Thread: BT Early Termination Charge

Hi,my sister had a similar problem with BT,she sent a letter to them threatening them with the fos and BT backed down,It may be worth a try.

The only reason for the 'early' termination fee is there is a minimum 12 month obligation all customers have to agree to - this isn't a new policy, as it formed the basis of my very first phone line from them in the 70's.

This is going to be a greater issue in the future, especially because BT are now offering products that have RENEWABLE minimum perms annually, so you can only leave on the anniversary. It's all designed to keep customers locked in. Nothing wring with that in its way, you just play by the rules and you don't get stung.

Originally Posted by buzby

The only reason for the 'early' termination fee is there is a minimum 12 month obligation all customers have to agree to - this isn't a new policy, as it formed the basis of my very first phone line from them in the 70's.

This is going to be a greater issue in the future, especially because BT are now offering products that have RENEWABLE minimum perms annually, so you can only leave on the anniversary. It's all designed to keep customers locked in. Nothing wring with that in its way, you just play by the rules and you don't get stung.

I agree - you play by the rules and you don't get stung. If BT had played by the rules and actually told me that there was a 12 month minimum term then I wouldn't have taken their service.

To be clear - I never received any 'Welcome Pack' or any T&C, and was never advised at any time about a minimum 12 month term. It may well have been in their T&C since the 70's but how was I supposed to know about it (telepathy?)?

No telepathy required - surely in this day and age the first question anyone asks is 'what's the minimum term'? Firms can get away with murder as it remains with the customer to discover what the T& Cs are. In the days when you had to fill in forms, it would be buried inside a pack of 50 or more pages, and people said they didn't notice it then!

With the web, things have changed, you're not expected to be 'told' you're expected to do your own research. As they say about the law, ignorance is no excuse - and in UK commerce, this is holding true also.

Since those advocates of Direct Debits (I'm not one) say it is only fair those folk who pay by other methods should pay the true cost of administering their chosen payment method, a 'free' conection or an expectation of a minimum 12 month connection by a supplier is not unreasonable, especially in this world of open competition. If you said to BT, no - I'll pay whatever it really costs for the line to be installed, as I want to retain the freedom of going to any supplier, they may charge you - say - £300 to install. That's market forces deciding.

Did you expect your contract mobile phone to have a minimum term? Sure, you may have been told it would be for 12 or 18 months (or even 2 years) but since it's been a material fact of telecomms agreements, just because O2 didn;t tell me I had a 12 month contract, doesn;t mean to say it's not an enforceable condition of service. I just needed to pay a bit more attention!

No need for clairvoyance - there may have neen a need if BTs way of working was unusual, but since it isn't, NOT expecting some form of limited lock-in would be careless in the extreme!

BT are on a very sticky wicket with this one. It's similar to bank penalty charges (it's even described as a penalty charge on the bill) and appears to fall foul of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994 (UTCCR). The termination fee represents neither a service provided or necessarily a cost. If you've had the line for some time then they have recovered any initial costs (if you weren't charged) and if the line was then taken over by a new occupant they would benefit from further income. Therefore in such circumstances it is simply a penalty and falls foul of the law regardless of what their contract says. The contract could say we can cut off your hands if you don't pay - wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.

Originally Posted by buzby

No telepathy required - surely in this day and age the first question anyone asks is 'what's the minimum term'? Firms can get away with murder as it remains with the customer to discover what the T& Cs are. In the days when you had to fill in forms, it would be buried inside a pack of 50 or more pages, and people said they didn't notice it then!

With the web, things have changed, you're not expected to be 'told' you're expected to do your own research. As they say about the law, ignorance is no excuse - and in UK commerce, this is holding true also.

Since those advocates of Direct Debits (I'm not one) say it is only fair those folk who pay by other methods should pay the true cost of administering their chosen payment method, a 'free' conection or an expectation of a minimum 12 month connection by a supplier is not unreasonable, especially in this world of open competition. If you said to BT, no - I'll pay whatever it really costs for the line to be installed, as I want to retain the freedom of going to any supplier, they may charge you - say - £300 to install. That's market forces deciding.

Did you expect your contract mobile phone to have a minimum term? Sure, you may have been told it would be for 12 or 18 months (or even 2 years) but since it's been a material fact of telecomms agreements, just because O2 didn;t tell me I had a 12 month contract, doesn;t mean to say it's not an enforceable condition of service. I just needed to pay a bit more attention!

No need for clairvoyance - there may have neen a need if BTs way of working was unusual, but since it isn't, NOT expecting some form of limited lock-in would be careless in the extreme!

Well, it seems BT don't agree with you - I have received a grovelling apology letter from them and a credit note for the termination fee. They don't appear to be refunding my outstanding line rental, but I can't be bothered with the hassle of chasing them for a couple of quid.

And you're wrong on BT's minimum term - up until recently they only had a 3 month minimum term. Within the last year or so they've changed it to 12 months, but aren't exactly bragging about it.

I picked my mobile phone service on the basis of the contract length, so it was very clear what I was signing up to, and I would not expect to 'get out of it' early. With BT they don't do fixed length contracts (or at least they don't publicise them to be) - it is sold as a rolling month by month/quarter agreement and the early termination fee is therefore very different from buying yourself out of a fixed term mobile phone contract.

Well done Billy. Going down the same route myself. Was the letter from the correspondence centre at Durham? Only dealing with them in writing myself. Had enough of waiting on the line and being put through to someone overseas who can only read from a script in an almost unintelligible accent. Oh...and the supervisor is never available.

Forgot to say. As well as hiking their evening call prices from 4.5p/hr to 1.5p/min BT are also introducing rolling 12 month contracts (automatically renewed unless customers opt out). To me that's just devious.

Originally Posted by matslondon

Well done Billy. Going down the same route myself. Was the letter from the correspondence centre at Durham? Only dealing with them in writing myself. Had enough of waiting on the line and being put through to someone overseas who can only read from a script in an almost unintelligible accent. Oh...and the supervisor is never available.

I've had exactly the same experiences as you. If you write to them make sure you send it recorded (signed for) delivery, as they appear to ignore you otherwise. I wrote to them 3 times before I got a response, only my third letter was sent by recorded delivery.

Try addressing your letter to "BT Complaint Review Team" at the Durham address.

Originally Posted by billy_79

And you're wrong on BT's minimum term - up until recently they only had a 3 month minimum term.

Not so - I have an awful photocopy (it won't scan) outlining my request for service,provision of 1 x echange line and 1 x 700 series telephone (two-tone grey). The bottom of the form states. Minimum Service period, 12 months. This was headed 'Post Office Telecommunications' and dated 1972. I accept this is not BT, but the arrangements remained the same. A new line always took a 12 month term as it was a new install - 3 months was the duration of a pre-existing line (change of tame or customer takeover).

I'd contend there would be more new installs than takeovers, even so - trheir new terms are shown here;

BT.com | Personal | Terms & Conditions

Three months minimum is just a memory...