AS THEY CAN EFFECT CHANGE" and then... not send it to them and just sorta drop it here??

DullGreyGuy

On point 1 the law already exists, its the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/ ). You probably need to be more specific about what your issue is however as it is perfectly allowable to have optional extras shown up later in the process as long as they are truely optional (eg disposal of your old appliance for the purchase of a new dishwasher) 


On point 2 this is probably to your advantage to agree to be index linked to a government calculated official rate of inflation. If they didn't use this approach then instead they'd increase the price by a predicted inflation rate + risk margin and so on average you'd be worse off. Can't think of any service where you are required to sign up to a multi-year service, everything I can think of is 12 months max with the option of signing for longer for a discount. 

MattMattMattUK

CplSmudge said:

I have 2 points to raise, both of which should be pointed out to consumer groups such as ML and Which etc as they can raise the issue and effect change.

You would be better contacting them directly, so that they can ignore you directly, rather than them not even knowing about your postings on a website forum.

CplSmudge said:

1. If you spend hours of your time deliberating and calculating costs between comparable products - such as insurance, tv packages, broadband etc, you should not be accepting of the costs involved, including a minimum term contract period and THEN be told oh and there's a delivery charge (or whatever) to pay which is extra. The practice is both misleading - because it is not included in the costs and / or savings discussed or described, and it is deceptive.

Surely one would factor all costs into any deliberation that took hours, however it should take minutes, not hours, if it takes hours then something has gone seriously wrong. 

CplSmudge said:

2. The more recent practice of tying a consumer into a minimum term of 18 or 24 months which really says that I am happy to pay for this service at this amount for x pounds, provided that you provide it, but then having to pay an increase every year. The particular point about this is that it is not just an increase at CPI, but an increase at CPI plus x% that they wish to charge. If these suppliers offered a 12 month contract instead, fair enough because then you have choice, but they don't. They are trying to tie you in for as long as possible and then charge extra for doing nothing more. In reality, especially with the comms providers, their costs are actually reducing, while they charge more.

Whilst I disagree with mid-contract price rises, especially the CPI+X or RPI+X, they are very clearly laid out in the contract. If you disagree then choose one of the twelve month contracts either from the same provider, or a different provider, although they do usually have an increased monthly cost. 

powerful_Rogue

DullGreyGuy said:

On point 1 the law already exists, its the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/ ). You probably need to be more specific about what your issue is however as it is perfectly allowable to have optional extras shown up later in the process as long as they are truely optional (eg disposal of your old appliance for the purchase of a new dishwasher) 


On point 2 this is probably to your advantage to agree to be index linked to a government calculated official rate of inflation. If they didn't use this approach then instead they'd increase the price by a predicted inflation rate + risk margin and so on average you'd be worse off. Can't think of any service where you are required to sign up to a multi-year service, everything I can think of is 12 months max with the option of signing for longer for a discount. 

Virgin Media is a minimum of 18 months. 

SiliconChip

On 2, if you followed ML's comments on any of the many channels he uses (such as his show in ITV and his weekly slot on BBC 5Live) you'd know that he has been campaigning for some considerable time to have mid-contract price rises investigated and hopefully prohibited, although I've never heard anything to suggest he's had much success yet.