Pipex rip off

[daz1981]

A customer signs up to a contract for a monthly payment at a set price which they agree to at the point of order. This price is for the length of the contract, in this case the contract is ongoing with a 30 day notice to cancel. Although it is bad practice there is no legal requirement for the price reductions to be passed on, as Tiscali can simply say it's a new package, albeit with the same speed and download allowance.

From a technical perspective Tiscali will be right, as the 1Mb service would have been a fixed rate service provided through BTWholesale, whereas the 14.99 package would be provided through their LLU network and is subsequently a completely different product. There's also no indication of when the price changed, so the OP would need this information to support his case.

I'm not saying the OP couldn't win the case, or that Tiscali wouldn't settle early, as it's not worth the hassle for them for the sums we are talking about. The point I am making is that if Tiscali decided to fight this, it's likely the OP would lose, so they need to be wary of that.

In additioan to that the Argos analogy is not valid. If they advertise a product at £99.99 and it's £109.99 on the tills, they don't have to sell you this. They can't make you pay the higher price, but they've also got the option of refusing to sell you the product altogether. This is unlikely as their own T & C's would allow you to pay the cheaper price, but legally any shop can refuse to sell something to you and they don't need a reason for this. Admittedly if they did this they wouldn't last long due to the bad press the company would receive. A good example of this is a recent error on the Asda home delivery service which listed 24 packs of Carlsberg for 10p, however they refused to supply it at this price as it was an error and they were witihn their rights not to sell it.

[legalpickle]

Originally Posted by daz1981

A customer signs up to a contract for a monthly payment at a set price which they agree to at the point of order. This price is for the length of the contract, in this case the contract is ongoing with a 30 day notice to cancel. Although it is bad practice there is no legal requirement for the price reductions to be passed on, as Tiscali can simply say it's a new package, albeit with the same speed and download allowance.

From a technical perspective Tiscali will be right, as the 1Mb service would have been a fixed rate service provided through BTWholesale, whereas the 14.99 package would be provided through their LLU network and is subsequently a completely different product. There's also no indication of when the price changed, so the OP would need this information to support his case.

I'm not saying the OP couldn't win the case, or that Tiscali wouldn't settle early, as it's not worth the hassle for them for the sums we are talking about. The point I am making is that if Tiscali decided to fight this, it's likely the OP would lose, so they need to be wary of that.

In additioan to that the Argos analogy is not valid. If they advertise a product at £99.99 and it's £109.99 on the tills, they don't have to sell you this. They can't make you pay the higher price, but they've also got the option of refusing to sell you the product altogether. This is unlikely as their own T & C's would allow you to pay the cheaper price, but legally any shop can refuse to sell something to you and they don't need a reason for this. Admittedly if they did this they wouldn't last long due to the bad press the company would receive. A good example of this is a recent error on the Asda home delivery service which listed 24 packs of Carlsberg for 10p, however they refused to supply it at this price as it was an error and they were witihn their rights not to sell it.

1. It's Pipex which whilst owned by Tiscali is it's own limited company, so the OP would definitely not be suing Tiscali, but Pipex Internet Limited.

2. If you read the OP's draft letter, in which he describes the telephone call he had with Pipex, you will see that the circumstances are not as you describe, so for the OP's case you are wrong.

I won't bother answering the rest of your post because it's irrelevant and I've given the necessary answers and explanations, so any more argumentative comments are based on a lack of understanding of the scenario.