Amount stated in contract

[DABhand]

Show me that is not the case in courts. Surely if you have said that you must have proof of this?

[BenMcr]

I think the proof is the other way around i.e. you'd have to win a case that proves a contract is unfair.

So I assume you have a court case that proves that?

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Remember that OFCOM didn't stop price changes completely - just said those that weren't already known about that didn't then allow a no-penalty exit shouldn't continue.

So the principle of a no-exit penalty if there is a price change that wasn't defined at the start of the contract is fair in OFCOMs view.

[DABhand]

It's in a PDF from the very peeps themselves - http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...cts_issues.pdf

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by DABhand

It's in a PDF from the very peeps themselves - http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...cts_issues.pdf

It is indeed:

This is not to suggest that all price escalation clauses, default charges or early termination charges are unfair. Many are fair. In order to decide whether they are fair, however, it is necessary to consider the amount of the charge in relation to the goods or services supplied. An early termination charge in a mobile phone contract, for example, might be quite fair if it simply recouped the cost of the handset supplied

The main reference to an unfair price term is:

price escalation clauses which do not give the consumer a corresponding right to cancel the contract

That doesn't apply to cable as you can cancel for a price change, and doesn't apply to mobile because you are aware of the guaranteed change when you take out the contract.

[DABhand]

Many = All

But also I believe there was more to that than that quote you used.

Section 8 has a lot of contract changes listed. Especially examples.

I have no qualms about people not paying a fee if prices change, but there is instances with court proceedings that have gone against a company that have done this mid contract in favour of the customer.

But I think the main thing that annoys most people is VM's control of the contract, if you get sub par service and choose to leave you have to pay a fee, which is wrong, since Sales of Goods Act also covers services provided by a business.. and the contract even though worded in a way to protect VM, cannot over power law, and thusly a sub par service for a long time would annul the contract... but yet VM try to get fees for it.

But anything else that would require them to foot a cost, technically I am legally entitled to say to VM if you change the contract I can charge you a £25 fee for doing so, to set up my new direct debit etc... but yet they would rather you just kill the contract and dump services than go through that, which makes them a hypocrite of sorts.

So yeah... the contract is unfair imho and in favour mostly to the provider being VM.

[arcimedes]

Originally Posted by DABhand

But anything else that would require them to foot a cost, technically I am legally entitled to say to VM if you change the contract I can charge you a £25 fee for doing so, to set up my new direct debit etc... but yet they would rather you just kill the contract and dump services than go through that, which makes them a hypocrite of sorts.

Pity you ruin your argument with the above statement. It doesn't cost you anything to change a direct debit , the whole point being that the company has control of the direct debit so you don't have to do anything unless they do something wrong.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by DABhand

but there is instances with court proceedings that have gone against a company that have done this mid contract in favour of the customer.

And I bet you none of them involved contracts at all relevant to the discussion in this thread, i.e. contracts that already allowed customers to cancel without charge or penalty.

since Sales of Goods Act also covers services provided by a business

You mean the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

But anything else that would require them to foot a cost, technically I am legally entitled to say to VM if you change the contract I can charge you a £25 fee for doing so, to set up my new direct debit etc... but yet they would rather you just kill the contract and dump services than go through that, which makes them a hypocrite of sorts.

I agree with arcimedes here, this is total rubbish and in fact makes you a hypocrite.

Regulations forbid companies from charging penalty fees that are disproportionate to the actual time, effort, and costs involved in actioning something. Since changing a direct debit amount takes zero time, and requires absolutely no effort at all on your part, you would be entitled to charge absolutely £0. Any attempt to charge more than £0 for you doing absolutely nothing whatsoever would be deemed an unfair, likely a penalty clause and legally unenforceable.

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by arcimedes

Pity you ruin your argument with the above statement. It doesn't cost you anything to change a direct debit , the whole point being that the company has control of the direct debit so you don't have to do anything unless they do something wrong.

Was being sarcastic at their charges for what they do to cancel your account which cost nothing either Just a few clicks :P

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

And I bet you none of them involved contracts at all relevant to the discussion in this thread, i.e. contracts that already allowed customers to cancel without charge or penalty.

Not many are in examples, it is the basis which is relevant.

You mean the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

Nope Sale of Goods Act (may have added that extra s in before) also deals with goods and services to the consumer and how it is provided and what you receive in promised quality.

Supply of Goods and Services Act is the act of transferring the goods in reasonable care and condition.

I agree with arcimedes here, this is total rubbish and in fact makes you a hypocrite.

Regulations forbid companies from charging penalty fees that are disproportionate to the actual time, effort, and costs involved in actioning something. Since changing a direct debit amount takes zero time, and requires absolutely no effort at all on your part, you would be entitled to charge absolutely £0. Any attempt to charge more than £0 for you doing absolutely nothing whatsoever would be deemed an unfair, likely a penalty clause and legally unenforceable.

Like I said in the last post, it was sarcasm to show what VM does to cancel your account is worth nothing also. So you can do what they do in Rome and charge them for nothing.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by DABhand

Was being sarcastic at their charges for what they do to cancel your account which cost nothing either Just a few clicks :P

If you close your account outside of a minimum term, or during the exit period allowed for a price change, Virgin Media do not charge for closing the account.

Within a minium term, Early Disconnection Fees are not charged to cover the cost of the work required to close the account.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If you close your account outside of a minimum term, or during the exit period allowed for a price change, Virgin Media do not charge for closing the account.

Indeed, yet their competitors (BT) do.