PDA

View Full Version : NTL Broadband Terms & Conditions Moving House?


gordk
24-02-2005, 17:05
Can any one offer any advice?

I signed up to NTL broadband in October 2004 it appears for a term of 12 months (although I cannot find the original terms & conditions), and am currently in rented accommodation. The house I am in, recently was sold and I am having to leave. As I have no real place to go here I have decided to go and live with my friend outside of the UK for a year. I would want to continue broadband when I return but NTL have said I must pay the remainder of the contract ie up to Ocotber 2005.

However, I am sure it said somewhere if you are moving to an area not covered by NTL then the contract can be renegotiated. If not I am liable to pay for a service which I will not be receiving and may be paying for someone else to use internet for free.

I have spoken to NTL and found them to either be disinterested or very rude and unhelpful. Do I have any rights in this case or am I stuck with this bill? Obviously this was not forseen when I took the contract out and I have always had good service from NTL but now I am not so sure.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

nostra
24-02-2005, 17:09
i assume u are moving to an non cabled area then?

this post might be of some interest to you someone having the same problems...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=19459

gordk
24-02-2005, 17:26
Hmm so it seems NTL changed their rules recently.


Oh well guess I shall have to finish paying this contract and then cancel with them for good. Thing is as I will have no billing address - where would they send the monthly bills and would I be paying for someone else who may move into the house if they plugged in their modem?

If not then where exactly is the service I am paying for going?

ian@huth
24-02-2005, 17:52
If you signed a NTL contract then you have to abide by the terms of that contract. You probably had free installation of your services and NTL or the company they bought out had to spend a fortune cabling your area and providing all the infrastructure. NTL are not a charity and need to recoup costs already incurred and have every right to insist on you paying the full cost of your services for the remainder of the contract period. What NTL have done for customers moving out of area in the past was a concession by them and they are quite free to stop doing this.

gordk
24-02-2005, 17:53
Mind you after reading that post it says the service is continued even if you are moving to a non NTL area with the other product they reccommend. If I am moving abroad what happens then? Is this still liable?

d0pey
24-02-2005, 18:02
If you signed a NTL contract then you have to abide by the terms of that contract. You probably had free installation of your services and NTL or the company they bought out had to spend a fortune cabling your area and providing all the infrastructure. NTL are not a charity and need to recoup costs already incurred and have every right to insist on you paying the full cost of your services for the remainder of the contract period. What NTL have done for customers moving out of area in the past was a concession by them and they are quite free to stop doing this.

Im sorry but I don't agree with that. It is the persons fault the area is not covered by NTL. I could move less just over a mile up the road from here and not be able to get NTL cable. Is it my fault they never cabled the road?

gordk
24-02-2005, 18:02
As another point in question, I previously had a seaprate broadband account with NTL which I had to pay for installation at the same address. I had this for a period of over 12 months but wanted to freeze it as I had work abroad. NTL would not freeze it for the period I was away and I cancelled it no problem. When I arrived back I resigned with NTL (same address) and this time did get free installation - however, due to circumstances beyone my control I can no longer receive this service due to sale of the house and my moving outside of the country.


What would be the best plan in my case would be either if I could pay a small fine to hold the account or pay for installation when I get my own place sorted.

I presume this is an option NTL does not provide and I suppose I have learned my lesson and that NTL are not the company to meet my current needs. However, again all advice is greatly appreciated as I do not want to be paying for something I am not receiving.

ian@huth
24-02-2005, 18:08
Im sorry but I don't agree with that. It is the persons fault the area is not covered by NTL. I could move less just over a mile up the road from here and not be able to get NTL cable. Is it my fault they never cabled the road?
If you sign a contract for provision of services at a particular address then you are bound by the terms and conditions of that contract, terms that you agreed by signing were acceptable. NTL can continue to provide the services at that address so they should not be penalised by you breaking the contract. It is not their fault that you are moving away.

gordk
24-02-2005, 18:13
But surely if the house is being sold and the tennants being evicted then this puts matters into a different situation? As it happens the new owners could be rennovating the house in which case there would not even be a house for the service to go to! If not I certainly don't want to be paying for someone else to use the service for free.

Keytops
24-02-2005, 18:18
If you sign a contract for provision of services at a particular address then you are bound by the terms and conditions of that contract, terms that you agreed by signing were acceptable. NTL can continue to provide the services at that address so they should not be penalised by you breaking the contract. It is not their fault that you are moving away.

Errr - isn't the contract to supply services to the *person* named? If that person moves and NTL are unable to supply a service to wherever that person now lives (do they make very-very-very long coax cables? :D ) then why should they continue to pay for a service they, in effect, aren't receiving?

ian@huth
24-02-2005, 18:19
But surely if the house is being sold and the tennants being evicted then this puts matters into a different situation? As it happens the new owners could be rennovating the house in which case there would not even be a house for the service to go to! If not I certainly don't want to be paying for someone else to use the service for free.It still does not alter the facts that NTL contracted to provide a service and you contracted to pay for it. You, unfortunately, are the person breaking the contract and the one that should suffer.

gordk
24-02-2005, 18:33
So I take it there is nothing I can do then? Thing is I have used NTL for the past 4 years in one form or the other and have usually have had no problem with the service.

However, with this situation which is of course not NTLs fault, but I feel lack of customer care due to circumstances beyond customer control has definitely lead me to believe I will not be making use of their services anymore.
__________________
__________________

Is it possible to pass my account to somebody else who can take on the remainding service period and will be in the UK? At least that way it can get used and will not be wasted?



It just feels like such a waste of money (£200) to pay for something that isn't going to be used?

ian@huth
24-02-2005, 18:36
The one thing to remember if cancelling before the end of the contract period is to reduce all services to the minimum before cancelling. What services are you currently taking?

Tezcatlipoca
24-02-2005, 21:04
*Moved to ntl Billing forum *

Keytops
24-02-2005, 23:10
I'd just cancel the payments and let them try and find you to bill you :>

gordk
25-02-2005, 00:17
Im currently paying 19.99 (special offer) for the 750k broadband service

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 00:27
Im currently paying 19.99 (special offer) for the 750k broadband service
You could drop this to the 300k service and save £2 per month. Every little helps. :)

intalex
25-02-2005, 10:47
I don't think so! Why fork out £17.99 a month for nothing in return? Can't give in to that.

At this moment in time, this issue is a bit of a grey area. Until you hear about more people facing the same issue, I would just suggest that you write to NTL and give in your 30-days' notice for cancellation on the basis that they cannot supply you with broadband at your new address. It would be a good idea to also enclose a copy of any official document which confirms that you are moving out of your current place.

Do this first, and then over the following 30 days, hopefully you will find a way out. The address i wrote to is:

NTL Customer Relations Team
Hertford House
36 Hertford Street
Coventry
CV1 1LF

I am not entirely sure what they are saying to you over the phone is legal, so in response to your cancellation notice, if they put their words in writing, then you can seek some legal advice from there.

gordk
25-02-2005, 12:53
OK That's great, I shall give that a go ;)

orangebird
25-02-2005, 13:05
Is it any wonder ntl are skint?????????????????????????

You signed a 12 month contract. Therefore you should be responsible for the contract for that time. I appreciate that your cannot help the situation yourself, but I would respectfully suggest that you do not sign yourself up to long term contracts on services when you live in rented accomodation, and I would also ask why you think ntl should adjust to the huge loss they willl have incurred just by installing you? Why is the liablity always down to ntl with flaky customers??? :rolleyes:

also, I wouldn't take the earlier advice of cancelling your dd before getting this resolved. You'll adversely affect your credit rating, which will make things more difficult when you do come back to the UK and want other (credit based) services in the future.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 13:24
It is perfectly safe to sign up for long term contracts when living in rented accommodation as long as the contract term is shorter than the length of lease left on your property. Contracts are there to protect both sides and you should read all terms and conditions before agreeing to them.

Neil
25-02-2005, 13:33
Is it any wonder ntl are skint?????????????????????????

You signed a 12 month contract. Therefore you should be responsible for the contract for that time. I appreciate that your cannot help the situation yourself, but I would respectfully suggest that you do not sign yourself up to long term contracts on services when you live in rented accomodation, and I would also ask why you think ntl should adjust to the huge loss they willl have incurred just by installing you? Why is the liablity always down to ntl with flaky customers??? :rolleyes:

also, I wouldn't take the earlier advice of cancelling your dd before getting this resolved. You'll adversely affect your credit rating, which will make things more difficult when you do come back to the UK and want other (credit based) services in the future.

You can't really argue with that I'm afraid.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 13:40
So what happens when somebody moves to a cabled area? Presumably they have to start a new 12 month contract as the old one is with that person specifically at their old address.

intalex
25-02-2005, 13:43
Think about it this way... if NTL want to enforce the 12-month contract onto customers moving to non-cabled areas, then they should include a clause on their t&c's about it. They can't just not write anything about it and then keep changing their stories all the time. Personally, I had actually been assured by my salesman that "normal procedure" in such a case would be for NTL to transfer your service to your new address, or if it is in a non-cabled aread, to cancel your contract without penalty.

Best thing to do would be to get NTL to put in writing that they are going to charge you despite not being able to supply you with broadband at your new address. Common sense tells you that they won't be able to argue that anywhere in this world!!!

And as for incurring the cost of installing that tiny length of cable along with a wall-socket as part of the installation, I think from a corporate point of view, this is worth the investment anyway. You buy cable and sockets in bulk for peanuts, and the more places you have cabled up (all the way inside the premises), the more readily available you are making your services. I have worked for a wireless broadband service provider before and can tell you that we invested a lotta $$$ on cabling up new buildings in my city along with wireless equipment and I can tell you that we recovered this investment within no time at all.

If the cost of the cable modem is the worry, then NTL can by all means enforce their terms that the customer has to safely send that back to NTL.

I think that if NTL's main businessmen had their way, then I would have thought that they would have cabled up all houses/buildings in broadband-enabled areas all the way indoors in hope that occupiers would opt for readily-available services rather than having to sign up elsewhere and have more wires running in. After all, NTL's broadband connection (in my opinion) is quite good and is reasonably priced as well. It is just the occassional inconsistency with their policies (and the slow-paced ping-pong on their telephone lines) that are out of order.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 13:50
And, following the arguement through to its logical conclusion, even if you could get cable at your new address you'd still be responsible for the remainder of the contract on your old address.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 13:55
Intalex, you read a contract, you agree its terms, you sign it! THAT is the contract and it includes all the eventualities that you have agreed to. The contract details the conditions on which both parties may cancel it and only those conditions apply. NTL in the past may have allowed customers to leave without penalty if they moved to a non cabled area but they were not obliged to.

intalex
25-02-2005, 13:55
As far as I'm aware, when they transfer the same cable broadband service to your new address, you just have to see through the remaining period of your contract. However, if you transfer to their ADSL service (NTL Freedom), then I've heard rumours that you have to sign up to a new 12-month contract with them.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 13:57
Therefore the contract is with the person, not the address.

danielf
25-02-2005, 14:00
Just to be sure. Does this new rule apply to BB AND Tele/phone, or just to BB (which they can supply outside cabled areas)? I was under the impression from another thread that NTL do allow you to leave without penalty for tele/phone, but not for BB, but I might be wrong.

If they do allow you to leave tele/phone it puts another spin on the argument imo.

intalex
25-02-2005, 14:04
If they were not obliged to, then they shouldn't have used that when selling their product in the first place. I'm not blaming the salesperson here, as he was only telling me what the normal procedure at that time was. The fact that this unwritten rule has canged recently should mean that it should apply to customers who sign up since the change of the rule.

How do NTL propose to build up a good reputation when customers not at fault end up losing money?

Ian, you finally come up with the same argument about following what's in writing rather than what's agreed verbally. What if I told you that I never did sign my contract or send it back to NTL (I have my unsigned contract at home)? Then NTL haven't got aything from me in black and white!!!

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 14:04
Just for a laugh consider the position if you lived in a rented house and signed a contract for a builder to put a swimming pool in your back garden. Just as the installation is finished you get notice from your landlord that you have to vacate the premises in 28 days. What do you do?

1. Not pay for the swimming pool because you can't use it.

2. Ask the builder to move it to your new address or you won't pay for it.

3. Tell the builder that there is nowhere at your new address for him to move the swimming pool to so you're not paying for something you can't use.

4. Tell the builder he should build a swimming pool at every address so it will be there if anyone wants to use it in future.

intalex
25-02-2005, 14:07
not sure about a standalone phone line. i think if you take up a phone and TV package deal, then you are bound to it for 12 months. call them ask what their salespeople say!

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 14:17
I'd just cancel the payments and let them try and find you to bill you :>
Which their bailiffs will certainly do, and then add several hundred pounds in charges for doing so.

intalex
25-02-2005, 14:17
(i) Most people nowadays want internet, and usually broadband rather than dial-up (makes the install-anway theory potentially profitable)! In England i doubt anyone wants a swimming pool in their back garden - looking out of my window at this very moment gives me that impression anyway.:)

(ii) A swimming pool is not supposed to be a "transferrable" service/product, but NTL's broadband, to some extent, is. The question is, what happens when it isn't transferrable? Well, when you are investing in anything which is fixed to your rented accomodation, you want to know about the implications when you do move. So what you do is you ask before you agree to buy such a service/product. What you don't expect is for the supplier to change their story because to me, this is like the company breaking a promise seeing that one person made the promise and another is failing to honour it.

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 14:19
So what happens when somebody moves to a cabled area? Presumably they have to start a new 12 month contract as the old one is with that person specifically at their old address.
Contracts are specific to the person, not the address. If you move and take the services with you, you are still on your old contract.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 14:19
Ian, you finally come up with the same argument about following what's in writing rather than what's agreed verbally. What if I told you that I never did sign my contract or send it back to NTL (I have my unsigned contract at home)? Then NTL haven't got aything from me in black and white!!!If you have only got a verbal contract then that contract can only be based on the discussions that took place. If NTL sent you a contract and cannot prove that you received it and you didn't sign and return a copy then NTL could be on dodgy ground if it came to court action. They should have a procedure that checks for the return of a signed contract and chase this up if it isn't returned. You have to be careful though that you don't take any action that implies acceptance of a different contract to your verbal one. Such actions could be paying a bill that has reference to terms and conditions applicable to the account which you are paying or clicking an I accept box on your computer that says that you have read the terms and conditions.

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 14:20
If they were not obliged to, then they shouldn't have used that when selling their product in the first place. I'm not blaming the salesperson here, as he was only telling me what the normal procedure at that time was. The fact that this unwritten rule has canged recently should mean that it should apply to customers who sign up since the change of the rule.

How do NTL propose to build up a good reputation when customers not at fault end up losing money?

Ian, you finally come up with the same argument about following what's in writing rather than what's agreed verbally. What if I told you that I never did sign my contract or send it back to NTL (I have my unsigned contract at home)? Then NTL haven't got aything from me in black and white!!!
That doesn't matter. BY allowing the installers in, you have consented to the contract, as ntl don't supply services under any other contract.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 14:24
Well the swimming pool analogy is complete nonsense because ovbiously you've agreed to having the swimming pool built at that address. As someone has stated that if you move house your contract moves with you (if it's an ntl area) then the contract is clearly with the person not the address. If your contract doesn't move with you, and is with both you and the address, then you will be responsible for both your old and new contracts. Can someone who works for ntl confirm which it is?
__________________

Sorry Scrotnig, you replied whilst I was typing!

So therefore it's up to ntl to supply the services at your new address and if they can't they're in breach of contract.

intalex
25-02-2005, 14:35
That doesn't matter. BY allowing the installers in, you have consented to the contract, as ntl don't supply services under any other contract.

Interesting, but how am I to know what these t&c's are, and how different they are from my negotiations with the salesperson? After all, the amount going out of my account each month is exactly what the salesperson had said would be the case.
__________________

If you have only got a verbal contract then that contract can only be based on the discussions that took place. If NTL sent you a contract and cannot prove that you received it and you didn't sign and return a copy then NTL could be on dodgy ground if it came to court action.

I didn't sign it because I could never be bothered, not because I didn't accept it. Since there was nothing written in the t&c's about moving houses, I accept my verbal agreement with my salesperson to be the additional "clause" regarding moving houses, not some unwritten rule which can be changed whenever NTL want.

They should have a procedure that checks for the return of a signed contract and chase this up if it isn't returned.

I couldn't agree more. This way, they would get some feedback about their t&c's from people who actually do bother to read them and could amend it to clarify any uncertainties.

You have to be careful though that you don't take any action that implies acceptance of a different contract to your verbal one. Such actions could be paying a bill that has reference to terms and conditions applicable to the account which you are paying or clicking an I accept box on your computer that says that you have read the terms and conditions.

I'm not going to use that argument anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm not just trying to sort my own situation out and bow out, but am trying to make a point altogether about the fact that this change of unwritten rules cannot be implemented on people before they get a chance to see this rule documented somewhere.

dr wadd
25-02-2005, 14:38
It still does not alter the facts that NTL contracted to provide a service and you contracted to pay for it. You, unfortunately, are the person breaking the contract and the one that should suffer.

I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 14:40
Allowing installation to take place doesn't imply acceptance of any contract other than the one previously agreed which could be verbal or written. If, however, the installer asks you to sign, and you do sign, a quality of installation document that states the installation is for goods and/or services in accordance with the companies standard terms and conditions then you are covered by those T&Cs whether you have read them or not.

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 14:44
Interesting, but how am I to know what these t&c's are, and how different they are from my negotiations with the salesperson? After all, the amount going out of my account each month is exactly what the salesperson had said would be the case.
When placing the order the salesman will inform you that you will be bound by ntl's terms and conditions which will be sent to you to sign and return. If you choose not to sign and return them, it doesn't matter, as by letting the installers in, having been informed that this is only done under the published contract, you're deemed to have accepted tham, and you'd have a hell of a job convincing any court that you didn'ty know about the contract when you let the installers in.

That said, it is certainly the case that the salesman will have told you that if you move to a non cabled area you will be released from contract, as this was certainly the company's policy at the time. It's not your fault the policy has changed and, whilst you CAN be held to contract, I would push the issue and ask that you be released as this was your understanding at the time you signed up. You will probably need a manager for this though.
__________________

I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.
Whilst sounding plausible, that's not the case here, for the simple reason that the change in ability to provide the service has been brought about by the customer moving house, not by the company's inability to provide the service.

Contracts have to fair to BOTH sides, not just the customer. On your basis a customer could conceivably have grounds to force ntl to lay cable in a non cabled area. Such a contract would be deemed unfair and unenforcable.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 14:48
Yes ntl would have to either lay cable, or offer an equivalent or better service at the same price. The only way they could enforce the contract is if it explicitally stated that you would be liable for it if you moved to a non-cabled area.

dr wadd
25-02-2005, 14:55
Contracts have to fair to BOTH sides, not just the customer. On tyour basis a customer could conceivably have grounds to force ntl to lay cable in a non cabled area. Such a contract would be deemed unfair and unenforcable.

Which under English law would also render the contract null and void.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 14:57
I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.The contract is with a named person or persons but is for installation of the services at a specific address and any court would take the view that the contract is tied as much to the address as to the person.

I know that I have argued in another thread about the validity of a verbal contract but that was about a dispute over whether the contract was for a fixed length of time or a minimum ongoing length of time.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 15:01
So if that's the case Ian, and the contract is for a specific address, then anyone moving would still be liable for their old contract whether their new house had cable or not. You can't have it both ways.

dr wadd
25-02-2005, 15:03
The contract is with a named person or persons but is for installation of the services at a specific address and any court would take the view that the contract is tied as much to the address as to the person.

If the installation is free then that part isn't technically a contract under UK law as there hasn`t been an exchange.

Further, I disagree that a court would take the view that the contract is tied to a specific address, if only for the fact that NTL continue the same contract at a new property if they can supply the services there. If they cancelled the original contract and started a new one after a property move then they might have an argument, but they do not.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 15:17
So if that's the case Ian, and the contract is for a specific address, then anyone moving would still be liable for their old contract whether their new house had cable or not. You can't have it both ways.Depending on the wording of your contract you could still be liable for your old contract if you moved to another NTL cabled area and asked for services there. We are talking contracts here and you have to look at each and every term in the contract and not rely on what penalties NTL have chosen not to apply in the past for breach of contract.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 15:21
Well it's not just could be liable, you will be liable if what you're saying about the contract being tied to a specific address is correct. However, Scrotnig says this isn't the case. Does anyone know for sure?

intalex
25-02-2005, 15:21
I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.

I like this. It concurs with common sense thinking. If you argue that "the customer is breaking the contract because he is moving", then you are asking to justify the fact that a customer cannot even move houses because he is tied to his broadband connection contract. How on earth do you justify something ridiculous like that???

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 15:27
If the installation is free then that part isn't technically a contract under UK law as there hasn`t been an exchange.

Further, I disagree that a court would take the view that the contract is tied to a specific address, if only for the fact that NTL continue the same contract at a new property if they can supply the services there. If they cancelled the original contract and started a new one after a property move then they might have an argument, but they do not.The contract is for provision of services including installation in return for which a consideration is paid. It is a legal document subject to UK law covering the whole of the transaction even though a part of it may be provided free.

NTL or any company can decide not to penalise a customer for breach of contract if they so wish.

orangebird
25-02-2005, 15:38
Just for a laugh consider the position if you lived in a rented house and signed a contract for a builder to put a swimming pool in your back garden. Just as the installation is finished you get notice from your landlord that you have to vacate the premises in 28 days. What do you do?

1. Not pay for the swimming pool because you can't use it.

2. Ask the builder to move it to your new address or you won't pay for it.

3. Tell the builder that there is nowhere at your new address for him to move the swimming pool to so you're not paying for something you can't use.

4. Tell the builder he should build a swimming pool at every address so it will be there if anyone wants to use it in future.

:clap: :clap: No-one's worthy!!! :D:D:D

dr wadd
25-02-2005, 15:40
The contract is for provision of services including installation in return for which a consideration is paid. It is a legal document subject to UK law covering the whole of the transaction even though a part of it may be provided free.

I still entirely disagree, if no consideration has been paid for the installation then it cannot be considered to have been covered under the strict terms of a contract.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 15:49
I like this. It concurs with common sense thinking. If you argue that "the customer is breaking the contract because he is moving", then you are asking to justify the fact that a customer cannot even move houses because he is tied to his broadband connection contract. How on earth do you justify something ridiculous like that???
Nobody is saying that the customer is breaking the contract because they are moving. What is being said is that the contract is for 12 months and contains several ways of termination without penalty during that 12 month period. Any termination other than for the stipulated reasons will incur a penalty equal to the payment for the remaining period of the contract. The breach of contract would only occur if the customer refused to pay that penalty. However NTL may decide not to impose that penalty if they so wish. That is why I have suggested that services are reduced to the minimum value possible within the contract so as to reduce the penalty to a minimum. You can ask NTL not to impose the penalty due to your mitigating circumstances which they may or may not do.
__________________

I still entirely disagree, if no consideration has been paid for the installation then it cannot be considered to have been covered under the strict terms of a contract.That's complete nonsense and I think you know that. Say for instance that you signed a contract for the supply of a new car and the contract stated that you would get FREE delivery, FREE number plates, FREE road tax, FREE 12 months insurance, FREE 3 year warranty, FREE 3 years servicing, FREE 3 years roadside assistance, etc. What would your reaction be if you take delivery and find that you are billed for the FREE items already supplied and would have to pay for any future repairs, servicing and roadside assistance. Would you consider the company to be in breach of contract?

orangebird
25-02-2005, 15:54
The contract is with the person, not the address.

The person agrees to pay for the minimum service for a minimum of 12 months - whether or not within that 12 months they cannot receive the service under circumstances with ntl cannot prevent. Get over it. :rolleyes:

ntl have to recoup the costs of the time and wages for someone to load your order on the system. Someone to book your installation. Someone to go to your house with (the cost of) the materials and hardware required for the service you ask for. The costs are there, and ntl are NOT being unreasonable in asking a customer to be prepared to EVENTUALLY cover the costs of all that, let alone pay for the continuing service. It takes 14 months of revenue from the 'average' customer before ntl break even, let alone make some kind of profit.

And PS, by using and paying for services, you agree to the t&cs - read them sometime.... :dozey: :)

intalex
25-02-2005, 15:58
Well, whatever's unwritten will always be considered a goodwill gesture (in the eyes of Customer Services) when it is in the favour of the customer. Oh well, I have to give up arguing about this any more and agree that both parties have equal grounds for this case and it could go either way. I guess you NTL staff should get in touch with your policy-makers and ask them to include a section on "moving houses" in the t&c's.

dr wadd
25-02-2005, 16:00
Would you consider the company to be in breach of contract?

Technically, there was no contract.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 16:03
Get over what? If the contract is with the peron not the address, then they are free to move at any time during the contract. If ntl can no longer supply the services they agreed to in the contract (regardless of circumstances) then they have to supply an equivalent or better service at the same price, or they are in breach of contract. That is the law. It's entirely irrelevant whether ntl have to recoup wages/time/hardware costs or not.

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 16:13
Technically, there was no contract.I think that you would find there was. :)

Contracts always have to be between people but they can specify location. If you have NTL services installed you are not allowed to modify or interfere with them. If you move, under your theory, you can take the service with you but under NTLs T&Cs you cannot do the movement of the equipment yourself. Now take you pick, pay the penalty or pay NTL to move the equipment. Anyone here know the cost of laying several miles of fibre and supplying all the other equipment that would be involved? :D :D :D

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 16:16
Nice to see all the barrack room lawyers out in force again in this thread.

The contracts are 100% watertight. End of story. People seem to think that just because they didn't fully read the contract, this somehow makes it unfair when they get caught out by something they didn't read. It doesn't.

If you sign up to a service for 12 months, you have to pay for the service for 12 months. I can't believe people are somehow suggesting that THEM making a material change to the situation (IE moving) is somehow ntl's fault and they should be released from contract.

If you don't think you're going to be in a property for 12 months, don't agree a 12 month contract.

Try telling Sky you're moving to somewhere they cannot service (yes there ARE such areas) and therefore you want out of the contract.

Once again, people will argue black is white.

As an aside, the poster in this thread should have some redress as he was specifically told that he could cancel if moving to a non-cabled area, but this is still not part of the contract.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 16:25
Yes if you sign up for a service for 12 months you have to pay for it, unless the service is no longer being provided. It's not rocket science.

intalex
25-02-2005, 16:37
As an aside, the poster in this thread should have some redress as he was specifically told that he could cancel if moving to a non-cabled area, but this is still not part of the contract.

I only asked because I knew that I would be moving in 3-4 months, and was just doing my homework beforehand. But the original poster is being forced out of his place, and so it is not by his own choice. This makes it unfair on the poor chap.

Once again, I repeat, if NTL decided to change the unwritten rule, they should apply it to only those who sign up after the change. I'm not talking on legal terms (because unwritten can mean anything), but rather on the basis of good genuine service! In fact, if the unwritten rule is not in the favour of the customer, then it should be well-documented rather than left unwritten in order to avoid such uncertainties.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 16:52
What I find most astonishing is that people have admitted that if you move to a broadband enabled area the remainder of your comes with you, but then claim if you move to a non-broadband enabled area you contract stays where it is. The only way for this to happen is if ntl make a provision in the contract differentiating between where their customers could move. Theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re just trying it on in the manner of many big companies, itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ll only take one person to stand up for them. Sweeping statements like †˜The contract is 100% waterproofââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ are unhelpful as well as a little obtuse. Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not disputing that the contract is a legally binding document, just that in the said circumstances ntl are in breach of it.



Do people believe this applies to TV and telephone also by the way?

ian@huth
25-02-2005, 17:22
NTL are quite free to waive any penalty imposed by the contract or vary contract terms to the customers advantage if they so wish. They could stick rigorously to the contract terms if they so wished. Would you want the latter?

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 17:48
I only asked because I knew that I would be moving in 3-4 months, and was just doing my homework beforehand. But the original poster is being forced out of his place, and so it is not by his own choice. This makes it unfair on the poor chap.

Yes, it's unfair, but it's not ntl's fault it's unfair. They are not a charity on call to pick up the pieces of people's lives when they go wrong. Harsh but true.


Once again, I repeat, if NTL decided to change the unwritten rule, they should apply it to only those who sign up after the change. I'm not talking on legal terms (because unwritten can mean anything), but rather on the basis of good genuine service.
Totally agree, and in fact I'm not in favour of the change of rules, it was fione as it was. The original poster should push his case with a manager, perhaps writing in would be a good idea.

Neil
25-02-2005, 19:04
Try signing up to a 12 month mobile phone contract & then leaving without penalty after 3 or 4 months.

Ain't gonna happen I'm afraid.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 20:14
Well this is taken from the Orange website:

"4.4 terminating your contract because Orange is no longer able to provide access to the Network
If, for reasons beyond our control, we are no longer able to provide Network Services, we will at our discretion either:
4.4.1 make arrangements for you to be supplied with equivalent Services by another network at no extra cost to you, or
4.4.2 accept written notice from you that you wish to terminate your Contract. In such cases we will refund any pre-paid Charges that have not been used up."

And for "at our descretion" read because we're legally obliged to. I

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 20:17
Try signing up to a 12 month mobile phone contract & then leaving without penalty after 3 or 4 months.

Ain't gonna happen I'm afraid.
Totally agree, although I do believe the original poster when he says he was told he would not be held to contract if he moved to a non-cabled area.

Although ntl are technically within their rights to hold this particular person to contract, in this specific instance I believe they should honour what was said at point of sale. It's not as if it was a salesman telling lies, it was genuinely the 'unwritten rule' at that time.
__________________

Well this is taken from the Orange website:

"4.4 terminating your contract because Orange is no longer able to provide access to the Network
If, for reasons beyond our control, we are no longer able to provide Network Services, we will at our discretion either:
4.4.1 make arrangements for you to be supplied with equivalent Services by another network at no extra cost to you, or
4.4.2 accept written notice from you that you wish to terminate your Contract. In such cases we will refund any pre-paid Charges that have not been used up."

And for "at our descretion" read because we're legally obliged to. I
That's nothing to do with moving house though. It covers the fact that for whatever technical reason may occur, their service beomes unavailable.

To repeat what I said AGAIN (something I seem to have to do in every thread these days as people don't listen), the ntl contracts are watertight. It is NOT NTL'S PROBLEM if someone moves to a non-cabled area. The customer has agreed a contract for 12 months, and that is all there is to it.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 20:20
It could be to do with moving house, for example if you move to an area outside Orange's coverage. I'd have thought that was obvious. There's no mention of technical reasons at all.

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 20:27
It could be to do with moving house, for example if you move to an area outside Orange's coverage. I'd have thought that was obvious. There's no mention of technical reasons at all.
I can assure you that if you move house Orange are not obliged to release you from contract just because there's no signal. It covers things like masts having to be removed, or changes in the law, etc.

Besides, the original poster did not sign an Orange contract. There's no sense in arguing that one company's contract is unfair simply because another unrelated company has a different one.
Telewest have ALWAYS refused to release from contract on this basis. The only reason people are making noises here is because ntl used to, and now don't.

Don't agree to a contract if you don't like what's in it. There's no point signing it then bleating that it's not fair because you prefer someone else's contract.

Derek
25-02-2005, 20:28
It could be to do with moving house, for example if you move to an area outside Orange's coverage. I'd have thought that was obvious. There's no mention of technical reasons at all.

In case you aren't aware Orange provide mobile phones.

If you managed to get out of a contract that way I'd be very, very surprised.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 20:40
I guarantee you could get out of your contract like that. Like all contracts it means exactly what it states. No specific reason is given for them no longer being able to provide network services therefore any reason,such as moving outside their coverage area, would be admissable.

Hello scrotnig, is there anybody in there? I believe Neil was the one who stated that you couldn't get out of a mobile phone contract in such a manner and you said you totally agreed. All I was doing was refuting an entirely inaccurate statement. There's no point making analogies and then claiming there not relevant.

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 20:43
Like all contracts it means exactly what it states.
You don't REALLY believe that do you? Please tell me you don't!

I am not trying to pick arguments in this and other threads, I'm just trying to tell it like it is. I don't always agree with the result, just as here I don't think the change in the unwritten rule is a good idea, because it isn't.

But sometimes uncomfortable truths have to be told. Some people are flaming me yet all I am doing is saying stuff that people don't really want to hear. Don't shoot the messenger.

Derek
25-02-2005, 20:44
I guarantee you could get out of your contract like that. Like all contracts it means exactly what it states. No specific reason is given for them no longer being able to provide network services therefore any reason,such as moving outside their coverage area, would be admissable.


:rolleyes:

Hmmmm, I'd like to hear that conversation.

"Hello I'd like to cancel my contract. Even though I have received a heavily subsidised phone from you"
"And why would you like to do that sir?"
"I'm moving to the 1% of the UK without any coverage from your network"
"And I take it you will never come back into coverage again. Ever?"
"Oh right..."

Somehow I think you'd be put on hold while they laughed themselves silly before you were politely told 12 months is 12 months, thank you for calling and have a nice day.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 20:51
I think the problem is you don't understand the nature of contracts. They're very explicit legally-binding documents. Both sides have to do exactly what they state or they are in breach of it.

Yes if I was to go and live the north pole for a year (where I assume they have no coverage) and had a year left on my Orange contract, I could definitely terminate it under clause 4.4 (unless they managed to provide me with an alternative at no additional cost). That's what it says, surely there's no possibilty of an arguement here?

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 20:53
This thread and that other one about unbundling have made me rather cross and I've possibly been a bit abrasive with some people, which I regret. So I am going to retire from both for a while, or at least try to be nicer in them.

All I ask in return is that people please don't flame around the place if told something that isn't what they want to hear. I might even agree with your view, but what I deal in is fact, and sometimes in life the facts ain't nice. I prefer not to deal in bull and just tell it like it is. :D

Derek
25-02-2005, 20:54
Rent a satellite phone.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 21:05
Yes I could rent a satellite phone, the point is I could aslo cancel my contract with Orange.

scrotnig I think the problem is you're not dealing in facts but assumptions, you're assuming ntl can do what they're trying to do because they've told you they can. It's not uncommon amongst large companies to do this, after all who would fancy going to court with ntl over such a petty issue? Much easier just to pay the bill and have done with it. You cannot enforce a contract if you can't keep your side of it. As I've said before,the only way they could do this is if the contract was to supply services specifically at that address. (Or of course had a clause about moving into non-ntl areas).

Derek
25-02-2005, 21:09
I don't think Scrotnig is the one dealing with assumptions.

He works for Ntl. I used to work for Ntl. I know work for a mobile phone company.

We KNOW that they will not allow cancellations using moving as an excuse.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 21:19
Well I don't really know what to do against such pig-headed stubborness, who you work for is irrelevant. Read clause 4.4 again, it makes no mention of the reason for not being able to provide network coverage, it's legally binding, both parties are subject to its content.

obvious
25-02-2005, 21:27
Last time I looked, the ntl contract/T&Cs had more holes than a sieve. There are any number of ways to get out of this situation :-

1. They are required to inform you in writing in advance of any material changes in service - Find a change in the service and argue that it was material. I'm damn sure they never sent you a letter about it.

2.ii. if we significantly reduce the content of the Services or make any significant change to the terms and conditions of this Agreement under Condition 26, you may terminate this Agreement by giving us one month's notice in writing within 30 days of such change irrespective of whether the minimum period in respect of such Services has expired.
Surely you can come up with one area where the content of the services was significantly reduced? Here's a hint - email, newsgroups, availabilty of support etc etc.

In any case, good luck.

Derek
25-02-2005, 21:31
Well I don't really know what to do against such pig-headed stubborness, who you work for is irrelevant. Read clause 4.4 again, it makes no mention of the reason for not being able to provide network coverage, it's legally binding, both parties are subject to its content.

Hmm we are talking about Ntl's terms and conditions and now a mobile phone companies T&C's. So taking the advice of someone who has worked for both isn't relevant is it? :rolleyes:

If you have to leave a mobile phone contract early for whatever reason (except death and thats about it) you will have to pay the remaining monthly costs. Thats it. No ifs, buts or "I'll go to watchdog" will work.

Moving to another area won't work

Now if the Orange network had a catastrophic failure and it could no longer cater for the number of users and you were not getting an acceptable service then they could kick some users off with no comeback.

Of course I'm fighting against people who would argue white is black just to get a response so this is my final word on the matter. I'm bailing out with Scrotnig as I'm getting more and more p'd off and will end up posting something I regret shortly. :Yikes:

PS. The email and newsgroups aren't a guaranteed service so that won't work.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 21:54
I hope you're not taking anything I say personally, I don't mean to offend either of you.

Again you're reading stuff into the clause which isn't there, talking about catastrophic newtork failure, all it says is reasons beyond our control.

Let me put one more point to you before going out. Say I did what I said before, take out a years contract with Orange, but have to move to the North Pole after 1 month. i try to cancel under clause 4.4, they refuse, it goes to court. I say I'm cancellin under clause 4.4 which states I can cancel if Orange are unable to provide network coverage for reasons beyond their control. They say, ah we didn't mean if you moved we meant if there was a catastrophic network failure. I say you should have said that then. Who do you think will win?

Have a good evening.

Derek
25-02-2005, 21:58
I'd say Orange

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 22:00
To return to the original poster's issue:

He has no legal right to cancel, *however* he has clearly been told at point of sale that he could indeed do so should he find himself in the circumstances he now does find himself in.

Therefore, I believe that ntl as a company should honour this without question. It will probably take a manager to do it but it should be honoured.

I am confident that someone senior in his region would be able to resolve this. Perhaps instead of all this fighting someone could find out what region the poster is from and try and find a useful contact for that region.

cr80123
25-02-2005, 22:04
So in a situation in court where Orange admit to not stating in the contract what they meant, you think they wouldn't have to stick to the legally-binding agreement between us but could amend the contract on the fly as it were?And you accuse me of arguing that white is black!

intalex
25-02-2005, 22:16
Can't believe I am on this forum at this time on a friday nite...

I wasn't the original poster. I'm in a similar boat to the original poster, but what I also have is a verbal promise from my original salesman that NTL would cancel my contract without penalty if I moved to a non-cabled area. It's a case of whether or not NTL would take this verbal promise into account. If they do honour it, what's stopping other people in this forum from claiming that they also checked with their original salesperson that they could do this? I guess, do it if you can be convincing enough!

scrotnig
25-02-2005, 22:31
Can't believe I am on this forum at this time on a friday nite...

I wasn't the original poster. I'm in a similar boat to the original poster, but what I also have is a verbal promise from my original salesman that NTL would cancel my contract without penalty if I moved to a non-cabled area. It's a case of whether or not NTL would take this verbal promise into account. If they do honour it, what's stopping other people in this forum from claiming that they also checked with their original salesperson that they could do this? I guess, do it if you can be convincing enough!
In some cases, I've known salespeople actually put it in the notes, though not very often.

I think you should definitely try it and not just accept what you've been told. I think it's very peculiar that this rule has been changed, although I wasn't a salesman in my last role I told quite a few people they'd be ok in this regard and am more than a little peeved to discover the rules have changed while I wasn't looking and I will now look like a liar!

I actually haven't seen any official notification that this rule HAS changed, I have just 'heard' that it has. My current role means that I wouldn't get any such notification anyway, but that's beside the point. I might investigate next week to see if this rule really HAS changed or whether it's just certain people trying it on.

Derek
26-02-2005, 00:41
So in a situation in court where Orange admit to not stating in the contract what they meant, you think they wouldn't have to stick to the legally-binding agreement between us but could amend the contract on the fly as it were?And you accuse me of arguing that white is black!

But they wouldn't have broken their contract. They can still provide services to you in the UK. If you choose to move then Orange wouldn't be breaking the contract.
Getting back on topic the person at the start of this thread is moving. Not his choice but Ntl can still supply services at the address. They are not removing the services or forcing him to move. If someone else is then that is unfortunate but sadly not Ntl's problem.

ian@huth
26-02-2005, 01:46
I think the problem is you don't understand the nature of contracts. They're very explicit legally-binding documents. Both sides have to do exactly what they state or they are in breach of it.

Yes if I was to go and live the north pole for a year (where I assume they have no coverage) and had a year left on my Orange contract, I could definitely terminate it under clause 4.4 (unless they managed to provide me with an alternative at no additional cost). That's what it says, surely there's no possibilty of an arguement here?
I think that you have hit the nail right on the head with your first paragraph. A contract is a very explicit legally binding document. Interpretation of such a document though can be quite complex and many people think they have found a loophole but rarely does that loophole exist.

If you were to rely on moving to the north pole as a get out with orange then you would sadly be mistaken. You would be relying on clause 4.7 of Oranges terms and conditions as set out at http://www.orange.co.uk/talkplans/tplan_tc.html which is that Orange is no longer able to provide access to their Network. Moving to the north pole means that you are moving out of their network area but you would still have access to the network if you moved back to its coverage area. Any court would laugh at you if you tried to use that as a get out.

cr80123
26-02-2005, 02:21
Ok Ian possibly, I think it's a mute point but I can see what you mean. I'd certainly argue against it but maybe that's just because I'm argumentative! I still think ntl cannot enforce their contract on another address unless they explicitally state it.Hopefully someone will put them to the test, unfortunately that's vey unlikely - large companies get away with this because the people who need the money the most can't possibly afford to argue about it.

h3adru5h
26-02-2005, 20:27
ok - This is the official line in summary format: -


When siging up for ntl: services you must agree to and abide by the residential terms & conditions of service. To view the terms & conditions online, please visit http://www.home.ntl.com/page/termsresidential. The current process is clear; If you leave your ntl: cabled property to move to a non-ntl: cabled area, within your 12 months contract then -

You may either take ntl:'s indirect service, ntl:freedom, or
Pay a penalty fee for the premature termination of services.
The latter would apply if you were leaving the UK etc as ntl:freedom is unavailable outside of the UK. Services can only be cancelled within contract in cases fitting section 20 (cancellation rights) of the terms & conditions.

It's important to point out the ntl: is not the only company to employ this method however it is strongly recommended (and far from unreasonable to expect) that all people read, understand and ask relevant questions prior to installation - and subsequent agreement to the terms & conditions. Once you have agreed to the terms & conditions, you have agreed to receive or become legally liable for services for a period of 12 months from the point of installation.

cr80123
27-02-2005, 13:53
Nowhere in those terms and conditions does it mention anything about moving to a non-ntl cabled area. I don't really know how to makes this any clearer, the content of that document is the agreement between ntl and the customer. They can take any official line they like, it doesn't matter one bit, when you sign the contract both parties are agreeing to be legally bound by the terms and conditions, nothing more nothing less. Yes the current process is clear, ntl have neglected (unbelievably) to include any provision in their terms and conditions for a customer moving to a non-cabled area. I would contend you could terminate the contract under clause 20ii as they would have significantly reduced the content of their services (i.e. from having a service to having none at all).

ian@huth
27-02-2005, 14:08
Nowhere in those terms and conditions does it mention anything about moving to a non-ntl cabled area. I don't really know how to makes this any clearer, the content of that document is the agreement between ntl and the customer. They can take any official line they like, it doesn't matter one bit, when you sign the contract both parties are agreeing to be legally bound by the terms and conditions, nothing more nothing less. Yes the current process is clear, ntl have neglected (unbelievably) to include any provision in their terms and conditions for a customer moving to a non-cabled area. I would contend you could terminate the contract under clause 20ii as they would have significantly reduced the content of their services (i.e. from having a service to having none at all).
Wakey, Wakey. Would you use that clause if you went blind then?

They haven't reduced the content of their service at all, it's still there where you agreed it should be installed. Now if you want to insist on your version of your rights you can ask them to move the equipment at your cost to your new location. :D

cr80123
27-02-2005, 14:18
How would me going blind make ntl significantly reduce the content of their services? Admittedly it would effect my ability to enjoy them, but that isn't mentioned in clause 20ii. People are constantly making foolish anologies without thinking them through.

Haven't ntl employees already confirmed that the agreement is to supply services to the person only, and is not specific to an address?

ian@huth
27-02-2005, 14:31
How would me going blind make ntl significantly reduce the content of their services? Admittedly it would effect my ability to enjoy them, but that isn't mentioned in clause 20ii. People are constantly making foolish anologies without thinking them through.

Haven't ntl employees already confirmed that the agreement is to supply services to the person only, and is not specific to an address?Moving away from where the services are supplied also only affects your ability to enjoy them, they are still there at the place you agreed they should be.

The agreement is made with the person but for supply at the point which you agreed to.

Taking your thinking to a logical conclusion you could sue NTL for breach of contract if they didn't provide the services to you on the bus to work and at work when you got there. Get real and wake up to the fact that your argument would not stand up in court.

cr80123
27-02-2005, 14:47
No I couldn't sue them for breach of contract for not providing services on the bus or at work because it's a residential service i.e. specific to where I reside. I can sit here all day refuting your foolish anologies, think about them first.

If what you say about the agreement being for supply at only the initial point is correct (and I can find nowhere where it states this perhaps you could point me in the right direction) then anyone moving to a cabled area would need a new 12 month contract and would still be liable for the remainder of the term on the old one. Employees of ntl have categorically stated that this is not the case.

ian@huth
27-02-2005, 15:06
No I couldn't sue them for breach of contract for not providing services on the bus or at work because it's a residential service i.e. specific to where I reside. I can sit here all day refuting your foolish anologies, think about them first.But the contract is with you, not where you are, so you say. Go on refuting then, here's another. Go stay at a relatives house for the week or two and ask NTL to provide your services at that residential address whilst you are there? Do you think they will or would give you compensation if they didn't? Your views on that? I am stuck here all day and am enjoying the laugh at some of the stupid interpretations of the law.

If what you say about the agreement being for supply at only the initial point is correct (and I can find nowhere where it states this perhaps you could point me in the right direction) then anyone moving to a cabled area would need a new 12 month contract and would still be liable for the remainder of the term on the old one. Employees of ntl have categorically stated that this is not the case.NTL can choose not to penalise a customer if they so wish but you are quite free to sue them for breach of contract if you wish and if you win have two contracts to pay instead of one. :D

cr80123
27-02-2005, 15:25
Well that's just silly. Obviously I wouldn't expect ntl to provide me with services temporarily at a relative's house. For the purpose of the law, my permanent address would be unchanged. If I was in court and asked to give my address I would have to give my permanent address.

So now you're saying the contract is still valid but ntl cancel it and produce a new contract for the customer to sign, of length 12 months minus the time already spent at the old address?

ian@huth
27-02-2005, 15:59
cr80123, have you got a contract with NTL and have you read it?
__________________

Well, the football is nearly ready to start so.

If you have a contract with NTL for the supply of services don't just look at the back of the agrrement. On the front section 1 asks for details about yourself including the Service Address. The contract DOES specify the address where the services are to be provided and as long as NTL can continue to supply services at THAT address then moving house doesn't give you a get out from the contract.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 11:45
No they never sent me one when I got TV and telephone. When I got broadband they just sent me a network cable through the post with a book of instructions and a cd. I believe you agree to the terms and conditions when you register online.

ian@huth
28-02-2005, 12:42
No they never sent me one when I got TV and telephone. When I got broadband they just sent me a network cable through the post with a book of instructions and a cd. I believe you agree to the terms and conditions when you register online.
It would appear from posts on here over the years that many times NTL forget to give the customer a contract and check that it is signed and returned. They ought to tighten up their procedures regarding this, it can't be that hard.

gordk
28-02-2005, 15:05
Wow seems like my original post started quite a discussion! Some interesting points on both sides, but what would be most preferable would be if I could freeze my account until I return to the UK and get a place sorted (hopefully with NTL service availability). I realise however, at the moment it is a 3 month hold.


I have lived at my rented accommodation for a number of years and assumed it was safe for a fair period in time. The news it was being sold was very sudden and not expected otherwise I definitely would not have signed the contract (which I was led to believe was for 7 months interestingly?) Also lots of people seem to be discussing the cost of NTL to install the broadband - there have been many people living in the place (it is a shared house) who have had NTL connections in the past so I was just provided with a cable, box and cd (which then didnt work as services were down in my area - Leeds for 2 weeks before I was able to install it on my computer and was charged for that period!)

My final resolution so far as I am leaving the UK in April, is to transfer the broadband service to my friend (who currently also lives in the house and hopefully will move to a NTL serviced area). By doing this at least it can get used (although she does not really need it) and can cancel it as soon as the contract runs out in November.

This is not really a resolution and has left me feeling rather cold for NTL who as mentioned previously, I have used for many years and would probably have continued using in the future. However, because I am concerned over the customer relations and obvious non defined terms and conditions in NTLs contract I will not be using their services any more.

I would have assumed if there is no mention under the terms and conditions of terminating the service if moving area then it can be argued for just as much as against. If NTL have changed their policy recently this has not been reflected in the t&c and as the length of the discussion here seems to show it is something that really needs clearing up. I accept what has happened in my case and if I had just decided to move while knowing I was held under a 12 month contract then fine I would accept it even more, but I guess all we can do is learn from our mistakes and DEFINITELY (at least try) not to make them again!
__________________

OK Now After reading the link posted above to the T&C on NTLs homepage I am even more confused -

3. Duration
3.1 For our Starter Pack the minimum period of service is 12 months starting on the date we activate the Services. You can only terminate this Agreement during that minimum period if conditions 19.4 or 20.1 apply otherwise we may charge you a cancellation charge which will be the charges which would have been payable to the end of the minimum period. After the minimum period, either you or us may terminate this Agreement on one month's written notice.

3.2 For all other Services (unless otherwise stated in our Price Lists) the minimum period of service is one month and either you or us may terminate this Agreement to the extent that it relates to such Services on one month's written notice.

"Starter Pack" means our basic telephone and/or TV package or any replacement or variation (whether under the same name or any other name);

So does that mean broadband????
__________________

OK pulling at straws here :Yikes: is the following clause viable or am I in a sinking ship?

27. Unforeseeable Events

Neither party is liable for any breach of this Agreement which is caused by something beyond their reasonable control including Acts of God, fire, lightening, extremely severe weather, flood, a national or local emergency, explosion, war, military operations, civil disorder, damage to the ntl Network, terrorism, vandalism, industrial disputes, or acts of local or central Government or other competent authorities.

ian@huth
28-02-2005, 15:13
gordk, if you have lived in the rented property for a number of years don't you have the right to continue living there? What does your lease say? What type of tenancy is it, Rent Act, Assured or assured shorthold?

bob_builder
28-02-2005, 15:25
gordk, if you have lived in the rented property for a number of years don't you have the right to continue living there? What does your lease say? What type of tenancy is it, Rent Act, Assured or assured shorthold?
If it is like the majority of private tenants around here (myself included) it will be a standard assured shorthold agreement where you have no rights beyond the end of your current contract.

I can see this being a problem to a lot of people if all the people with buy-to-let mortgages decide to sell up at the end of the current lease to cash-in before the house prices fall.

gordk
28-02-2005, 16:11
Unfortunately I have been renting from the father of a friend and have never as such had a tenancy agreement - nor have the other people in the house. We have the standard 2 month notice period and that is all unfortunately :(

Goes to show its not wise to get too comfortable and as soon as I can afford I would like to get my own place.

Chris W
28-02-2005, 16:16
Neither party is liable for any breach of this Agreement which is caused by something beyond their reasonable control[/b] including Acts of God, fire, lightening, extremely severe weather, flood, a national or local emergency, explosion, war, military operations, civil disorder, damage to the ntl Network, terrorism, vandalism, industrial disputes, or acts of local or central Government or other competent authorities.

Ah hah... This is called "Frustration"

A contract is frustrated if an event occurs which is out of control of both parties, such as the examples given.

I don't think you leaving the property would be classified as frustration... but the answer of the law is usually "maybe" so it is worth a try :)

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 17:13
Gordk, what area of the country are you in?

gordk
28-02-2005, 17:19
Currently I am in Leeds LS11

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 18:33
PM me your details and the date you're moving out, I'll arrange the disconnection for that date.
__________________

This matter will now be sorted.

gordk
28-02-2005, 18:38
Thank you :)

cr80123
28-02-2005, 18:46
So where does that leave me then? I'd say I can get rid of the TV and telephone at anytime as I've signed nothing for them, but am still tied into the terms and conditions for broadband as I accepted them whilst registering online. Or by merely using the TV and phone do I automatically agree to abide by the terms and conditions?

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 18:58
So where does that leave me then? I'd say I can get rid of the TV and telephone at anytime as I've signed nothing for them, but am still tied into the terms and conditions for broadband as I accepted them whilst registering online. Or by merely using the TV and phone do I automatically agree to abide by the terms and conditions?
All three services are subject to the contract, so yes, if you've used them you'd normally be deemed to have agreed.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 19:34
I'd have thought I'd be subject to the terms and conditions, but not the contract as I haven't signed it. Is there an electronic version of this contract avialable anywhere?

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 19:38
I'd have thought I'd be subject to the terms and conditions, but not the contract as I haven't signed it. Is there an electronic version of this contract avialable anywhere?
ntl only supply services under their published contract. If you don't agree to that contract, the correct procedure is to refuse the installers permission to install.

If you commence using the service then you are legally bound and no court in the land would rule otherwise.

Using your own theory, you presumably wouldn't mind at all if ntl suddenly trebled your charges...after all, you wouldn't be bound by the contract so they could alter charges when they pleased.

Contracts are a two way thing. I'm afraid you can't get round it this way at all.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 19:44
Yes I agree in part, but surely they're obliged to give me a copy of the contract to read and refuse to sign if I wished? In fact I'd have thought they shouldn't even be supplying me with anything without a signed contract. To be honest I'm a bit confused since Ian mentioned this contract with a specific address on it - the only thing I'd heard of before were the terms and conditions which I thought formed the contract.

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 19:47
Yes I agree in part, but surely they're obliged to give me a copy of the contract to read and refuse to sign if I wished? In fact I'd have thought they shouldn't even be supplying me with anything without a signed contract. To be honest I'm a bit confused since Ian mentioned this contract with a specific address on it - the only thing I'd heard of before were the terms and conditions which I thought formed the contract.
What happens is when you order the service a contract is sent out. You are asked to return it, but not returning it won't prevent the installation taking place.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 19:54
Yes but I didn't receive it. Do they not check to see if they've been signed and returned? In fact, thinking about it further, I don't see how I can possibly be under a contract I haven't signed. Unless of course by ordering the service I automatically agrre to be under it. But in that case why bother sending one out for signature?

Derek
28-02-2005, 19:59
No they don't check. When you allow the engineers into your home and sign to say you are happy with the work it normally means you are happy with the work and to be bound by the T&C's (which are normally also on the back of the installation confirmation)

And before you complain this is exactly how Sky operate as well.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 20:04
Ah yes but this contract seems to be different from the terms and conditions, does anyone have an electronic copy? And why do they bother sending it out for you to sign if they don't check if you have?!

Derek
28-02-2005, 20:05
They send it out for your records and so you can cancel before installation if you are planning to move to the south pole before the 12 months are up :rolleyes:

cr80123
28-02-2005, 20:10
So there's nowhere on it for you to sign and they don't ask you to return it, it's purely for your records?

scrotnig
28-02-2005, 20:27
Yes but I didn't receive it. Do they not check to see if they've been signed and returned? In fact, thinking about it further, I don't see how I can possibly be under a contract I haven't signed. Unless of course by ordering the service I automatically agrre to be under it. But in that case why bother sending one out for signature?
No, what happens is that you are told at point of sale that the contract will be sent. If you don't receive it, it's your responsibility to tell the company prior to installation. Once install takes place you're bound whether you've seen it or not.

The company can do nothing more than post it. They aren't obliged to send people round and check you got it. If it's sent, that's good enough.

I used to deal with similar situations when I worked in Credit Control. Almost every customer would argue that we couldn't cut them off for non payment as they had not received their bill. Once we'd established it had been sent, we would advise thus:

"You need to take that up with the Post Office".

ntl rely on the customer to call us and inform us that a bill hasn't been received...copy bills can then be arranged at no cost. The company isn't psychic, and customers are naive if they think that non-receipt of a bill suddenly means they don't have to pay for the service.

Transpose the contract situation on to the above, and you've pretty much got the situation summed up. ntl are not psychic and don't know that you haven't received the contract, you need to call them and tell them. If the customer decides to proceed with installation without seeing the contract, that is THEIR personal choice and they will still be bound by it regardless.

cr80123
28-02-2005, 20:39
Again a lot of what you're saying makes sense, but surely there's a big difference between contracts and bills? You're liable for bills as you've actually received goods/services but a written contract must require a signature? I'd have thought ntl would keep a copy of it. Unless of course you're saying I entered into a verbal contract when I ordered the services and the written contract is just confirmation of what I agreed. I have a friend who is a solicitor who is back from holiday on Friday, I was going to ask him about the terms and conditions and moving house etc. but now I'll first ask him about this written contract which doesn't require a signature. I don't even think a written contract was mentioned when I first phoned up but of course I cannot prove that (although neither could ntl). I'll let you know what he says.

Derek
28-02-2005, 20:47
*snip*
I'll let you know what he says.

I'll save you the hastle. If he's any good he'll say something along the lines of.

"Ntl are in the right."

cr80123
28-02-2005, 20:53
Well it's no hassle I'll be seeing him anyway I expect, I may as well ask him. I'd be suprised if he says you're legally bound to a contract you didn't sign.

h3adru5h
01-03-2005, 01:06
Well it's no hassle I'll be seeing him anyway I expect, I may as well ask him. I'd be suprised if he says you're legally bound to a contract you didn't sign.

When registering your broadband service you are presented with the electronic version of the terms & conditions which form your contract. It is stated clearly to read the terms & conditions and either accept of decline the installation. If declined, then the installation will cancel and you will not be bound to the minimum term of 12 months. Should you press accept however, then you have agreed to the terms & conditions and the contract has been agreed to electronically. The agreement will be recorded remotely to ntl: record servers and an account will be generated and completed, allowing you to go online. I would imagine that you are using the broadband service, thus meaning you have agreed to the terms & conditions and subsequent contract, generated following your agreement.

It is important to point out that the terms & conditions is the same as I have listed previously and you may look at this at any time. Alternatively you may call customer services on 0800 052 2000 to obtain a copy of the residential terms & conditions.

ntl: have made no secrets regarding the minimum term of service. It is clearly stated in the terms & conditions, hire agreements and any literature advertising services. We recommend at all times to research the service prior to agreeing to the terms & conditions, thus restricting yourself to a minimum term of 12 months.

ntl: cannot and will not be liable, or responsible, for any information that has been overlooked by the customer. The customer services department are available to discuss the terms of service prior to installation should you have any concerns.

Chris W
01-03-2005, 01:25
Well it's no hassle I'll be seeing him anyway I expect, I may as well ask him. I'd be suprised if he says you're legally bound to a contract you didn't sign.

make sure you explain the context- this is very important in every legal problem. And as the others say- you are bound by the contract despite no actual "scribble on a bit of paper"

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 02:01
The contract with NTL is an agreement made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

There are specific proceedures which have to be followed in such an agreement. Basically the Agreement is an hire agreement.

The customer must be supplied with a written copy of the Agreement which has to be signed by both parties. There are precise rules about what the agreement should contain.

If you want to know more have a look at http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A1D73523-26D2-4378-83DB-3D0C67C68010/0/oft017.pdf

h3adru5h
01-03-2005, 02:09
The contract with NTL is an agreement made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

There are specific proceedures which have to be followed in such an agreement. Basically the Agreement is an hire agreement.

The customer must be supplied with a written copy of the Agreement which has to be signed by both parties. There are precise rules about what the agreement should contain.

If you want to know more have a look at http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A1D73523-26D2-4378-83DB-3D0C67C68010/0/oft017.pdf

This is correct. If you are not entirely satisfied with the services or the terms & conditions to your contract then under the aforementioned Consumer Credit Act, you may cancel within a reasonable notice period from the point of sale. Although "reasonable" is not defined within the terms & conditions, it is reasonable to expect 7 (seven) days for direct sales (via door-to-door salesperson) or 14 (fourteen) days from telesale order. Please read the terms & conditions for further information on this.

Please note that the clock starts ticking from the point of sale.

scrotnig
01-03-2005, 04:10
This is correct. If you are not entirely satisfied with the services or the terms & conditions to your contract then under the aforementioned Consumer Credit Act, you may cancel within a reasonable notice period from the point of sale. Although "reasonable" is not defined within the terms & conditions, it is reasonable to expect 7 (seven) days for direct sales (via door-to-door salesperson) or 14 (fourteen) days from telesale order. Please read the terms & conditions for further information on this.

Please note that the clock starts ticking from the point of sale.No. Sorry, this is a common misconception.

What you're thinking of is the Distance Selling Regulations. This gives customers a period of 7 days to cancel the contract PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, and only where the company have approached them.

In practice ntl will always allow a cancellation prior to install regardless.

However, once the services are installed THAT IS IT. You do NOT have a period of time to decide if you like the services. ntl will NOT spend hundreds of pounds installing you, only for you to decide you don't really like it and then have it removed a week later. This applies even if the seven and fourteen day periods have not expired....they expire immediately upon installation.

This is a fact, and anyone who thinks otherwise, I suggest you get the service installed then try and cancel the following day. Ain't gonna happen.

Obviously things are different if the installed service doesn't work. But if it is installed and works, and you simply change your mind the next day, then I'm afraid it is tough tumshy....and rightly so!

If anyone wants an analogy...ring a window company and request double glazing and uPVC frames. Then have it fitted a few days later. Then ring the window company and tell them you have changed your mind and would they please remove them and refit your old windows. Again, ain't gonna happen.

Please, no barrack room lawyers telling me I'm wrong. This is what happens and it was my job to tell customers this for almost two years.

Neil
01-03-2005, 07:23
No. Sorry, this is a common misconception.

What you're thinking of is the Distance Selling Regulations. This gives customers a period of 7 days to cancel the contract PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, and only where the company have approached them.

Please, no barrack room lawyers telling me I'm wrong. This is what happens and it was my job to tell customers this for almost two years.

I do believe you're wrong Mr Scrotnig, & may well have beem mis-informing people...:erm: :angel:

The Distance Selling act entitles you to cancel goods up to 7 days from receipt of the goods.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (DISTANCE SELLING)

These regulations apply to most contracts made at a distance. They require consumers to be given a certain amount of information before they commit themselves to the deal. They also provide a short cancellation period. The actual length of the cancellation period, however, depends on whether or not the required information has been given. If not it is three months and seven working days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/guides_to/consumerlaw/index4.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/draft_letters/cancel.rtf

Now.....how do you plead in the CF Court?

Guilty or Not Guilty!? :D

poolking
01-03-2005, 08:42
Well it's no hassle I'll be seeing him anyway I expect, I may as well ask him. I'd be suprised if he says you're legally bound to a contract you didn't sign.

You will be trust me.

The same goes for contracts of employment, you don't have to sign the contract, but if you don't let your employer know that you disagree with the terms of the contract, after a certain a period of time your employer automatically assumes that you accept the terms and conditions of your contract.

Derek
01-03-2005, 09:40
I do believe you're wrong Mr Scrotnig, & may well have beem mis-informing people...:erm: :angel:

Sadly I don't have access to my Ntl email account any longer but this same question came up about a year ago and I checked with the Ntl legal department who sent me a loooooonnnnnggg explanation of all the ins and outs of the contracts.

Basically it all boiled down to once the services were installed, working and signed off then the minimum term kicked in. This was one of the reasons why 7 days was (almost always) left between confirmation and installation.

intalex
01-03-2005, 09:55
No. Sorry, this is a common misconception.

What you're thinking of is the Distance Selling Regulations. This gives customers a period of 7 days to cancel the contract PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, and only where the company have approached them.

In practice ntl will always allow a cancellation prior to install regardless.

However, once the services are installed THAT IS IT. You do NOT have a period of time to decide if you like the services. ntl will NOT spend hundreds of pounds installing you, only for you to decide you don't really like it and then have it removed a week later. This applies even if the seven and fourteen day periods have not expired....they expire immediately upon installation.

This is a fact, and anyone who thinks otherwise, I suggest you get the service installed then try and cancel the following day. Ain't gonna happen.

Obviously things are different if the installed service doesn't work. But if it is installed and works, and you simply change your mind the next day, then I'm afraid it is tough tumshy....and rightly so!

If anyone wants an analogy...ring a window company and request double glazing and uPVC frames. Then have it fitted a few days later. Then ring the window company and tell them you have changed your mind and would they please remove them and refit your old windows. Again, ain't gonna happen.

Please, no barrack room lawyers telling me I'm wrong. This is what happens and it was my job to tell customers this for almost two years.

That's funny cos' NTL initially installed my broadband so quick that I hadn't even received my contract and t&c's by post yet. As for the electronic version, you don't get that up until all after all the cabling has been installed. I wonder how you are agreeing to the t&c's by agreeing to the installation, when you haven't even been sent the t&c's prior to the installation!!! Don't remember the full t&c's written anywhere on my installation slip either. Chicken and egg situation here!!!

h3adru5h
01-03-2005, 10:02
No. Sorry, this is a common misconception.

What you're thinking of is the Distance Selling Regulations. This gives customers a period of 7 days to cancel the contract PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, and only where the company have approached them.

In practice ntl will always allow a cancellation prior to install regardless.

However, once the services are installed THAT IS IT. You do NOT have a period of time to decide if you like the services. ntl will NOT spend hundreds of pounds installing you, only for you to decide you don't really like it and then have it removed a week later. This applies even if the seven and fourteen day periods have not expired....they expire immediately upon installation.

This is a fact, and anyone who thinks otherwise, I suggest you get the service installed then try and cancel the following day. Ain't gonna happen.

Obviously things are different if the installed service doesn't work. But if it is installed and works, and you simply change your mind the next day, then I'm afraid it is tough tumshy....and rightly so!



Whoah!

This information is incorrect. Due to the services operating on rented equipment from ntl: then the same rules apply as governed by the Consumer Credit Act. You may wish to check this out prior to posting incorrect naughties on the forum mate.... (it's my job to know this btw). :D

Neil
01-03-2005, 10:13
Sadly I don't have access to my Ntl email account any longer but this same question came up about a year ago and I checked with the Ntl legal department who sent me a loooooonnnnnggg explanation of all the ins and outs of the contracts.

Basically it all boiled down to once the services were installed, working and signed off then the minimum term kicked in. This was one of the reasons why 7 days was (almost always) left between confirmation and installation.

Well the BBC/Watchdog website says differently, & (no offence) but I know which one I believe. :)

(Just for clarity-thats the BBC-as opposed to ntl, I'm not saying I disbelieve you personally. :D )

Derek
01-03-2005, 11:36
Well the BBC/Watchdog website says differently, & (no offence) but I know which one I believe. :)

But there are exceptions to this rule (airline tickets being the one that immediately springs to mind.
There was something that Ntl used to defeat the DSR if it ever came to court. I just wish I had thought to keep a copy of it somewhere. :dunce:

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 14:06
Just having read this thread from my last posting in it #129 it appears that no one has bothered to take note of that post.

The contract between NTL and the customer is a Hire Agreement made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. To be fully enforcable the Act requires that Agreements are in writing and signed by both parties.

Cancellation rights (changing your mind about the contract) may or may not exist and depend on where the contract was signed. If the contract was negotiated and signed on NTLs premises then there is no right to cancel (cooling off period). If the contract was negotiated by phone or letter and signed in the customers home then again there is no right to cancel. If the contract was negotiated face to face and signed away from NTLs premises then there is a right to cancel. Cancellation can still take place after the equipment has been installed if it is within the cancellation period that the law stipulates. An installation satisfaction form, if worded in the correct manner, can remove the termination right if the customer signs it.

One point to remember si

Regulations made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which have been in
operation since May 1985, are designed to ensure that people who hire goods have
a clear record of their agreements with owners, and of their rights and obligations
under those agreements. The relevant regulations are listed in Appendix 8 on
page 43.
All regulated hire agreements must be in writing †“ and they must give specific
information in a specific way. There are also rules on when and how owners must
supply hirers with copies of their agreements.

The quote was from a document at http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A1D73523-26D2-4378-83DB-3D0C67C68010/0/oft017.pdf

Whether Agreements are cancelable or not are summarised at
http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CC4C7B5C-2152-4EC7-B850-C3B6E646869D/0/oft018.pdf
http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/123408AA-C856-43F7-A511-0806D3209F7E/0/oft019.pdf

cr80123
01-03-2005, 14:12
I saw it Ian, and assumed from it that my agreement is not legally enforcable as it was not given in writing and I did not sign it.

Derek
01-03-2005, 14:21
Did you, or anyone else left to supervise the installation sign the satisfaction sheet?

cr80123
01-03-2005, 14:25
Well yes but surely that's the satisfactory installation sheet (it was just one sheet of paper on a clipboard with lots of boxes on it), not the hire agreement. I don't suppose ntl would have a chance in hell of finding it anyway.

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 14:33
Did you, or anyone else left to supervise the installation sign the satisfaction sheet?Myself I signed the contract with a NTL salesman at my home. I did sign the satisfaction sheet but cannot remember the detail of it but do know that I was satisfied with the content of it. Is there an online copy of this form or can one be scanned and posted?

If anyone is unsure of what they signed they can always ask NTL for copies of all documentation, memos, notes and computer records that they hold. This is done under the Data Protection Act which may involve a £10 fee.

I was present at my daughters installation and the installers didn't ask for any satisfaction signature which I thought was rather odd.

The law is very specific. The information given to NTL employees appears to be very flawed and some statements that have been posted by them on here have been completely contrary to the provisions of the law.

scrotnig
01-03-2005, 15:23
Whoah!

This information is incorrect. Due to the services operating on rented equipment from ntl: then the same rules apply as governed by the Consumer Credit Act. You may wish to check this out prior to posting incorrect naughties on the forum mate.... (it's my job to know this btw). :D

Like I've said, the so-called 'cooling off period' doesn't apply once the services are installed.

It is commonly mistaken for a 'trial period', when it isn't.

The said period legally only applies to installations that are sold by a salesman who calls at the customer's house. It's then 'distance selling'. These are always booked for seven days later anyway as a matter of process.

If a customer rings up, requests the service, then changes their mind the day after install...it's bad luck I'm afraid.

Like I've said earlier, get a company to install some windows then tell them you've changed your mind the day after they have fitted them. Not going to happen.

And please don't tell me I'm posting 'naughties'. Dealing with these sort of requests used to be my job, and the whys and wherefores of the contract were part of our in-depth training for that job.

There is, as I have stated, a different situation if the service does not work properly once installed. The customer is then entitled to reject the service under the sale of goods act. Although the company will always offer to get it fixed, which in many cases the customer is happy with, the customer is under no obligation to accept this.

Neil
01-03-2005, 15:46
If a customer rings up, requests the service, then changes their mind the day after install...it's bad luck I'm afraid.
Sorry m8, but I don't agree. :angel:

According to The BBC Watchdog site, the following applies....

CONSUMER PROTECTION (DISTANCE SELLING)
These regulations apply to most contracts made at a distance. They require consumers to be given a certain amount of information before they commit themselves to the deal. They also provide a short cancellation period.

The actual length of the cancellation period, however, depends on whether or not the required information has been given. If not it is three months and seven working days.
Taken from here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/guides_to/consumerlaw/index4.shtml

[Edit]-More info here....

†¢ The consumer has a cooling off period in which they can withdraw from the contract for any reason. The cooling off period begins as soon as the order has been made and ends, in the case of services, seven working days after the day the order was made, or in the case of goods, seven working days after the day of receipt of the goods; and

†¢ Where the consumer notifies the supplier in writing that they wish to cancel the contract, they must be refunded with all monies paid within thirty days.

Taken from here: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/distancesell.htm

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 15:56
Like I've said, the so-called 'cooling off period' doesn't apply once the services are installed.

It is commonly mistaken for a 'trial period', when it isn't.

The said period legally only applies to installations that are sold by a salesman who calls at the customer's house. It's then 'distance selling'. These are always booked for seven days later anyway as a matter of process.

If a customer rings up, requests the service, then changes their mind the day after install...it's bad luck I'm afraid.

Like I've said earlier, get a company to install some windows then tell them you've changed your mind the day after they have fitted them. Not going to happen.

And please don't tell me I'm posting 'naughties'. Dealing with these sort of requests used to be my job, and the whys and wherefores of the contract were part of our in-depth training for that job.

There is, as I have stated, a different situation if the service does not work properly once installed. The customer is then entitled to reject the service under the sale of goods act. Although the company will always offer to get it fixed, which in many cases the customer is happy with, the customer is under no obligation to accept this.
The cooling off period is FIVE days from the day the customer receives either a second copy of the agreement or a separate copy of cancellation rights. This is applicable to all contracts signed face to face with a NTL representative and is not signed on NTL premises. It does not need to be in the customers home. When the contract is signed in the presence of a NTL representative it would be normal practice for the second copy to be given to the customer at that time.

Having discussed the cooling off period at the start of the contract there still remains the more important question of whether a valid contract exists under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If the contract is not in writing in the prescribed form and signed by both parties and the customer supplied with a copy then NTL are in breach of the Act and the contract would possibly not be enforcable in law.

Derek
01-03-2005, 16:26
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/distancesell.htm

Now I might be being thick :dunce: (it has happened before. Once) but does that not back up what Scrotnig and I are saying.

The services (which I'm sure the phoneline, TV and internet would be classed as) have a cooling off period of 7 days from the date of agreement. As the installation is never done before 7 days once it is installed the customer has had their cooling off period.

I recently had Sky installed and didn't have to send any signed contracts back. I'd imagine they are using something similar to Ntl contract wise. :confused:

cr80123
01-03-2005, 16:49
Yes but don't you own the satellite dish and stb with Sky? If so, it isn't a hire agreement.

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 17:14
Now I might be being thick :dunce: (it has happened before. Once) but does that not back up what Scrotnig and I are saying.

The services (which I'm sure the phoneline, TV and internet would be classed as) have a cooling off period of 7 days from the date of agreement. As the installation is never done before 7 days once it is installed the customer has had their cooling off period.

I recently had Sky installed and didn't have to send any signed contracts back. I'd imagine they are using something similar to Ntl contract wise. :confused:The contract you sign with NTL is a financial services contract under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 do not apply to agreements made under this act which has its own cooling off period of FIVE days.

If the NTL agreement is a cancellable agreement under the act then it can be cancelled even after installation if that installation is within the five days cooling off period.

Sky contracts are not made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and so different conditions apply. My Sky contract was accompanied by a letter stating that you had to sign and return a copy of the contract. I found the letter but the actual contract is somewhere in the loft but I'm not going up there. :)

h3adru5h
01-03-2005, 21:30
Like I've said, the so-called 'cooling off period' doesn't apply once the services are installed.
.

not trying to be funny about this scrotnig.... but it's my job to know about these things. A cooling off period IS applicable regardless of whether the services have been installed or not. Where are you getting your information from??

Derek
01-03-2005, 21:37
not trying to be funny about this scrotnig.... but it's my job to know about these things. A cooling off period IS applicable regardless of whether the services have been installed or not. Where are you getting your information from??

I got exactly the same information from the Ntl legal team in Hook when I questioned it. It was in relation to a major complaint I was dealing with and every bit of info I could lay my hands on backed up what Scrotnig is saying.

As far as Ntl are concerned once the service is installed, which will be seven days or more since the agreement was made, it will not be removed except under the most extreme circumstances.
Any time this has been questioned by a customer to me when they go off to check it with a lawyer they have never come back to dispute it further as far as I know.

h3adru5h
01-03-2005, 21:45
In some cases you may sign up and get installed while within the cooling off period. Although this cooling off period is mainly for the agreement, if services have been installed during the cooling off period then nothing has changed.

However, if you are outside of the cooling-off period then ntl: are not obligated to cancel your services and you have accepted the 12 months minimum term agreement with ntl:

This is a bit of a dark area that does cause a lot of confusion for customers (with whatever company you sign up to). The best advice would be to seek consumer advice from the OFT or citizens advice if you are unsure of any legalities regarding the contract, terms & conditions etc...


As far as Ntl are concerned once the service is installed, which will be seven days or more since the agreement was made, it will not be removed except under the most extreme circumstances.
Any time this has been questioned by a customer to me when they go off to check it with a lawyer they have never come back to dispute it further as far as I know.

This is probably cos I get it :disturbd:

scrotnig
01-03-2005, 22:38
Ok since everyone here is going to claim ntl are ripping people off and have illegal contracts, why don't you all take this up with BT as well:

Your right to cancel: You have a right to cancel your order for any of the services without charge. However you will lose that right once we have begun to provide the service with your agreement.

So, is BT also issuing contracts that don't meet with the approval of the barrack room lawyers? Or is everyone just plain wrong?

The law does NOT compel companies to spen hundreds (and in BT's case, potentially thousands) of pounds providing a service so that the customer can change their mind on a whim the next day. Consumer laws are NOT in existence solely to protect customers from dishonest companies...they also protect companies from dishonest customers.

BT, Sky, ntl, Telewest, and loads of other firms all have contracts like this, and damn right they should.

There are far more instances of customers ripping companies off than vice versa. A shame Watchdog never features any of them. :rolleyes:

ian@huth
01-03-2005, 22:59
If installation is always at least 7 days after the customer has received the second copy of the Agreement or a cancellation rights notice then it cannot be cancelled under cooling off laws because the time will already have expired.

The initial cooling off period is not the issue in this thread though.

The issue is whether NTL has complied with the law regarding content of the Agreement, signatures to the Agreement and provision of customer copies of the Agreement.
__________________

Ok since everyone here is going to claim ntl are ripping people off and have illegal contracts, why don't you all take this up with BT as well:


So, is BT also issuing contracts that don't meet with the approval of the barrack room lawyers? Or is everyone just plain wrong?

The law does NOT compel companies to spen hundreds (and in BT's case, potentially thousands) of pounds providing a service so that the customer can change their mind on a whim the next day. Consumer laws are NOT in existence solely to protect customers from dishonest companies...they also protect companies from dishonest customers.

BT, Sky, ntl, Telewest, and loads of other firms all have contracts like this, and damn right they should.

There are far more instances of customers ripping companies off than vice versa. A shame Watchdog never features any of them. :rolleyes:
I for one am not saying that NTL rip anyone off with unfair contracts.

What I am saying is that the NTL contract is fair and legally binding AS LONG AS THE CORRECT PROCEDURES STIPULATED IN THE RELEVENT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE FOLLOWED. NTL do not always follow the correct proceedures.

If anyone is in any doubt what those proceedures are then please read post #139 in this thread and the documents linked in that post.

scrotnig
01-03-2005, 23:02
If

I for one am not saying that NTL rip anyone off with unfair contracts.

What I am saying is that the NTL contract is fair and legally binding AS LONG AS THE CORRECT PROCEDURES STIPULATED IN THE RELEVENT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE FOLLOWED. NTL do not always follow the correct proceedures.

If anyone is in any doubt what those proceedures are then please read post #139 in this thread and the documents linked in that post.
I am sure you are right, this is true of most companies though.

The reality is, the whole 'contract' scenario is based on the majority of people playing along with the spirit of it. Not many companies would let a situation such as this go to court. Even if they win, the adverse publicity means it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, my earlier post about the BT contract wasn't aimed at your good self. I note with interest how certain others seem to have shut completely up since I posted it. :D

ian@huth
02-03-2005, 00:08
I am sure you are right, this is true of most companies though.

The reality is, the whole 'contract' scenario is based on the majority of people playing along with the spirit of it. Not many companies would let a situation such as this go to court. Even if they win, the adverse publicity means it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, my earlier post about the BT contract wasn't aimed at your good self. I note with interest how certain others seem to have shut completely up since I posted it. :D
The only court action that might occur is if NTL decided to enforce payment of remaining months on a early cancelled contract. If the customer was billed for this and the customer decided not to pay then court action may ultimately follow.

BT have many different contracts, which one was you referring to?

cr80123
02-03-2005, 01:05
Well I don't think there's any longer any doubt about it to be honest.

scrotnig
02-03-2005, 01:17
The only court action that might occur is if NTL decided to enforce payment of remaining months on a early cancelled contract. If the customer was billed for this and the customer decided not to pay then court action may ultimately follow.

I know from previous roles that this almost never happens...any outstanding debt is passed to the internal debt recovery department. If they can't recover it, they pass it to an outside agency. I am not aware of any cases ever going to court, though I couldn't say categorically that none have whatsoever.

BT have many different contracts, which one was you referring to?
Not sure, it's from the back of one of their advertising booklets.