Insane charges for cancellation of a broadband contract

makeorbrake

I've been with vodafone for 4 years or so for broadband. They cold called me last September even though I had blazing arguments with them in the past about receiving such calls.

Whatever mood I was in that day - I listened to the pitch - the deal seemed to add up ...although it was just saving me a few euro a month. What I forgot about was that it was locking me in to a new 18 month contract.

Fast forward a few months and my circumstances have changed...as I've had to move abroad. I asked them what the implications were of cancelling and they estimate this to be 240 euro!

How can this be legal? I can understand there being a necessity for cancellation fees where they have an outlay - but I was with them, I agreed to a new contract with them - they didn't have to change a thing. Where is the cost to them that necessitates such a charge?

Is there any way to challenge this?

guil

As far as I know the cancellation charge is whatever months left. Take the vat off but other than that I don't think there is much you can do. They are the terms I'm assuming you agreed to.

degsie

makeorbrake wrote: »

How can this be legal? I can understand there being a necessity for cancellation fees where they have an outlay - but I was with them, I agreed to a new contract with them - they didn't have to change a thing. Where is the cost to them that necessitates such a charge?

Is there any way to challenge this?

You are tied to a contract, nothing you can do except plead your case. Engage then on the Talk To.. forum and see if you can work something out.

makeorbrake

guil wrote: »

As far as I know the cancellation charge is whatever months left. Take the vat off but other than that I don't think there is much you can do. They are the terms I'm assuming you agreed to.

Yes, I consented to the contract...I didn't realise the implications but I have to take responsibility for that.

However, is there not a case to be made that such contracts are unethical? What is the justification? How are they out of pocket as a result of me cancelling? I know they lose that revenue but what I mean is, what expense have they incurred in the cancellation of that contract?

degsie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, I consented to the contract...I didn't realise the implications but I have to take responsibility for that.

However, is there not a case to be made that such contracts are unethical? What is the justification? How are they out of pocket as a result of me cancelling? I know they lose that revenue but what I mean is, what expense have they incurred in the cancellation of that contract?

Administration fees + loss of revenue.

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

Administration fees + loss of revenue.

Admin fees are a fixed overhead - and I was already with them...all they had to do was update a few settings on the system to record the new fixed term and drop off a couple of euro (for which I'm really paying the price for now).

Loss of revenue going forward? For a utility consumer service such as this one, it seems harsh.

I've done what you suggested and asked them to look at it. I have been well and truly burnt here - but I guess it's back to school time...I won't be agreeing to a fixed term contract again if I can help it (...although does that leave a lot of choice??).

Whatever about me, going forward this is something that the regulator should look at. Admin fees and such should be priced in to the monthly fee.

Tenigate

makeorbrake wrote: »

Whatever about me, going forward this is something that the regulator should look at. Admin fees and such should be priced in to the monthly fee.

I disagree. Everyone would end up paying higher monthly charges if that was the case.

I started a thread in consumer issues some time ago where I said the total contract cost/liability should be outlined from the outset to allow consumers to make a more informed decision.

howyegettinon1

Not giving you advise here - mods might delete the post for that

If it was me(especialy moving abroad) wouldnt lose sleep over this, dont pay, make sure they have no way of collecting this without your consent i.e sneaky card number saved somewhere
Next time they ring you(usually fairly obvios by the number) tell them such and such is no longer with the company and you got their old phone. They might try one more time after that they will have to remove the phone number
240quid it will cost them more to collect than to forget about you after a couple of letters(you can throw them back into the posbox up the road if you really want with R.T.S.)

ED E

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, is there not a case to be made that such contracts are unethical? What is the justification? How are they out of pocket as a result of me cancelling? I know they lose that revenue but what I mean is, what expense have they incurred in the cancellation of that contract?

You got a discount.

Eaten the meal, now its time to pay the bill.


If you want to know why a contract matters look into ERP. An ISP with 500k subs doesnt work on week to week or month to month basis.

Marlow

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, I consented to the contract...I didn't realise the implications but I have to take responsibility for that.

However, is there not a case to be made that such contracts are unethical? What is the justification? How are they out of pocket as a result of me cancelling? I know they lose that revenue but what I mean is, what expense have they incurred in the cancellation of that contract?

Also .. they would not just have changed a few settings.

If you were on ADSL or VDSL, then they would have to pay OpenEIR for changes on your package. If you're on a mobile plan, then they have to allocate for the additional bandwidth you may be using.

Tying yourself into a contract gives you discounts or extra options, that can cost the provider on the other end. So when you cancel early, then they still have to make good on those suppliers.

Just a reminder, that you always should check your opt out options, before signing a contract extension and not always go for rock bottom pricing.

/M

makeorbrake

Tenigate wrote: »

I disagree. Everyone would end up paying higher monthly charges if that was the case.

It can be done with mobile - so why not broadband.

Tenigate wrote: »

I started a thread in consumer issues some time ago where I said the total contract cost/liability should be outlined from the outset to allow consumers to make a more informed decision.

This I agree with - the customer should be advised the euro amount they are going to be liable for - in the event of an early cancellation.

ED E wrote: »

You got a discount.
Eaten the meal, now its time to pay the bill.

Get out n' walk! Firstly, I went looking for nothing - they cold called me whilst I was at work, having had all manner of arguments with them 2 years previous that they were not to contact me with cold calls (they continued to do so despite me going to great lengths to make sure that it wouldn't happen again). Now you'll say I took the call - well, yes - my guard was down. However, it once again highlights the fact that no good deal was ever struck either on the door step or via a telephone cold call.
As regards this discount you talk about, it amounted to 4 euros a month - you think that befits the penalty that followed? No way! These guys know exactly what they are doing.

ED E wrote: »

An ISP with 500k subs doesnt work on week to week or month to month basis.

They can do it on mobile -why can't they do it for fixed...?

Marlow wrote: »

Also .. they would not just have changed a few settings. If you were on ADSL or VDSL, then they would have to pay OpenEIR for changes on your package. If you're on a mobile plan, then they have to allocate for the additional bandwidth you may be using.

I take your point but hardly any of this applies. It was the same product - but they were discounting 4 euro off it. There was no change to be made as regards bandwidth allocation.

Marlow wrote: »

Tying yourself into a contract gives you discounts or extra options, that can cost the provider on the other end. So when you cancel early, then they still have to make good on those suppliers.

No problem whatsoever - but there has to be a sane level of penalty. 240 euro on a product that was costing 40euro/month is not a sane level of penalty.

Marlow wrote: »

Just a reminder, that you always should check your opt out options, before signing a contract extension and not always go for rock bottom pricing.

I will be doing in future. However, I just checked broadband comparison for unlimited data and NO possibility of a contract without a timed lock in ...minimum 12 months - then 18 and 24 (!!!!) months.

You can all disagree but I don't believe for a second that this is consumer led. If the regulator were to do their job, they would step in here.

I've had a lucky escape as it looks like my tenant is going to pay the monthly sub. - but the above is bang out of order.

Marlow

makeorbrake wrote: »

I will be doing in future. However, I just checked broadband comparison for unlimited data and NO possibility of a contract without a timed lock in ...minimum 12 months - then 18 and 24 (!!!!) months.

You can all disagree but I don't believe for a second that this is consumer led. If the regulator were to do their job, they would step in here.

I've had a lucky escape as it looks like my tenant is going to pay the monthly sub. - but the above is bang out of order.

There is at the moment. Three are offering "all you can eat data" on a 20EUR/month topup on their talk packages. (if it's mobile).

And plenty of other providers, that offer shorter contracts on fixed line.

I don't disagree, that the likes of 18 and 24 months contracts are absolutely insane.

In Denmark, the mobile providers went nuts with contracts in the 90's. The government then introduced legislation, that telcos can't bind people into anything more than 6 months max. That applies to mobile, broadband, etc.

Obviously, that would have driven prices up initially, but then competition regulated the pricing on the market very quickly afterwards.

Unfortunately, in Ireland, the regulator has no interest in regulating anything.

Also .. just because it says "unlimited" .. it's not. When Vodafone says, it's unlimited for example, then there is a fair use policy of 1TB on it for their fixed line products. You'll always be better off with a provider that ACTUALLY tells you, what the limit is and doesn't hide it somewhere in the terms and conditions.

/M

makeorbrake

Marlow wrote: »

There is at the moment. Three are offering "all you can eat data" on a 20EUR/month topup on their talk packages. (if it's mobile).

On mobile, yes. In fact, I used that product for many years - it's a decent deal - month by month. Up until I left, I also used 48months.ie - 10euro/month for 1 GB data and certain landline and mobile allocation. For a time, was using both (for different purposes).

However, on fixed dsl, there's nothing.

Marlow wrote: »

I don't disagree, that the likes of 18 and 24 months contracts are absolutely insane.

It's quite clear what sums their bean counters have worked out when they think in terms of contracts of that length. They've run the numbers and stats on likely (cancellation) fallout.

Marlow wrote: »

In Denmark, the mobile providers went nuts with contracts in the 90's. The government then introduced legislation, that telcos can't bind people into anything more than 6 months max. That applies to mobile, broadband, etc.
Obviously, that would have driven prices up initially, but then competition regulated the market very quickly afterwards.

And yet a couple of people telling me it couldn't be done. This is regulation doing exactly what it's supposed to do i.e. act to protect the consumer.

Marlow wrote: »

Unfortunately, in Ireland, the regulator has no interest in regulating anything.

Yes, comreg...say no more.

Marlow wrote: »

Also .. just because it says "unlimited" .. it's not. When Vodafone says, it's unlimited for example, then there is a fair use policy of 1TB on it for their fixed line products. You'll always be better off with a provider that ACTUALLY tells you, what the limit is and doesn't hide it somewhere in the terms and conditions.

Yes, I have no problem whatsoever with a fair usage policy....although again for simplicity, it should be stated up front and not buried in the small print so the consumer knows exactly what they're getting.

Guy:Incognito

It's fairly simple. You entered a contract for a specific time and to pay a specific amount, no you want out. Why shouldn't they get the price of the contract? What's the point of contracts if you can just decide not to honour it.

If they had agreed to pay you 50 a month for 2 years and after 4 months decided they didn't want to pay you any more, would you be ok with them just stopping?

Marlow

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, on fixed dsl, there's nothing.

http://www.airwire.ie/index.php/products/vdsl

6 months contract possible. Customer make their own pick on contract length. You can even use your own router, if it's up to the task instead of buying the suggested one.

/M

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's fairly simple. You entered a contract for a specific time and to pay a specific amount, no you want out. Why shouldn't they get the price of the contract? What's the point of contracts if you can just decide not to honour it.

If they had agreed to pay you 50 a month for 2 years and after 4 months decided they didn't want to pay you any more, would you be ok with them just stopping?

Firstly, I had this pimped at me via cold calling when I had argued with them 2 years prior that they were not to cold call me again. They were breaking the directive on direct marketing - I called them on it - they stopped ...but 2 years later, they started again.
Secondly - you don't have a problem with it - but see Marlow's post above. The Danish regulator had an issue with it. It's not consumer driven. You say that I just don't want to honour the contract - get real dude. How the hell do you know what your circumstances will be in the future? So they need to charge a penalty - no problem but it has to be reasonable. Honestly, people just swallow any sort of guff in .ie - no wonder we're left with b/s regulation when people themselves don't demand fair and ethical practice. Good luck!

makeorbrake

Marlow wrote: »

http://www.airwire.ie/index.php/products/vdsl

6 months contract possible. Customer make their own pick on contract length. You can even use your own router, if it's up to the task instead of buying the suggested one.

/M

Good spot - although not available in my location. That said, kudos to airwire for at least offering a sane lock in period.

deco nate

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, I had this pimped at me via cold calling when I had argued with them 2 years prior that they were not to cold call me again. They were breaking the directive on direct marketing - I called them on it - they stopped ...but 2 years later, they started again.
Secondly - you don't have a problem with it - but see Marlow's post above. The Danish regulator had an issue with it. It's not consumer driven. You say that I just don't want to honour the contract - get real dude. How the hell do you know what your circumstances will be in the future? So they need to charge a penalty - no problem but it has to be reasonable. Honestly, people just swallow any sort of guff in .ie - no wonder we're left with b/s regulation when people themselves don't demand fair and ethical practice. Good luck!

If you have a record of it all backed up from years ago, it still won't matter. You agreed to a new contract of you're own free will. Just pay the fee

Marlow

makeorbrake wrote: »

Good spot - although not available in my location. That said, kudos to airwire for at least offering a sane lock in period.

You'd be amazed, where they'll actually provide a connection. The coverage map is indicative.

OpenEIR has a 6 months minimum contract. So it can't be done on shorter periods. After that, it's up to the provider to calculate the figures.

/M

makeorbrake

deco nate wrote: »

If you have a record of it all backed up from years ago, it still won't matter. You agreed to a new contract of you're own free will. Just pay the fee

I won't be paying any bloody fee thankfully as it looks like my tenant is covering the subscription. I already acknowledged that I agreed to the contract. However, there's plenty here that a good regulator would deal with;
1. no more cold calling - period.
2. 6 month max. fixed contract period.
3. the consumer to be told precisely what the penalty fee will be at the time of signing up - this information to be right up front and not buried in the small print.

NinetyTwoTeam

sounds like you don't understand the essential concept of a contract. would you also expect your landlord to let you out of your lease?

you need to either consider this part of your relocation cost, or just say to heck with it Im moving abroad anyway let them swing for it. I'm surprised you haven't considered the latter already tbh, are you really moving?

story doesn't add up in other ways. the barrage of cold calls you claim seems very odd, and then despite them constantly annoying you against your will you decided to sign up with them? why?

and now you think they should be limited to six month contracts and their advertising should have to lead with the fact that there is a cancel fee. guess what? most adults are aware of this, and it is actually quite clear if you bother to read the t and c's. grow up.

Marlow

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

would you also expect your landlord to let you out of your lease?

Haha.

This outdated lease thing in Ireland is another of those things.

On the continent (at least northern Europe), you sign a contract for renting an appartment or house. A minimum cancellation period is set .. typically 1 month notice.

The landlord can then define a maximum rental period for said property (1 year, 2 years, 5 years etc.) but they can not define a minimum contract.

And the landlord can not kick you out unless you don't pay, you violate your contract or they need the premise for personal use.

The whole story about leases here is the exact same issue as for example 24 months contracts on telecommunication goods. Some decent regulation is needed.

/M

makeorbrake

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

sounds like you don't understand the essential concept of a contract.

sounds like you don't understand the nature of the service - a utility - whereas the Danish regulator does.

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

would you also expect your landlord to let you out of your lease?

Contractually, sure - I'm screwed. Broadband is a utility. A lease on a place to live should be treated in the same way (as per what Marlow has outlined).
What the europeans are regulating for here - is recognition that peoples circumstances change. You sign up to a contract with a view to honouring it - no problem there. However, in the case of where you live (and services associated with that), there can't be a reasonable knowledge of how that will pan out. This idea that fixed contracts can be imposed and screw you if your circumstances change through no fault of your own - that doesn't wash. It's not consumer led.

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

or just say to heck with it Im moving abroad anyway let them swing for it. I'm surprised you haven't considered the latter already tbh, are you really moving?

I've already moved a month and a half ago. As regards go swing for it, it's not really how I like to roll..and it's messy as I still need irish banking facilities...so wouldn't be able to shake them off without messing up other stuff.

long_b

You've 11 months or so left on your contract. The €240 is just under €22 per month.
So it seems like they're giving you a substantial discount on the outstanding amount on your contract already?

makeorbrake

long_b wrote: »

You've 11 months or so left on your contract. The €240 is just under €22 per month.
So it seems like they're giving you a substantial discount on the outstanding amount on your contract already?

Tell me, what's a reasonable contract period? If you take a very small sampling of people, can they honestly have prior knowledge of what their living circumstances are going to be in a year or 2 years? How is it reasonable to expect someone to honour a contract when they simply can't forsee this? That brings us back to WHO placed this impediment in the way in the first place? Why is there unquestioning acceptance that it needs to be this way...as it doesn't.

uck51js9zml2yt

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, I had this pimped at me via cold calling when I had argued with them 2 years prior that they were not to cold call me again. They were breaking the directive on direct marketing - I called them on it - they stopped ...but 2 years later, they started again.
Secondly - you don't have a problem with it - but see Marlow's post above. The Danish regulator had an issue with it. It's not consumer driven. You say that I just don't want to honour the contract - get real dude. How the hell do you know what your circumstances will be in the future? So they need to charge a penalty - no problem but it has to be reasonable. Honestly, people just swallow any sort of guff in .ie - no wonder we're left with b/s regulation when people themselves don't demand fair and ethical practice. Good luck!

You keep blaming them for cold calling as though you were forced into signing a contract against your will.

It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

You entered into a legally binding contract. You want to break it. They're entitled to seek it's fulfillment.

dubrov

Try and find a friend or family member to take it over

beauf

Never do a contact with someone who contacts you first. Either on the phone or at the door.

They are doing it for a reason and giving the customer a good deal is never the objective.

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

sounds like you don't understand the nature of the service - a utility - whereas the Danish regulator does.

Contractually, sure - I'm screwed. Broadband is a utility. A lease on a place to live should be treated in the same way (as per what Marlow has outlined).
What the europeans are regulating for here - is recognition that peoples circumstances change. You sign up to a contract with a view to honouring it - no problem there. However, in the case of where you live (and services associated with that), there can't be a reasonable knowledge of how that will pan out. This idea that fixed contracts can be imposed and screw you if your circumstances change through no fault of your own - that doesn't wash. It's not consumer led.

I've already moved a month and a half ago. As regards go swing for it, it's not really how I like to roll..and it's messy as I still need irish banking facilities...so wouldn't be able to shake them off without messing up other stuff.

Sounds like you don't have a clue what a contract is.

How did you get on with your mortgage provider or can you just skip out in that particular agreement?

I suggest wherever it is you are going to you read up on contracts and don't try to pull this one over there too.

Or don't sign up to things , very simple really.

But sure you can't be told as can be seen by your defensive nature and grasp at anything to get out of paying what you agreed to.

makeorbrake

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

You keep blaming them for cold calling as though you were forced into signing a contract against your will.

Go back and read the full discussion. I acknowledge that I signed the contract. However, no good comes out of anything sold through cold calling - be it at the door or on the phone. I had a long running saga with vodafone whereby they continued to cold call me despite me instructing them that they didn't have my consent - and to take me off their marketing list. They were continually breaking direct marketing protocol.
It's clear that I didn't have a full understanding of the nature of the product in terms of the cancellation penalty. Now the contract stands - but that doesn't make me feel less aggrieved. You can interpret that whatever way you want.

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.You entered into a legally binding contract. You want to break it. They're entitled to seek it's fulfillment.

Firstly, don't be a condescending tool. Secondly, I DONT want to break it. Circumstances have come about that I could never foresee. As Marlow pointed out, the Danish regulator can see that locking consumers of a utility service in to a lengthy contract with harsh penalty clause is not in the interest of the consumer. Jesus, it's astonishing to watch just how far a certain type of social conditioning has gone here. Life is full of choices - some of us choose independent thought.

dubrov wrote: »

Try and find a friend or family member to take it over

Thanks for the suggestion. If you go back a few posts, you'll see that circumstances have changed and my tenant is going to take it on.

beauf wrote: »

Never do a contact with someone who contacts you first. Either on the phone or at the door. They are doing it for a reason and giving the customer a good deal is never the objective.

I agree with you completely - I absolutely detest it. I think it should be banned for the benefit of both the consumer and the poor unfortunate that's desperate enough to spend a few weeks doing those jobs (as it's not a sustainable job).
Ordinarily, I would have told them where to go (as I always do) - but I was in a different frame of mind when I took that call that day.

beauf

The govt allows companies to operate with impunity on a wide variety of issues. So the consumer is stuffed.

The fee to leave is effectively a penalty to discourage people from leaving.

makeorbrake

listermint wrote: »

Sounds like you don't have a clue what a contract is.

Maybe you should go back and read all of the thread before wading in.

listermint wrote: »

How did you get on with your mortgage provider or can you just skip out in that particular agreement?

I don't have a problem with a contract. I have a problem with a contract for a utility service that everyone needs - that locks consumers into long contracts with draconian penalty clauses.

If you're such a clever clogs, explain to me why the Danish regulator acted in the way that they did (as per Marlow's post)?

listermint wrote: »

But sure you can't be told as can be seen by your defensive nature and grasp at anything to get out of paying what you agreed to.

Defensive nature is right - because it's whack-a-mole- with you and your fellow droids. You're not capable of free thought if you can't see the logic in this being regulated to protect consumers. I've found a resolution for this for myself. However, I don't want anyone else to find themselves in this position again. Rather than beat up on me (very brave :rolleyes:), you might consider what is actually in the interests of the consumer and how this should be regulated...if you can muster that.

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

The govt allows companies to operate with impunity on a wide variety of issues. So the consumer is stuffed.

Absolutely. But you have to wonder who is to blame for that? We have a regulator? Why do we have the overhead of a regulator if they don't regulate?

If commentary on this thread is anything to go by, we get the governance and the facade of regulation that we deserve.

degsie

You moving to Denmark by any chance?

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

You moving to Denmark by any chance?

I've already moved elsewhere:cool:
However, nothing wrong with quoting good practice - and no harm in aspiring to follow good practice set by others if we don't lead with it in the first instance..

antodeco

The €240 charge for the remaining months as posted above is €22 a month. That suggests to me that VF are paying off OpenEir the remainder of the contracts at the LLU price + admin. I'm not 100% certain if that's how VF charge. If you break a contract, are they still liable to pay OpenEir for the remaining "use" of the line for the contract?

As an aside, was the deal you got with VF better than the deals with competitors? I'd assume so. I'd also assume this better deal is a result of agreeing to an 18 month contract at a reduced rate? You can't decide to get something at a reduced rate on condition of X and then decide halfway through, actually, I want a discount but I don't want to agree to your terms. The horse has already bolted.

SteM

OP, are you going to contact the regulator about this or limit your crusade to this thread?

What I hate about our consumer contracts are that the companies are free to change the terms at will, and all you can do is to leave.

Every now and then it might work out for you in that you have just signed up for a new phone which you can keep but other than that contracts are not worth the "paper" to the company.

makeorbrake

antodeco wrote: »

As an aside, was the deal you got with VF better than the deals with competitors? I'd assume so. I'd also assume this better deal is a result of agreeing to an 18 month contract at a reduced rate? You can't decide to get something at a reduced rate on condition of X and then decide halfway through, actually, I want a discount but I don't want to agree to your terms. The horse has already bolted.

The discussion and initial query started out with consideration of this as it affects me. I've resolved that problem. So folks can drop the whole 'honour the contract you agreed to' business.
Having said that, yes it shaved off €4/month but it was solicited - I didn't go looking for it.
The discussion turns to whether it is acceptable that the industry set out these minimum duration contracts.

SteM wrote: »

OP, are you going to contact the regulator about this or limit your crusade to this thread?

Firstly, I posted a query. What follows is a discussion. I've provided my opinion and others theres. What's the 'crusade'? Having said that, have you ever challenged anything yourself given that statement? You've a hell of a lot to say yourself on social media with your 4000+ posts. Other than that, you are making assumptions about me that you have no earthly rationale to base that on. You don't know me - or what I am or am not capable of.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

What I hate about our consumer contracts are that the companies are free to change the terms at will, and all you can do is to leave.

Every now and then it might work out for you in that you have just signed up for a new phone which you can keep but other than that contracts are not worth the "paper" to the company.

This is exactly where a watchful regulator comes into play...(or should).

Guy:Incognito

makeorbrake wrote: »

I've already moved elsewhere:cool:
However, nothing wrong with quoting good practice - and no harm in aspiring to follow good practice set by others if we don't lead with it in the first instance..

Why is Denmark good practice all of a sudden when you found out they do something in a way that suits you? What about all the countries that don't?

Samuel T. Cogley

Have a look at the Unfair contract terms regs. See if there is a reciprocal agreement in place that Vodafone pay you compensation if they have to break the contract. IIRC if there is not you are not under an obligation to pay them. However you rely on that in court at your own peril and with your own interpretation of the regs.

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

Maybe you should go back and read all of the thread before wading in.

I don't have a problem with a contract. I have a problem with a contract for a utility service that everyone needs - that locks consumers into long contracts with draconian penalty clauses.

If you're such a clever clogs, explain to me why the Danish regulator acted in the way that they did (as per Marlow's post)?

Defensive nature is right - because it's whack-a-mole- with you and your fellow droids. You're not capable of free thought if you can't see the logic in this being regulated to protect consumers. I've found a resolution for this for myself. However, I don't want anyone else to find themselves in this position again. Rather than beat up on me (very brave :rolleyes:), you might consider what is actually in the interests of the consumer and how this should be regulated...if you can muster that.

Quality drivel there mate.


Next time you sign up to something listen to the details presented before agreeing 18months is 18 months not 3 months and however long I feel like it.

The only one here with a lack of grasp is yourself.

I do hope you don't find yourself owning a business where you have to have a contract with someone else it seems they mean very little in your world.

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why is Denmark good practice all of a sudden when you found out they do something in a way that suits you? What about all the countries that don't?

Forgive me for pointing to a real life example of a regulator that reached the same conclusion and acted on behalf of the consumer.
Have broadband providers left the market in Denmark? If not, is it safe to assume that they still turn a profit without imposing unreasonably long minimum contract periods on consumers? I suppose next you're going to suggest that Comreg are a beacon of progressive regulation..(with their track record!).

There is no way you can say with complete certainty if you will be able to honour a 12, 18 or 24 month contract for broadband. Why then should such draconian penalties be imposed upon you when there's no need?

Samuel T Cogley wrote:

However you rely on that in court at your own peril and with your own interpretation of the regs.

Thanks, Sam. I have found a work around and have no intention of breaking contract. However, I'd like to see a change so that nobody is exposed to such unreasonable demands. Most people don't have the option of anything less than a 12 month contract for broadband.

listermint wrote:

Quality drivel there mate.

I've seen the black/white position you've taken on discussions here on boards in the past so not at all surprised with your 'quality contribution'.

listermint wrote:

Next time you sign up to something listen to the details presented before agreeing 18months is 18 months not 3 months and however long I feel like it.

A really enlightened point of view that. No consideration for the fact that for the most part, the consumer is forced to take a fixed term contract when this could be regulated to ensure that providers can't impose such conditions with regard to an essential utility.

listermint wrote:

The only one here with a lack of grasp is yourself.

lol...having the numbers in a discussion is all that's needed to declare the difference between the right and wrong way?:D ...like I said, enlightened and open minded.

listermint wrote:

I do hope you don't find yourself owning a business where you have to have a contract with someone else it seems they mean very little in your world.

I've never broken a contract that I'm aware of - nor have I broken this one either. Explain to me why the Danish regulator acted in the way that they did, there's a good chap..??

degsie

Hope the OP has learned a valuable lesson here, you are not entitled to special treatment even if your set of circumstances have changed. Time to move on.

antodeco

makeorbrake wrote: »

Having said that, yes it shaved off €4/month but it was solicited - I didn't go looking for it.
The discussion turns to whether it is acceptable that the industry set out these minimum duration contracts.

What size was the gun they held against your head? I'd ensure you know that fact before you going to he courts. As you were so clearly forced against your will to sign this contract, they will ask what gun it was. It will help if you have video evidence of them pointing the gun against your head.

Alternatively, you could always ask Vodafone for the voice recording if you agreeing on your own free will, but I suppose they don't have that as you rightly said you were forced and unsolicited into agreeing.

beauf

There's a reason Ireland is so backward compared to other counties.

listermint

beauf wrote: »

There's a reason Ireland is so backward compared to other counties.

Yeah nod and wink stuff like this thread. And a continual effort to weasel out of obligations. It's actually prevelant in our politician's too . A bit of a 'me feiner' attitude.

Similar to the concept of this thread

beauf

... it's because accept being shafted with a whimper.

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

Hope the OP has learned a valuable lesson here, you are not entitled to special treatment even if your set of circumstances have changed. Time to move on.

I can't say that I won't run into the very same problem as if I look to take out a broadband contract tomorrow, the shortest duration available is 12 months.
Secondly, I never looked for special treatment. What I'm calling for is for the regulator to step in - and change this industry imposed nonsense of insisting on fixed term contracts beyond 6 months.

antodeco wrote: »

What size was the gun they held against your head? I'd ensure you know that fact before you going to he courts. As you were so clearly forced against your will to sign this contract, they will ask what gun it was. It will help if you have video evidence of them pointing the gun against your head.

Alternatively, you could always ask Vodafone for the voice recording if you agreeing on your own free will, but I suppose they don't have that as you rightly said you were forced and unsolicited into agreeing.

Listen - this seems to be a common misinterpretation from you and others. At no stage did I challenge the validity of the contract. I did feel aggrieved by the way in which it came about (which included Vodafone once again ignoring direct marketing rules...but of course, that's alright). I also believe that I didn't make an informed decision due to the nature of the 'sale' - without notice over the phone. Furthermore, I believe that providers are not being fully transparent in outlining specifically what the implications are in the event of cancellation i.e. the regulator should make them state the sum of the penalty in the event of a cancellation.
At no stage did I suggest that I wouldn't honour the terms of the contract.

Much earlier on in this thread, I indicated that I had found a resolution to the problem. However, I went on to call for the following;

- Cold Calling to be outlawed
- Fixed contracts to go no further than a 6 month minimum
- More transparency on the part of providers in informing new customers of the implications of cancellation.

Most of you got hung up on whinging about me allegedly trying to get out from under the contract (which was not the case).

beauf wrote:

There's a reason Ireland is so backward compared to other counties.

This thread stands testiment to that. People pay for a regulator to do what? Sit on it's ass? People deserve what they get.

makeorbrake

listermint wrote: »

Yeah nod and wink stuff like this thread. And a continual effort to weasel out of obligations. It's actually prevelant in our politician's too . A bit of a 'me feiner' attitude.
Similar to the concept of this thread

See my post above (or continue to selectively read what you want which appears to be what you are doing). Aggrieved - yes. Trying to weasel out of a contract - absolutely not. As regards the 'me feiner' attitude, it's you and those that agree with you that are the real me feiners here. If you were not selfish, you would be looking for the regulator to regulate for the benefit of all consumers....not being a smart arse instead.