Early Termination Fee (The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999)

[adridude]

I've just been reading the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and noticed in Schedule 2 - 1 (f):

 

(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

 

Am I reading this correctly, but the part in bold above, if a mobile company terminates a contract due to late payment, the part of their contract which says that we are liable for the outstanding amount for the remaining term is an unfair contract term?

[adridude]

Still no comments? lol

[Human Writes]

It's not a straightforward matter to comment on, you might want to read the below commentary on the decision of OFT v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 1237 which is of relevance and interest:

 

http://uk.practicallaw.com/3-506-4863#null

 

Mobile phone contracts and gym payment contracts are both service agreements so the legal principals and reasoning involved should be transferable.

 

In summary the decision states that early termination fees imposed when the customer is in breach of contract and service is not being provided, that the company must insure that the customer receives a discount for accelerated receipt of payment, however this discount can be as little as 5%. It seems to state that early termination charges can be applied.

 

If your interested in the actual text of the judgement refer to points 176 - 207:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1237.html

[adridude]

It's still questionable as the above mentioned attachment of accepted examples of unfair contracts clearly explains that both parties need 'that say in matters'.

 

From the way I read it (I might be wrong) but 99% of companies have a clause about early termination. Which I interpret is clearly against this mentioned term.

 

It sounds like they are testing peoples ability to question that and enforce the more refined bits of the law. Banks did this with charges, they lost (yet pushed us to actually take them to court), credit card companies too... What makes service contractors immune?

 

Looking at this, and as a Director of a company myself, I can tell the support staff (or admin department) that IF they contact me again, they agree to a £75 + VAT charge, if they do not agree, do not contact me.

 

That too is an unfair contract, yet skirting on the boundaries of the law. As much as I'd like that to happen, it can't. Makes me question if I should do it or not looking at the current state of affairs! lol

 

In regards to the above care (judgement), if a judge makes a judgement (with or without jury) which is outside the law, it has to be questioned in parliament itself. (Only if it's crown court).

 

Sounds like judges are taking a more personal approach to things now!

 

I just need someone with a little more competency than myself to confirm this. I'm happy to be the guinea pig and write to O2 (which I left due to their support being idiots).

[barry_2008]

The contract is unlawful because you had no influence over the sums of money being asked for.

Including the fact it would be standard terms of contract/conditions (included for easier reading.

[barry_2008]

The term "Director" dose not relate to a Director of a Private Limited Comapny.in any form.