Telewest & Section 45 of CCA 1974!

[ASIIndustries]

I have been with TeleWest Comunications since they first started operating in my area, the price for broadband internet has remained static at £25 per month in advance, that price was the same regardless whether you paid via Direct Debit, cash or whatever, until 01 Apr 2003, when TW first introduced their non Direct Debit fees of £2 per month regardless.

Non Direct Debit fees:
15 Oct 1998- - - - - -31 Mar 2003 - - - £0
01 Apr 2003- - - - - -30 Jun 2005 - - - £2
01 Jul 2005- - - - - - 31 May 2006 - - -£3
01 Jun 2006- - - - - -31 Jan 2007 - - - £4
01 Feb 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -£5

Within TW's 01 Jan 04 T&C's, Canceling the agreement, they have linked to the CCA 1974 and Distance selling Regulations 2000 also there may be an additional link via link 2: in signature.

Consumer Credit Act 1974.
45 Prohibition of advertisement where goods etc not sold for cash.
If an advertisement to which this Part applies indicates that the advertiser is willing to provide credit under a restricted-use credit agreement relating to goods or services to be supplied by any person, but at the time when the advertisement is published that person is not holding himself out as prepared to sell the goods or provide the services (as the case may be) for cash, the advertiser commits an offence.

Now with the CCA in mind and the price is still £25 per month in advance for Direct Debit and the cash price of (£25 + £4 = £29 per month) or (£300 + £42 = £342 per year).

I think TW have forgotten something very important!

[chesham]

I'm not entirely sure why this part relates to the cancellation of the agreement though?

In addition, I'm not entirely sure if TW offer credit and are subject to the CCA, as most ISP's aren't because you are paying in advance for a service as opposed to borrowing the years subscription and paying it back bit by bit?

[chesham]

In addition, the charges which companies add on for non-direct debit fees have been found in the past to be reasonable and are not penalty fee's but simply additional administration fees for raising and invoice and receiving manual payments etc.

The part you've mentioned above relates to stopping people from selling goods or services purely on credit and not as a cash purchase, because they would make money out of finance but not as much out of a cash sale and the CCA gives the consumer the choice to buy in full or on credit. As above, TW may be deemed as not offering any forms of credit and therefore no agreement would be regulated by the CCA.

[ASIIndustries]

In addition, the charges which companies add on for non-direct debit fees have been found in the past to be reasonable and are not penalty fee's but simply additional administration fees for raising and invoice and receiving manual payments etc.

These fees are a general business expense which are normally already included in the cash price of goods or services.

The part you've mentioned above relates to stopping people from selling goods or services purely on credit and not as a cash purchase, because they would make money out of finance but not as much out of a cash sale and the CCA gives the consumer the choice to buy in full or on credit. As above, TW may be deemed as not offering any forms of credit and therefore no agreement would be regulated by the CCA.

TW have never offered (to my knowledge) a cash price, the only price they have offered (advertised) is £25 per month in advance, (the old price was £29.99 for 512kbits), that price is for Direct-Debit.

Also the cash price < Direct-Debit price.

Additionally i also seem to have a positive token credit system for my broadband only package!

[buzby]

TW's T&C's may have linked to the CCA, but the contract is NOT regulated by it. Either way, the non-DDM charge can and should always be challenged. I use online banking and my electronic payment does not cost them any more to process than then taking it from my account under a DDM. I have challenged both NTL and Sky on this, hoping for a court case to establish this as an unfair practice, but they all folded and refunded the fees, plus costs.

[ASIIndustries]

In the 1970s when the C.C.A was being drafted nearly all utiliy companies were little more than a goverment departments, the goverment of the time drafted an exclusion into the C.C.A 1974, as the goverment is mostly fair and does not sanction unlawful or illegal practices.

In the 1980s when PM MT decided to sell off basically all the utilities the sold utilities became private companies the goverment lost control and became nothing more than a shareholder with a seat on the board, however the goverment forgot about the drafted an exclusion into the C.C.A 1974 that should have been revoked upon the sale.

Because the goverment never have revoked the utilities exclusion from the C.C.A yet if they ever will, now new utiliy companies have appeared that have no goverment ownership whatsoever 100% private ownership and these new companies also have by right to the utility exclusion from the C.C.A. and they may sanction unlawful or illegal practices.

So with the utility exclusion Virgin Media (NTL Telewest) have no legal regard to follow a law that they are already exempt from!

[buzby]

I agree with your sentiments, but since the CCA was all about credit, the utilities never provided credit (per se) so I doubt this wasn't an issue. Then there's those 'schemes' that allowed customers to make 12 equal instalments, as there would be times the punter would be making payments below the rate of consumption and the utility would be effectively providing 'credit'. BUT, depending on when the arrangement was entered into, the could just as easily be paying in advance of a winter bill, and not taking 'credit'. I thought the acid test was if the utility charged interest on the outstanding amount. That would be a CCA scenario, but as moist (all)? didn't, it wasn't an issue either way.