Dispute with 3 over cancellation of contract

[Oliver220704]

I am currently in the middle of a dispute with 3 over the cancellation of my contract with them and I would appreciate some advice.

 

My 18 month contract with 3 ended in February of this year and I rang them in April to pay a bill which was 2 months in arrears and at the same time I informed them that I wished to cancel the contract with immediate effect.

 

The person that I spoke to told me that she would make a note of my request but told me that in order to cancel my contract I would need to put my request in writing giving 30 days notice. I asked if I could e-mail this request and she told me that I could e-mail them through the contact e-mail on the 3 website.

 

I immediately e-mailed them informing them of my request and in my e-mail I included all the necessary details, i.e. mobile number, account number, account password, name, address and date of birth so there could have been no dispute as to who had sent the e-mail.

 

As I had decided to cancel the contract and having a new phone with o2 my 3 mobile phone was turned off and put in the cupboard never to be used again.

 

As far as I was concerned that was the end of the matter and my contract was cancelled.

 

I received no coorespondence at all from 3 until completely out of the blue in September (4 months later) I recieved a bill for £23.00 for my monthly line rental.

 

Needless to say I was shocked and immediately rang 3 and told them of my previous requests and was told that she had a record that 3 had received my e-mail and that my contract should have ended on the 16th of May.

 

She told me to e-mail Customer Services again and explain the situation and she was sure that the matter would be resolved. So I e-mailed 3 again explaining the situation telling them that as far as I was concerned the contract was cancelled and I would not be paying the bill of £23.00.

 

In this e-mail I also told them that if the contract wasn't cancelled despite my request, then it should be cancelled with immediate effect.

 

I received a reply to this e-mail but it did not give me any answers to my questions so I was not sure where I stood.

 

A few weeks passed and I recived another bill from 3 for a further £23.00 for my monthly line rental.

 

I called 3 once again and told them that I would not be paying this bill as the contract was cancelled and I would not be paying for a service that I had cancelled and had not used.

 

This time I was told that the debt had been passed on to a third party and I would need to speak to them regarding the outstanding debt.

 

I have since spoken to the debt collection company Advanced Telecommunicaions Debt to try and finally sort this out.

 

They have told me that 3 did receive my request to cancel my contract but it was not cancelled becuase they claim that 3 tried calling me to confirm my request but were unable to contact me.

 

They claim that 3 called me several times on my 3 mobile number but were unable to contact me. This was because the phone was turned off and in the kitchen cupboard.

 

They also claim that they tried calling me on my landline number and were unable to contact me but they left several messages on my answer phone. This is a blatant lie as we have never had an answerphone on our landline number.

 

They were obviously trying to contact me to try and talk me out of cancelling by offering me a free upgrade or some other fantastic offer.

 

As far as I am concerned all I needed to do to cancel my contract was advise them of my request in writing giving 30 days notice.

 

I have done this twice now but they claim that the contract wasn't and isn't cancelled becuase they could not get hold of me to confirm my request.

 

Is this correct. Do they need to speak to me to confirm this????

 

Why would they need to speak to me when my request had been recieved in writing.

 

It is now getting to the stage where I am being threatened with further action including being blacklisted for an outstanding debt.

 

It is only £46.00 that is owed and I am tempted to pay it to stop it going further but I really do not want to pay it as a matter of principle.

 

I am sure I have done everything needed to cancel the contract and I would be really grateful for any advice how I can resolve this.

 

Thank you in anticiapion,

 

Nick

[buzby]

In a word no - but there's a catch.

 

Your contract was for a minimum term, so until they receive a written cancellation request, after the initial contract period, it will roll on. Now, to ensure a proper cancellation, I always send a formal letter by Recorded Delivery, and keep the receipt. This provides evidence of my request and their receipt of same should there be any dispute.

 

An email cancellation is a different ballgame, it is not technically 'in writing' and it is quite possible for a disgruntled girlfriend to email them and cause havoc with an unexpected cancellation, hence they call you back to ensure you really did send the email. Their lack of action without proof positive of you really wanting a cancellation is understandable caution, and you can imagine how you would be incensed if your phone was cut off and contract ended if you hadn't sent them an email. They're in a no win situation whatever they do, but on balance I feel they took the responsible action, as until they could confirm your instructions nothing would happen. Calling you on the phone is reasonable, HOWEVER since they weren't successful I would have expected a follow up letter to you, so whilst there is blame, I don't believe it is all theirs - so I'd suggest they half the bill and you'll settle it.

[jonni2bad]

Half the bill?

 

What on earth for?

 

The contract was cancelled in accordance with instructions given by their representative, it was in writing (which does NOT have to mean on a piece of paper) and this would be seen as acceptable in a court, should the matter need to progress to that stage.

 

They were perfectly aware that the OP wished to cancel the contract, this was made clear in subsequent calls

 

...she had a record that 3 had received my e-mail and that my contract should have ended on the 16th of May...

 

Oliver, you should not pay a single penny, but if you are now put to expense because of the shoddy treatment you are experiencing, keep a note of it all - including the time you have to spend chasing up their problem.

 

Detail all of the above with specific time lines, making reference to the quotes from Three staff, and send this to their customer service team with a copy to the agency now dealing with the supposed debt, if you have been notified who they are.

 

Send 1st class only and get a FREE certificate of postage from any post office, don't pay extra for recorded delivery which does nothing for you.

 

Keep us up to date with any responses.

 

...it is quite possible for a disgruntled girlfriend to email them and cause havoc with an unexpected cancellation, hence they call you back to ensure you really did send the email...

 

But not possible for a 'disgruntled ex' to write a letter?

 

Really....

[buzby]

But not possible for a 'disgruntled ex' to write a letter?

 

Really....

 

Sorry you disagree. However don't shoot the messenger. As for an 'ex' not writing a letter. Two points to note, your signature would have to be forged (a criminal offence), and there is a paper trail that can be used as proof of the proceedings. Your justification that the staff member told you doesn't hold because you were not there for the conformational call-back with your security questions to confirm closure.

 

Therefore, you'll just go round in circles, you saying it was in writing, and they saying they could not confirm it. Stalemate, all the while your credit record is being trashed. Forgive me, but that's a bit like fiddling while Rome burns....!

[jonni2bad]

...As for an 'ex' not writing a letter. Two points to note, your signature would have to be forged (a criminal offence), and there is a paper trail that can be used as proof of the proceedings...

 

Well we're heading for another amazing tangent here that has precisely nothing to do with the OPs case. YOU introduced the fact that someone could have maliciously tried to end the contract, when in fact it really has no bearing here - other than to discuss the fact the OP used email.

 

If such a scenario were common place, would it not be feasible that such a disgruntled 'ex' could go to the extreme of writing a letter? A forged signature would be a lot harder to eventually track down than following the digital path of a fake email.

 

However, these points serve no purpose. Let us concentrate solely on the facts and see what we actually DO have here...

 

1. The OP wished to cancel their contract, after the 18 months duration of the original term had elapsed.

 

2. They contacted '3' by phone, inquired about cancellation and were told they could do so via email

 

...in order to cancel my contract I would need to put my request in writing giving 30 days notice. I asked if I could e-mail this request and she told me that I could e-mail them through the contact e-mail on the 3 website.

 

I immediately e-mailed them...

 

3. When a further bill appeared - erroneously - the OP called again. They were told that the cancellation request could be seen on their system

 

...she had a record that 3 had received my e-mail and that my contract should have ended on the 16th of May...

 

4. This company has failed to cancel the contract as requested. They now see fit to sell the supposed debt - the one that doesn't exist - to a third party who intend to recover it.

 

In summary -

 

Did the OP cancel the contract?

 

Yes.

 

Did the OP receive any form of assurance that the contract was canceled?

 

Yes.

 

Does the OP owe this company any money?

 

No.

 

If '3' or any other mobile network provider are plagued with the problem of their customer's disgruntled former friends playing tricks as described above, then their policy for cancellation should be changed, perhaps to include the scenario.

 

They are not, so their terms simply state that cancellation must be in writing.

 

Perhaps I'm missing part of their terms, maybe it states quite clearly that, following notification, they will then only end the contract if they can confirm you are who you say you are. Do they say that?

 

If '3' do not accept email notification, then they shouldn't offer the facility of emails through their web site and they should train their staff not to advise customers to cancel with that method. Neither of those points are of any concern to the OP.

 

...Stalemate, all the while your credit record is being trashed...

 

Maybe this is happening right now, although I can't recall the OP disclosing this as a problem. If it were true, then the OP would have reason to claim damages from '3' for entering inaccurate negative information on their credit files, at the discretion of a court, obviously.

 

Of course, they could just pay money they don't owe and if that's the case, may I can be first in line with the next demand.

 

I don't really have a case, but you owe me £50.

 

I will accept half as a gesture of goodwill if you pay in 7 days.

[groovycaz]

My husband took out a contract with Three mobile, he ordered online but when the handset came he didnt like it, so following their instructions to return and cancel within 14 days, we sent the handset back in the bag that they provided and had the proof from the post office, they said they didn't recieve it and started to bill my husband. when he contacted them they admitted that the phone had never been activated but still billed him, we sent proof of delivery and it took 4 months to sort out, in the meantime the cheeky sods put a default on his credit file, I sent a very stern letter including s10 data protection act demanding that they remove the default, which they did, calling up to confirm, but just to warn that 3G waste no time contacting the credit reference agencies..Gc

[buzby]

but just to warn that 3G waste no time contacting the credit reference agencies..Gc

 

All networks are 3G

[groovycaz]

Buzby tut tut, I meant Hutchinson 3G, you knew that... Gc

[buzby]

Well we're heading for another amazing tangent here that has precisely nothing to do with the OPs case.

 

If you check you'll see it was to show that an email would not be proof positive that the contract holder had indeed issued the instructions to terminate and that they had been accepted. If 3UK said to email them, then if their policy is to confirm such requests with a security check, what you feel is reasonable is immaterial.

 

 

YOU introduced the fact that someone could have maliciously tried to end the contract, when in fact it really has no bearing here - other than to discuss the fact the OP used email.

 

See previous paragraph. It has every bearing. Anyway, my network says its much better/safer to pay them by Direct Debit. I don't. Why should I believe them when they say I can cancel by email? In looking after No1 you write by trackable means. They could still deny receipt, or in this case state they required direct proof from the OP (which they would have had if a letter by RD was sent).

 

If such a scenario were common place, would it not be feasible that such a disgruntled 'ex' could go to the extreme of writing a letter? A forged signature would be a lot harder to eventually track down than following the digital path of a fake email.

 

And who would do that? The police have the powers but it would have to be major case for them to be interested. Getting a copy of the letter sent (if the contract was spuriously cancelled) then the it is the network doing the work. Digital paths are one thing - fake letters are easier to handle.

 

1. The OP wished to cancel their contract, after the 18 months duration of the original term had elapsed.

 

2. They contacted '3' by phone, enquired about cancellation and were told they could do so via email

 

3. When a further bill appeared - erroneously - the OP called again. They were told that the cancellation request could be seen on their system

 

4. This company has failed to cancel the contract as requested. They now see fit to sell the supposed debt - the one that doesn't exist - to a third party who intend to recover it.

 

1. Agreed

2. Agreed - but since we are not party to what they do on receipt of same, you cannot assume this in itself is acceptable. The contract may also state any cancellation to be made in writing (not electronically) in which case, it wouldn;t matter what the phone agent said.

4 - Since the authentication measures were not complied with, the contract continued. Per contract, non-payment results in the collection being outsourced, so all perfectly in-order.

 

In summary -

Did the OP cancel the contract?

Yes.

Did the OP receive any form of assurance that the contract was canceled?

Yes.

Does the OP owe this company any money?

No.

 

All the above is in your opinion. What 'assurance' was received that the contract had ended? As for whether money is owed, only the company can say - so if a 50% settlement brings a speedy conclusion for not writing formally, that's a good deal. They have contract law on their side.

 

Perhaps I'm missing part of their terms, maybe it states quite clearly that, following notification, they will then only end the contract if they can confirm you are who you say you are. Do they say that?

 

Probably not - but since you have to terminate in writing, and staff members are nor empowered to change it, this will be covered in terms that usually are part and parcel of their T&Cs

 

If '3' do not accept email notification, then they shouldn't offer the facility of emails through their web site and they should train their staff not to advise customers to cancel with that method. Neither of those points are of any concern to the OP.

 

Disagree, as thy can still accept a notice of intention to terminate, subject to confirmation. In the OPs case that confirmation wasn;t forthcoming.

[buzby]

Buzby tut tut, I meant Hutchinson 3G, you knew that... Gc

 

 

You'd be surprised at those that think (somewhat incorrectly) that only 3UK can provide 3G...!

[jonni2bad]

If you check you'll see it was to show that an email would not be proof positive that the contract holder had indeed issued the instructions to terminate and that they had been accepted. If 3UK said to email them, then if their policy is to confirm such requests with a security check, what you feel is reasonable is immaterial.

 

Perhaps it is time to end the myth that (a) the contract MUST be terminated by using a pen and paper. The T&Cs that I have just checked do not stipulate this, only that it must be in writing. An email is written, thus it is in writing.

 

Proof positive? Are you referring to any possible court action where proof would be required? If so, then bear in mind that such action would be through a magistrates court where proof is not the 'be all and end all'. A judge would look at the balance of probability. What you refer to as "immaterial" is no more than common sense - the balance of probability from what has been described to us here would indicate that the OP did everything expected of them.

 

If you disagree, then please refer verbatim to the T&Cs that would show why.

 

...It has every bearing. Anyway, my network says its much better/safer to pay them by Direct Debit. I don't. Why should I believe them when they say I can cancel by email? In looking after No1 you write by trackable means. They could still deny receipt, or in this case state they required direct proof from the OP (which they would have had if a letter by RD was sent).

 

Again, you are not talking about the OPs case, you simply infer that they need proof by written letter (which, incidentally, does not require proof of delivery for Court purposes). The OP has every reason to believe the customer service rep who told them what they could do to cancel.

 

And who would do that? The police have the powers but it would have to be major case for them to be interested. Getting a copy of the letter sent (if the contract was spuriously cancelled) then the it is the network doing the work. Digital paths are one thing - fake letters are easier to handle.

 

As I stated - this ridiculous tangent has no bearing on the case in hand so I won't continue to show how nonsensical it is.

 

2. Agreed - but since we are not party to what they do on receipt of same, you cannot assume this in itself is acceptable. The contract may also state any cancellation to be made in writing (not electronically) in which case, it wouldn;t matter what the phone agent said.

 

Then I am happy that I have now seen their T&Cs, as stated above, which neither stipulate;

 

(a) that electronic communication is unacceptable

 

nor

 

(b) that a further check will be carried out once written notification is received.

 

In the absence of such, it is common sense to say that the OP has cancelled the contract.

 

4 - Since the authentication measures were not complied with, the contract continued. Per contract, non-payment results in the collection being outsourced, so all perfectly in-order...

 

The what?

 

Are you referring simply to a practice that you believe happens, rather than a set of clearly identifiable T&Cs?

 

All the above is in your opinion. What 'assurance' was received that the contract had ended?...

 

I would ask that you read the first post again. I have quoted it already so won't bother doing so again now.

 

As for whether money is owed, only the company can say - so if a 50% settlement brings a speedy conclusion for not writing formally, that's a good deal. They have contract law on their side.

 

Once again you are quick to spend someone else's money.

 

Only the company can say?

 

So there's no chance of anyone ever being able to contest a debt? You simply have to believe what you are told?

 

And what are you referring to, specifically, when you state that they have "contract law" on the side? This is a sweeping statement that does not help the OP.

 

...they can still accept a notice of intention to terminate, subject to confirmation. In the OPs case that confirmation wasn;t forthcoming.

 

It is not in the T&Cs - at least, that is, the set I have read. If you have a copy of their T&Cs which do state this, then by all means let us know, as this would then add something constructive for the OP to digest.

[Darren]

Consumer Direct say that 'in writing' is acceptable by post, fax or email - so the contract WAS cancelled correctly.

 

If they were so desperste to get verbal comfirmation aswell why didn't they write or email to ask for this.

[buzby]

Perhaps it is time to end the myth that (a) the contract MUST be terminated by using a pen and paper. The T&Cs that I have just checked do not stipulate this, only that it must be in writing. An email is written, thus it is in writing.

 

Again, you make unsustainable assumptions. YOU may believe that an email = 'in writing' but this is not cut-and-dried. There are many times that this expression is used and can sometimes mean an alternative to a letter in the post - emails are no 'wonder' replacement, as previously you could serve notice by Telex or Fax... yet for evidential reasons a Telex would be accepted but a fax would not. Why? Because a fax could be changed/altered with ease in exactly the same way an email could. Anyway, it's academic, as even the courts to not accept that service by email is without its problems. In writing means just that.

 

As for your other points. you're more than welcome to your alternative opinion.

[buzby]

Consumer Direct say that 'in writing' is acceptable by post, fax or email - so the contract WAS cancelled correctly.

If they were so desperste to get verbal comfirmation aswell why didn't they write or email to ask for this.

 

For a start Consumer Direct have no say in the matter - the agreement was made by the network and the customer - and (for argument's sake) if they ask for the notice of termination to be given by Registered Mail within 28 days of the anniversary of the date it was taken out, sending it by email when you like doesn't work. Look also at cashback schemes, these were designed at the outset to be restrictive, but assuming that some firms are NOT lying - and the consumer did genuinely miss the required dates for submission, contract law applies.

 

As for their lack of calling back to advise of the pending cancellation and the inability to contact by email or letter as an alternative to phone, I absolutely agree the SHOULD have used all contact methods at their disposal to get the details to allow the contract to be cancelled. However, just because they didn't doesn't mean this somehow means that the contract should terminate without them being sure that their security checks have been met!

[jonni2bad]

And you have the T&Cs that state all this?

 

They don't mention, at any point, that a follow up call will be made, so why keep spouting this?

 

Again you refer to 'evidence' - you miss the point that was made earlier about the balance of probability (as used by Judges in a Court), so evidence of a copy letter is simply a bonus, nothing more.

 

If the OP were to raise the point (in Court) that a consumer organisation states email to be acceptable, then once again the balance would be in his favour. C.D. having "no say" in the matter is actually incorrect, although I take the point that CD do not in themselves hold legal opinion.

[buzby]

'Spouting' C'mon - you can be even more offensive can't you?

 

Why should they (the network) mention a follow-up call? I'm pretty sure no outfit is going to make public its security procedures - strange that you feel they should.

 

I cannot believe as a Mod you are seriously suggesting if the OP wants to state in court that a consumer organisation says its all OK the 'balance would be in his favour'. For a start, there's no written proof that Consumer Direct said this, they are simply an unconnected - but probably well-meaning third party. Reference to a telephone call would be hearsay evidence and completely discounted. Just try getting CA to appear in court to support that assertion and you'll be waiting a very long time. You'll also find Trading Standards & CAB will similarly offer advice but not back it up for evidentiary purposes.

[jonni2bad]

Why should they (the network) mention a follow-up call? I'm pretty sure no outfit is going to make public its security procedures - strange that you feel they should...

 

So there isn't anything then, just as I thought.

 

I cannot believe as a Mod you are seriously suggesting if the OP wants to state in court that a consumer organisation says its all OK the 'balance would be in his favour'...

 

It's probably because I understand what happens and that Judges take on board a variety of material supplied by any party in order to understand the case, which would include details as mentioned above (if that is what CD actually say, I haven't seen it so can neither confirm nor deny).

 

If you don't think this happens, perhaps we need to change the court bundle we set up for claimants which included, amongst other things, references to parliamentary select committees (who hold no legal opinion), former head of personal banking (who would hold no legal opinion) and so forth.

 

Why would we do this? Because it helps to show that the viewpoint of a party in Court has backing from recognised sources.

 

Still no T&Cs then?

[Darren]

10.1 You may end this agreement in the following ways:

 

1. In certain circumstances under our Returns Policy. You may need to get in touch with 3 Customer Services to arrange Disconnection.

2. You can end the agreement during your Minimum Term (if you have one – this will be stated in your Price Plan) by giving notice to 3 Customer Services at least 30 days before the date you want to end the agreement. However, you must pay us all the Charges you owe, plus any Cancellation Fee for your Price Plan (as set out in the Price Guide).

3. On 30 days' notice, outside the Minimum Term. You can end the agreement if your Price Plan does not contain a Minimum Term, or if you want to end the agreement at the end of your Minimum Term or any time after your Minimum Term has expired, provided you give notice to 3 Customer Services at least 30 days before the date you want to end the agreement. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.)

4. Within one month of a detrimental variation to your agreement. You can end the agreement within one month of us telling you about a variation to your agreement (which includes your Price Plan) which is likely to be of detriment to you. You must give written notice to 3 Customer Services within that month and your agreement will finish at the end of that month once we receive your notice. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.)

 

These are the terms on 3's website, I think the OP has complied.

[buzby]

So there isn't anything then, just as I thought.

A shame you fail to appreciate the real world. At the last count I have had 14 mobile contracts in 20 years (only 3 currently, though) this does not include the ones through business. I read every condition to ensure I know exactly what I'm expected to do, and on 4 occasions recline to complete the contract unless certain conditions were removed.

 

As for a telephonic or email termination (where allowed) it it not unreasonable for them to ensure the request is valid. Your stance in saying that they have no right to ensure the customer is who he says he is is mind-blowing, especially in the light of recent events. Anyone can say anything to anyone and assert a position they do not have. As mentioned before, if your mobile service was removed without your knowledge because of an email and no corroboration, I'm sure you'd be philosophical? Yes right!

 

It's probably because I understand what happens and that Judges take on board a variety of material supplied by any party in order to understand the case, which would include details as mentioned above (if that is what CD actually say, I haven't seen it so can neither confirm nor deny).

 

Of course they do, but just because the claimant 'says so' is not proof. You would either have to call the CD agent as a supporting witness or point to Stature where your contention is supported.

 

If you don't think this happens, perhaps we need to change the court bundle we set up for claimants which included, amongst other things, references to parliamentary select committees (who hold no legal opinion), former head of personal banking (who would hold no legal opinion) and so forth.

 

Irrelevant, as their position would have to be published and could therefor be used as supporting document. Relying on a third-party telephone conversation (as being discussed) would be totally irrelevant.

 

Still no T&Cs then?

 

I'm sure you'll find them on the website if you want to peruse them, but even if it states you can cancel via email, the cancellation would still have to be accepted and verified before cancellation to protect the account holder. If the verification is not received, then the contract continues as before. However, it may be useful mitigation should it come to court.

 

If we believe what you say, I could wreak sustained havoc on my enemies by emailing their mobile networks with their number and addresses, asking for their contracts to be cancelled. I can assure you, I'd be the first to seek compensation for any disruption this caused because they never checked the email was genuine.

[jonni2bad]

A shame you fail to appreciate the real world. At the last count I have had 14 mobile contracts in 20 years (only 3 currently, though) this does not include the ones through business. I read every condition to ensure I know exactly what I'm expected to do, and on 4 occasions recline to complete the contract unless certain conditions were removed...

 

What contract you or I or anyone else have previously had bear no relevance to this contract (for the OP).

 

..As for a telephonic or email termination (where allowed) it it not unreasonable for them to ensure the request is valid. Your stance in saying that they have no right to ensure the customer is who he says he is is mind-blowing, especially in the light of recent events...

 

Firstly, where did I state that this company have no right to check?

 

You have either misunderstood what I have written or you are attempting to put words into my mouth in order to bolster your own view point. I did not state this. What I did say, however, is that there are no terms in the contract that stipulate the company will follow up such requests with a telephone check - the point is entirely different to that which you suggest I have said.

 

Once again, you fail to show us where it is stated, other than to infer some knowledge of a secret practice that is so mysterious they can't publish even a snippet of it. If that is the case, perhaps we had better remove your reference to it above - we wouldn't want to make life difficult for these companies, would we.

 

What next? They check that you don't have a gun pointed to your head when they call you, so tell you to cough once if everything is OK and twice if you are under duress?

 

...Of course they do, but just because the claimant 'says so' is not proof. You would either have to call the CD agent as a supporting witness or point to Stature where your contention is supported...

 

Again, I did not say that anything would be proof, I merely indicated that a Judge would consider all information with the balance of probability, this is not saying that the OPs word would be proof. You appear to be in the habit of misrepresenting what I state.

 

The OP would NOT have to force the agent to attend court (although they may wish to try, but I certainly haven't, nor wouldn't recommend it) because the conversation would be detailed in the witness statement provided, thus forming part of the defence.

 

...as their position would have to be published and could therefor be used as supporting document. Relying on a third-party telephone conversation (as being discussed) would be totally irrelevant...

 

See above.

 

I'm sure you'll find them on the website if you want to peruse them, but even if it states you can cancel via email, the cancellation would still have to be accepted and verified before cancellation to protect the account holder. If the verification is not received, then the contract continues as before. However, it may be useful mitigation should it come to court...

 

I HAVE seen them. Have you?

 

You say, once again, that there needs to be verification before cancellation is complete. Once again, you have failed to show us anything which supports this theory.

 

3. On 30 days' notice, outside the Minimum Term. You can end the agreement if your Price Plan does not contain a Minimum Term, or if you want to end the agreement at the end of your Minimum Term or any time after your Minimum Term has expired, provided you give notice to 3 Customer Services at least 30 days before the date you want to end the agreement. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.)

 

Perhaps, because it is so secretive, they added the "verification" part using invisible ink.

 

...If we believe what you say, I could wreak sustained havoc on my enemies by emailing their mobile networks with their number and addresses, asking for their contracts to be cancelled. I can assure you, I'd be the first to seek compensation for any disruption this caused because they never checked the email was genuine.

 

Tangent time again, I see.

 

Likewise, If I were to enter this strange world you inhabit, I too could "wreak havoc" by composing letters (yes - on paper!) informing the same companies that all 'my enemies' wished to cancel their contract. Forged signatures aplenty!

 

What (on planet earth) does this have to do with the OP? (other than to assert that you believe emails are the Devil's work, despite all the facts pointing to Three accepting such?

[buzby]

1) Goes to experience on the matter.

2) No right to check? In your position held that a phone call is sufficient.

3) No misrepresentation of what you state. Simply what you say is easily misinterpreted.

4) Yes, I've seen them - now what? Verification is common-sense. Sorry you don't feel it is a pre-requisite. As for it supposedly appearing in 'invisible ink' because it isn't there. Oh how I laughed!

5) Tangent? Only if you can't see the main picture. I was trying to be helpful, but if don;t appreciate it, fine.

6) The process of dealing with forged signatures was dealt with days ago, do you really have such a short memory span?

 

And what has all this to do with the OP? Everything. When he confirms to 3 that he has indeed requested cancellation, I have no doubt it will be done. As for the Devil's work, you're doing a pretty good job!

 

 

5)

[jonni2bad]

1. If only it were actually part of any T&Cs - of which you still cannot identify.

 

2. Again, you are misquoting me. Really not sure why, since all I have stated is quite legible. Are you having some difficulty viewing the screen?

 

My reference has NEVER been to a phone call being acceptable as a cancellation, I actually stated that an email was sufficient.

 

3. By you, clearly, but I don't experience the same with anyone else.

 

4. So now it's common sense, rather than policy? I'd like to understand which you think it is, rather than assuming, but I had thought you were implying that is was a policy for these companies to call back and confirm?

 

It has been clearly identified that such actions do not form part of the T&Cs, so was it merely an opinion, or something more?

 

And what has all this to do with the OP? Everything. When he confirms to 3 that he has indeed requested cancellation, I have no doubt it will be done...

 

This is were that 'reading' thing comes into play. The OP very clearly stated that a follow up call and email had been made. It was also repeated in post 5 to highlight what actions had been taken.

 

And you think I have a short memory?

 

...As for the Devil's work, you're doing a pretty good job!

 

Thank you. It really is quite a challenge, but that's what we're (not) paid to do.

[buzby]

Thank you. It really is quite a challenge, but that's what we're (not) paid to do.

 

And you thought you were unloved?

 

I think we've both made our points, and I think we'll have to agree that neither has made this clear to the other's satisfaction. As much as I'd like to keep up my self-induced RSI, I'm off-line 'till Monday. Keep it hanging!