I have been a Three customer for a few years

recently ended our relationship on the basis that I consider that they have breached our latest contract by not providing the service as expected.

Since the first year I have been with Three I had to constantly complain about the quality of the service,

in particular the fact that I had no phone signal at home and little signal everywhere I went in the UK, from Cornwall all the way up to Scotland.

I had at most three bars, but more often one or two, with the result that I was unable to make calls or calls were dropped in the middle;

this even happened regularly when phoning Three support.

They would also often complain that they couldn’t hear me properly when I called them.

Each time I complained and also when they were trying to get me to sign an update contract they promised that the network was being improved and promised that within the term of the contract it would get better and to compensate me for the poor service at the time they gave me a 50% reduction on my monthly payment

they also sent me a device to connect to my internet router which gave me a three bar signal at home some of the time.

This pattern was repeated each year until this year.

I renewed the contact and upgraded my phone in March this year,

but found instead of improving the signal got worst.

I complained to them again,

they said there was nothing they could do about it and refused to provide any sensible discount in lieu of the poor service.

I decided I had had enough.

I therefore told them that as far as I was concerned they were in breach of the agreement as they had not provided the service they had been contracted to provide.

I then went to O2 instead and now have a fantastic full strength signal almost everywhere I go!

Of course Three don’t acknowledge the breach and have sent a bill for over £900 which they claim is due for cancelling the contract.

I don’t intend to pay this bill and will defend my position in court if necessary.

However, my main concern is that they will probably mark a default on my credit file which I do not want.

my first question is this;

can they legally issue a default,

or mark a file over an account which is in dispute?

If not, is there anything else I need to do to ensure the account is legally recognised as in dispute?

Thanks.

sadly they can default you.

however

this might be worthy to note.

should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

Ok. That’s interesting.

Thanks.

I do not intend to pay them a penny.

I will fight it in court if I have to.

if they do default me I shall start a claim against them for publishing inaccurate data as I shall show that they breached the contract and if the amount they are trying to claim is not fair or in line with OfCom guidelines then I will use that too.

Have you written to the CEO regarding this?

Do you know where in the T&C's it states that they must provide you with a service, and if they fail to do so the agreement is breached, allowing you to cancel?

I will look into the contract in detail; I am also doing a Subject Access Request to obtain all their records on my account, which should also provide evidence supporting my claims, but common sense says that if you enter into a contract with a company who is supposed to be a phone service provider, for a phone service, then they should be expected to provide that service! Furthermore, if after several years that service has not improved, despite their promises that it would, then I think I have shown sufficient tolerance and have not been unreasonable.

Since the first year I have been with Three I had to constantly complain about the quality of the service,

in particular the fact that I had no phone signal at home and little signal everywhere I went in the UK, from Cornwall all the way up to Scotland.

.............

they also sent me a device to connect to my internet router which gave me a three bar signal at home some of the time.

Odd. If they sent you a femtocell, you should get a good signal close to it consistently.

I renewed the contact and upgraded my phone in March this year,

but found instead of improving the signal got worst.

Why on earth would you renew a contract if they kept promising “it will get better” over a number of years and it never did.....

Of course, you then go and get a subsidised handset, so it is no wonder they want their money ......

However, my main concern is that they will probably mark a default on my credit file which I do not want.

So, don’t default. Instead, drop your contract down to the lowest monthly amount as quickly as you can (they may only allow so much reduction each month) and once you have it as low as possible, pay off the remainder, getting a further reduction bearing in mind they don’t have to provide a service for the remaining months.

Consider this paying off any handset subsidy.

They can have the handset back! I don’t need it!

unless you signed a credit agreement for it that's free nowt to do with any money upon not using any service.

BazzaS,

You sound like you work for Three! Do you?

unless you signed a credit agreement for it that's free nowt to do with any money upon not using any service.

Sorry? Your reply doesn’t make any sense? What do you mean? Please explain?

BazzaS,

 

You sound like you work for Three! Do you?

I wish I worked for (& got the salaries) for all the jobs people think I do....... I could do another year's work, and then retire quite comfortably.

If you check my previous postings ; I have been fairly scathing about Three.

TL: DR summary : reasonable network coverage, fairly good tariff value, but appalling customer service. So, no: I don't work for them. I just "call things as I see them".

Neither am I a solicitor, or barrister nor do I work for any of the mobile phone companies, DWP, HMRC, the police, the prison service, any of the utility companies, or in Revenue Protection for a TOC (or bus company).

All of which (from memory), I've been asked if I work for them, merely because I've suggested something that didn't fit with someone's view of what they should be able to get away with.

So, you got a handset. What handset, and what cost?. Was it less than the equivalent cost for the same handset on PAYG?

If so, despite people saying "the contract is independent of the handset", there CLEARLY is a subsidy. The networks aren't reducing the handset cost because of your winning smile......

Wanting out of your contract early, while gaining the benefit of a subsidised handset is plain unreasonable, hence my suggestion.

They probably don't want the handset back, and it suits them that the handset is independent of the contract, as this allows them to say "no, we aren't taking it back". It is worth less to them second hand ....

The handset may appear independent of the contract, but there will be a minimum term, and some fee for 'early termination', of which some will be (even if it is said not to be!) for the handset subsidy. At least O2 are honest enough to make this clearer on their refresh tariffs.....

BazzaS,

 

You sound like you work for Three! Do you?

unless you signed a credit agreement for it that's free nowt to do with any money upon not using any service.

Sorry? Your reply doesn’t make any sense? What do you mean? Please explain?

I could explain, but if you didn't like the explanation would you then suggest this meant that I worked for dx100? !

Yes, I am fed up of people deciding "BazzaS must work for ", just because I say why may have some rights, or be owed some responsibility by the poster .....

I could explain, but if you didn't like the explanation would you then suggest this meant that I worked for dx100? !

 

Yes, I am fed up of people deciding "BazzaS must work for ", just because I say why may have some rights, or be owed some responsibility by the poster .....

You talk as though you talk with authority,

but actually by your own confession now you have no expertise and all you express is an opinion.

I also have an opinion but don’t necessarily believe I am right or that I know everything,

I therefore ask for assistance,

which I am happy and grateful to receive.

If I give my opinion to others in an area in which I am not an expert or have little experience then I also make sure that they know my level of expertise in that area so they can judge my opinion and compare it to others.

You talked as if you KNEW you were right and that you were talking from experience and personal expertise,

hence I thought you might work for Three, I neither “liked” nor “disliked” your comments, I just wanted to establish whether you were who you sounded like you were or whether this was just an “unqualified” opinion.

Now that you have made it clear that it is merely the opinion of an unqualified person I know how much weight to give your opinion.

If a qualified solicitor chooses to respond I will obviously take more notice of their opinion than I will of yours or my own.

I hope I didn’t offend you (as it sounds like I did), that wasn’t my intention.

If you only want to take advice given by a qualified solicitor : go pay for one.

Almost all posters on CAG aren’t qualified solicitors, so if that is your yardstick, you’ll likely not get advice you feel you can rely on.

What if someone does say they are a solicitor in their reply? How do you know you can trust them that they are being truthful? What with there being no verification?.

So, I suggest people shouldn’t allocate how much they rely on advice on CAG based on if a poster says they are a solicitor or not, but rather based on how much sense the advice makes, and the reasoning given behind the advice. This is why I give the rationale for the advice I offer : so the OP (& other respondents!) can gauge it.

Of course, you can choose to take or ignore posted advice.

However, if you are going to:

a) only take advice that fits with your preformed view, or

b) only take advice from respondents who say they are solicitors (limiting the number of potential respondents, and even then not being verifiable),

then more fool you.

If it “sounded like I knew what I was talking about” : then perhaps I do!

That can happen without me working for Three.

Look at the key points again:

Femtocell : should give reliable signal close to it.

Renewed contract: why do so after many years of broken promises.

Handset cost : did you get it for less than the cost of the same handset on PAYG?

I’m happy for the advice I offer to be gauged on its own merits, not an (unverifiable!) statement of who my employer is!.

Sorry? Your reply doesn’t make any sense? What do you mean? Please explain?

Moby companies are splitting the contracts and agreements, so you sign a credit agreement for the handset and a separate service agreement for the service they state they will provide.

Once you've paid for the handset your monthly bill will reduce, and the handset is yours.