Contract was no price increase for 24 months - they reneged in less than a year

AstonSmith

I would still make the complaint. With the shoe on the other foot, we the consumer can't send an ISP a letter saying we're only going to pay £1 a year and say because they didn't respond, that's now binding and valid.

la531983

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977185#Comment_81977185

Well no, because the contract agreed wont have that clause in there will it?

iniltous

These ‘well if they can vary the terms of the contract then why can’t I ‘ are a little ridiculous, the consumer signs up with the provider and agrees to the terms and conditions set by the provider , which generally include the providers right to change the price most now feature that increase prominently, and in easy to understand language, so in simplified terms they say something like , you will pay £30 , then £33 from March next year ,then £36 from the March after that , if you don’t like that particular clause don’t sign and find a company that doesn’t have such a clause , Sky are a little different in that they don’t use that Ofcom preferred method of knowing the increases in advance and how much they will be , but they do offer the option reject any increase (usually applied annually like everyone else ) and leave penalty free if you reject it in the appropriate timeframe.

This post has got a little unfocused, the point isn’t if the terms are unfair, it’s if the OP thought the Sky rep was lying when they said no increases in 24 months , I suspect the language may have been a little more nuanced, saying there isn’t an automatic annual increase like BT , EE , Vodafone is true but a little misleading , Sky may not guarantee an annual increase but historically they do put prices up every year , but even if the Sky representative lied outright, the most likely favourable outcome for the OP is they will ignore the usual timeframe and offer a penalty free release now , the unfavourable outcome, is they say the representative didn’t lie because at the time they had no reason to believe an increase was going to be levied (even though every year previously they had increased prices) so this wasn’t a lie as Sky hadn’t decided to increase prices at the time the contract was struck with the OP .

TBH , I recon the OP needs to take a little responsibility, Sky don’t hide the fact they increase prices every year , a tiny bit of research would have confirmed annual increases are still applied it’s just not in the way most of others in the industry do it , so calling and asking the lowest ranking staff members of Sky organisation if they can guarantee a bespoke variance of the normal Sky contact terms , seems naive to say the least , if the OP wanted a guaranteed ‘no increase during the minimum term’ , they should have used a provider that uses ‘ No increase , guaranteed’ as a feature of their offer to the public , not expect that a low ranking staff member can arbitrarily ignore the normal company policy.

JSmithy45AD

@iniltous You expect people to take a little responsibility? Can't see that taking off TBH ;)

JSmithy45AD

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81976434#Comment_81976434

Not sure if you're serious or not but that isn't what it means. Good luck in civil court arguing that, when your "evidence" is discounted.

QrizB

Not sure if you're serious

I'm serious.

that isn't what it means

I'd be interested to know what else it might mean, on the plain reading of the English language.

Good luck in civil court arguing that

Haven't had to go that far yet.

JSmithy45AD

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977783#Comment_81977783

It means exactly what it says "calls may be recorded for training or quality purposes". Can't see how that can be stated in plainer english.

AstonSmith

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977515#Comment_81977515

The contract agreed on the phone with the OP said that there will be no price rises, no?

la531983

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81978828#Comment_81978828

Contracts with broadband and utility suppliers arent agreed "on the phone", there is an actual written contract involved, famously….

And thats ignoring the fact the OP was told it was going to happen, was given 30 days to bail, and chose not to invoke this right.

victor2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977815#Comment_81977815

So, it does mean that calls may be recorded, by either party on the call, for training or quality purposes? The only question that would remain in the case of a dispute is if the dispute is part of the "quality".

What is the plain English interpretation of the word may?