Thread: Excessive Disconnection Charges

One other question, I had two lines with orange, will one SAR provide me with all the information I require with regards to both accounts?

Firstly - and forgive me if this seems blunt - you agreed to pay a set amount for a minimum term. You cancelled or defaulted, then complain about the amount, expecting the UTCC to come to your rescue?

It is easy to work out how much you really owe, and whether you were being treated unfairly. Work out what the unfulfilled amounts due for each remaining month of your commitment. This may involve an additional month (the required 30 days notice) which is worth arguing about, but not many networks will still charge this. The cost will then reflect the amount owed under the contract based on your original commitment.

If you are expecting this to be discounted, it probably will be with an adverse termination, as is normally a notional credit given for unused call bundles, but it doesn't amount to much.

If you got a 'free' phone - the amount you pay also includes the cost of providing you with this handset at its proper retail price.

As for your second question, networks usually identify users by their account numbers, the mobile numbers are irrelevant - but if that is all you can provide, use them so you can be identified and send them the fee of £10 with as much detail you can provide.

Hi Buzby,

Absolutely agree with repaying what I owe. I have several other debts and I have been paying these back now for over five years as part of a self managed dmp.

However, my issue is with the level of debt with O2, even factoring in the remaining contract length and phone, by my calculations, this amount should only be around £250.

However, when they passed the account to a DCA for collection, the amount was nearly £900 originally. So I believe that I have probably incurred excess charges, and hence why I want to send a SAR to see if I am correct.

Back to my original question, are the UTCC applicable to mobile phone contracts?

Only if they are demed 'unfair' terms contained within. As these contracts have been fairly standard since 1990 or so, this approach will be pointless. You need to get the network to provide a Breakdown of the costs they say were legitimately owed by you as they do not tally with your understanding.

There's little point paying £10 for a SAR when this may not actually provide the information you require! You can always ask for one later if their reasoning behind the costs don't tally.

So, do you think a formal request in writing maybe sufficient without the need for a SAR?

If you are on a fixed price contract for gas or electricity with a fixed trm on it, if you break the contract (like if you fall in arrears) they don't try to charge you for the gas or electricity that you would have used for the rest of the contract.

If a company tries to enforce a contract, the judges now have to look at the fairness of the contract (a sticky in the debt collection forum since a European court judgement). The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Debt Collection Industry If they attempt to enforce it in a court, they might fall foul of that. In any event they wouldn't be in a hurry to take you to court.

OK there's the value of the phone. Admittedly if they weren't offering the latest model for free you would most likely have gone for something cheaper. If you are looking at the actual cost to orange, that would be somewhat less.

If you look at Orange recovering their costs, that's one thing. They could realise that people are down and just go for that. Costs plus profits plus future income ... might be a bit greedy.

Grumpy

Originally Posted by sgx.saint

So, do you think a formal request in writing maybe sufficient without the need for a SAR?

It's worth saving a tenner isn't it (if you can)

Originally Posted by 2Grumpy

If you are on a fixed price contract for gas or electricity with a fixed trm on it, if you break the contract (like if you fall in arrears) they don't try to charge you for the gas or electricity that you would have used for the rest of the contract.

Grumpy - How could this be relevant? If the utility comany gave you a 'free' cooker - you can bet they would enfoce their minimum term! The best example is look at all the 'SIM-only' contracts now available from all the networks. Your commitment is..... 30 days. And you can walk away from it. So, for the 'pleasure' of being tied to a contract for 18/24/36 months, and the prospect of 10% of the monrey you pay being passed back to your delaer as commission, if you want a new phone, buy it up front with YOUR money, as the commitment to a contract requires the user to lose too much (credit rating, punitive charges etc).

There's paying for the phone and there's paying for calls that you can't make for the remainder of the contract because they have cut you off.

Believe it or not, the networks actually give a creit for inability of the consumer to use the bundled minutes. I believe it works out at a couple of quid per month so that they don't suffer from the accusations you levelled at them. But the message remains clear - if you don't want responsibilities, don;t enter into a contract - you can never know wqhat will happen next week, never mind in 18 months!

Without digressing too much from my original post, unfortunately I disagree with your viewpoint and opinion Buzby, however that is what these forums are all about. Discussion.

At the time of taking out the contract, my financial situation was solid, my employment was solid and there was nothing on the horizon to suggest that my situation was going to change.

Several months later however, my situation did change. It's a part of life, and unfortunately and uncontrollable and often unavoidable part of life.

You can't predict the future, and to avoid taking on a responsibility because of "what if's" is just not something I agree with.

I am more than happy to pay what I owe, I have never disputed that, I just don't want to pay the company anymore than I actually owe.

I've decided to not pursue this matter with orange at the moment, as I'm tackling my creditors one at a time, however I will at some stage request the information and see how much I have infact been charged.

Thanks for all your replies.

Ofcom conducted a consultation on the issue of whether or not contract charges are unfair based on the UTCCR regulations, their perspective on the matter can be found here:

Ofcom?s final statement and guidance on extra charges paid by customers to phone, TV and internet companies | Ofcom

Ultimatley it's an opinion as a determination on whether or not your contract terms are unfair could only be made by a judge, who'd examined the relevant evidence but I'm sure Ofcom consulted their Legal Team before publishing it. The most relevant points are contained below;

We expect a minimum contract period to be clearly highlighted and easy to understand;

We think that a charge for ending a contract early will usually be fair provided:

• it is absolutely clear before you sign that you risk having to pay a charge if you end the deal early
• you know how much that charge will be
• the charge will never be more than the remaining amounts you would have normally paid

Busby's point regarding the fact that these contracts have been standard for many years is a perfectly valid one, I don't think there is much chance that they'd be deemed to be unfair.

You asked earlier whether a SAR would provide you with data for two accounts for a single £10 fee, it should do provided that you specify both account numbers on your request. You can ask for all information held by a company in a SAR, provided you give them sufficent information to locate both accounts they should provide you with data for both of them.

There are contact details for making a SAR to orange if/when you decide to pursue this in the sticky at the top of the forum.

Originally Posted by sgx.saint

I disagree with your viewpoint and opinion Buzby, however that is what these forums are all about. Discussion.

Absolutely. And whilst I have no doubt you dislike my viewpoint, I do believe you will find this will be what prevails should the matter require judicial intervention.

What many people do not realise, is that a contract for service is binding on both parties. You have agreed a minimum term, and this is what you will owe at the end of the period. If you fail to complete the term the amount is still owed. You seem to think that you should only be entitled to pay what you have used/consumed, this would be relevant only if there were no minimum term commitment.

Your point about everything being OK when the contract was originally signed. I'm sure it was, but this has no relevance. The point is you are guaranteeing your custom for a set period, not until 'problems arise'. Until this is generally known and understood, people must either take steps to guarantee their financial commitments for the terms they have signed up for, or best yet - NOT make that commitment. It is possible to pay slightly more and have no formal commitment whatsoever. You pay your money and take your choice.