Mobile Internet Deal

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I seek advice on the following quandary that I find myself in:

 

I am in a 2 year contract with a mobile internet service provider for just over a year now, another 10 months or so to go. The service that I am buying is mobile access to the internet via a dongle. The data allowance is 5GB per month and the charge is £15 per month.

 

I have recently spotted a deal offered by another provider of 20GB per month for £15 per month. That's 4 times the data for the same price.

 

It goes without saying and putting it mildly that I am a bit miffed about what I am being charged compared to what I could be getting for the same money.

 

My question is:

 

How do I go about terminating my current contract so as to enable me to take advantage of the better deal?

[fkofilee]

Who are the companies?

 

You need to ideally give your current company 30 days notice,. However might have to pay an ETF. Ask you current company to match it. They will normally be quite flexible.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

It would not be prudent at the present time to name the companies concerned, in any case it is not relevant since I believe that most companies who operate 2 year contracts have similar terms and conditions.

 

 

What is ETF? I have not come across any mention of it.

 

 

The general consensus seems to be that those companies can be very inflexible, sometimes to the extent of demanding the equivalent of full amount of the remainder of the contract.

 

 

I thought someone might have experienced a similar predicament and found a way round to not paying anything at all.

[colin11]

Early termination fee

 

You took out a 2 year contract, Just because something better has come along, Doesn't get you out of it early for free

 

They may let you leave early but could charge you an ETF

[AndyOrch]

And if you do name the companies......then we can examine and compare...and suggest the likely outcome....

 

No names ...we have no track record.

 

Andy

[fkofilee]

Andyorch is right and besides, i deal with all 4 of the big mobiles companies and CPW - If you tell me then I can give you a recent response.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Thanks all for the response.

 

 

It was the response I expected but not the one I necessarily wanted.

 

 

Since you make telling you the name of the company involved a condition of telling me of recent responses I will tell you that the company involved is EE. At least 2 of the other major companies have better deals but since if looks like I won't be taking advantage of their deals I see no point in naming them here.

[fkofilee]

Why not complain about it

Somestimes mobile firms shake up there deals / prices / allowances.

 

You may get the allowance you need for a tiny fraction more on the price

EE do this quite often

 

If you have no luck, let me know, I might beable to help.

I suspect you may have been looking at H3G - They do good deals on 4G BB

[AndyOrch]

Thanks all for the response.

 

 

It was the response I expected but not the one I necessarily wanted.

 

 

Since you make telling you the name of the company involved a condition of telling me of recent responses I will tell you that the company involved is EE. At least 2 of the other major companies have better deals but since if looks like I won't be taking advantage of their deals I see no point in naming them here.

 

Hardly a condition...its like you asking is this car any good without telling us the make or model...logical common sense.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Why not complain about it

Somestimes mobile firms shake up there deals / prices / allowances.

 

You may get the allowance you need for a tiny fraction more on the price

EE do this quite often

 

If you have no luck, let me know, I might beable to help.

I suspect you may have been looking at H3G

 

 

 

 

I did complain and asked for a better deal. To no avail.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Hardly a condition...its like you asking is this car any good without telling us the make or model...logical common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

If you read my post you will notice that I did not suggest anything was no good, neither the device or the company. I merely asked if there was any way of extricating myself from a contract that has become blatantly unfair since I entered into it, as the example I give demonstrates. The make or model does not alter that fact.

Since most mobile phone company contracts have a minimum of a 2 year signing up term in common I thought it might be logical common sense to expect that any way round one could be applicable to all. It's the term in the contract that is the issue. Similarly with a car, all else being equal, one could judge and advise on the terms and conditions attached to payment methods irrespective of the make or model.....logical common sense.

To humour you I gave you a name and, as I anticipated, you suggested no likely outcome as promised.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

fkofilee

Just suppose someone went to a phone company (any one of them) and managed to negotiate alterations to the monthly payment terms or the service bundle terms.

Would the newly negotiated terms and conditions constitute a new contract?

Would the old contract cease to exist?

Would that person's consumer right to terminate the new contract within 14 days apply?

[AndyOrch]

If you read my post you will notice that I did not suggest anything was no good, neither the device or the company. I merely asked if there was any way of extricating myself from a contract that has become blatantly unfair since I entered into it, as the example I give demonstrates. The make or model does not alter that fact.

Since most mobile phone company contracts have a minimum of a 2 year signing up term in common I thought it might be logical common sense to expect that any way round one could be applicable to all. It's the term in the contract that is the issue. Similarly with a car, all else being equal, one could judge and advise on the terms and conditions attached to payment methods irrespective of the make or model.....logical common sense.

To humour you I gave you a name and, as I anticipated, you suggested no likely outcome as promised.

 

No need to humour me.....its obvious that all mobile companies are different as are their contracts T&Cs and deals...by naming the companies you had in mind helps the advice to be more authentic and accurate..

[Lapsed Workaholic]

No need to humour me.....its obvious that all mobile companies are different as are their contracts T&Cs and deals...by naming the companies you had in mind helps the advice to be more authentic and accurate..

 

OK Andy,

I accept that all mobile companies are different as are their contracts, T&Cs and deals. Never for a moment did I suppose or suggest otherwise.

For the third time of telling you, I am only concerned with one specific term of the contract I have with EE. That specific term is that I can't end the contract I signed up to for 2 years without incurring a charge or a penalty despite the fact that it is blatantly extortionate in my view. I don't know how else to describe a deal that only gives me one quarter of the data that other deals would give me for the same price. Had the better deal been available when I signed up for the one I currently have I would have opted for the better one. The choice was not available to me at the time of signing up to my current contract.

Now, EE is not the only mobile phone company who include that specific term/condition in their contracts. So, in that context, the colour, model, make, or even company is immaterial to that specific term/condition. Whatever company is party to the contract, if the specific term/condition that concerns me here is the same then does it not follow that any legal consequences attached to it, or relating to it, is the same, or similar?

Legally EE is not in breach of contract for refusing to end the contract. In fact it is in their interest to let it run its course. On the other hand I would be in breach if I decided to terminate it unilaterally and/or prematurely without regard to the penalty/charge such an action would incur.

The law of contract applies equally to all contracts and the terms and conditions they contain. There is not a different law for each specific company or party to a contract. That is why I question the emphasis you put on a specific company.

My original query was: If it transpires that the deal I signed up for subsequently becomes an unreasonable one because other deals by companies in the same business, or even the same company, offers deals offering 4 times as much goods and services for the same price, how do I get out of the original deal?

Under the law of contract, could circumstances beyond the control of one party to the contract cause the value of the contract to change to such an extent that enforced retention of the contract by one party results in significant loss to the other party? In other words; I can see that I'm being ripped off, they can see I'm being ripped off, and they have no intention of doing anything about it because it is in their interests and they are under the impression that there's nothing I can do about it.

I thought someone might have had a similar experience and be able to help me make them reconsider their impression. It's been over a week since I gave you the name of the company, which you said would help your advice to be more authentic and accurate. So far, no advice, authentic, accurate or otherwise. Obviously you don't have an answer to my predicament so no point inventing reasons for not doing what you promised.

I also stated over a week ago that I have decided to abandon the whole idea of taking advantage of the better deals available for the present so please don't exert any more effort on this.

 

 

 

[AndyOrch]

" I also stated over a week ago that I have decided to abandon the whole idea of taking advantage of the better deals available for the present so please don't exert any more effort on this."

 

Excellent ...probably wise decision.

 

Andy

[BazzaS]

You should look into if you can downgrade your existing contract and pay it off, or seek paying off its current term for a lower early termination fee (term x reduced monthly payment), or even a combination of the 2, but according to the terms of the contract you signed.

 

The whole point of the contract (& contract law) is certainty.

 

There is an offer & acceptance of that offer (together with consideration & intent to form a legal contractual relationship, these being the 4 pillars of a contract).

 

You can't say "but I can get 20Gb for £20 now!" as a reason to void a contract you made some time back that only gives you 2Gb for your £20. You had the choice to take that offer, or not take it (or take a 30-day rolling contract) until a better option came along.

However, you chose to take it and (save them breaching the contract or a term being excludable by law) are bound by it.

 

2 year contract? Likely the sweetened the deal by including equipment with that. If the flexibility you now want is important to you : 2 year contracts don't seem a good fit for you.

Go for shorter term contracts and pay separately for hardware.

 

Now I'm probably in your bad books as much as Andy for not telling you what you want to hear, but if what you want to hear doesn't fit with contract / consumer law: not much we can do about that!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

You should look into if you can downgrade your existing contract and pay it off, or seek paying off its current term for a lower early termination fee (term x reduced monthly payment), or even a combination of the 2, but according to the terms of the contract you signed.

 

The whole point of the contract (& contract law) is certainty.

 

There is an offer & acceptance of that offer (together with consideration & intent to form a legal contractual relationship, these being the 4 pillars of a contract).

 

You can't say "but I can get 20Gb for £20 now!" as a reason to void a contract you made some time back that only gives you 2Gb for your £20. You had the choice to take that offer, or not take it (or take a 30-day rolling contract) until a better option came along.

However, you chose to take it and (save them breaching the contract or a term being excludable by law) are bound by it.

 

2 year contract? Likely the sweetened the deal by including equipment with that. If the flexibility you now want is important to you : 2 year contracts don't seem a good fit for you.

Go for shorter term contracts and pay separately for hardware.

 

Now I'm probably in your bad books as much as Andy for not telling you what you want to hear, but if what you want to hear doesn't fit with contract / consumer law: not much we can do about that!

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your post Bazza. -

You are not in my bad books at all and neither is Andy. My beef is with the company that I believe is swizzing me. What niggled me slightly about Andy and Fkofilee's responses was that they promised that by telling them the name of the company I am dealing with they could suggest ad propose a resolution. Well, against my better judgement I did give them a name and they didn't then fulfil their promise. What concerns me about that is that I may now have compromised myself in any further dealings that I may decide to have with the company in question.

As I have already spelled out, when I signed up to the deal offering 3GB of data for £15 that there was no other comparable deal available. None of the other phone companies offered any such deal at the time, if any of them were offering 20GB of data for £15 -£20 you can rest assured that I would not have opted for the one I did opt for.

I can say "but I can get 20Gb for £20 now!" I have already said it and I will say it again. It is a fact and it makes the deal I have now appear extortionate. The whole point of my query on here was to ascertain whether or not there was any way of terminating the contract in favour of one offering a better deal because of changed circumstances.

I did not have a choice, as I've already said, when I entered into the contract, there was no other such deal available, nor was there a '30-day rolling contract' or 'pay as you go' option where mobile internet access is concerned.

Like the other two caggers in my good books you repeat stuff I already know but do not appear to have any knowledge of incidents where the predicament I find myself in can be challenged other than to say, basically, 'tough'. I find it difficult to accept that nobody has ever tried to, or been successful in, terminating one of those 2 year contracts, I just thought that regular advisers on a consumer action forum might have heard of such cases and be able to advise constructively, 'not much we can do about that' is defeatist.

[BazzaS]

As I have already spelled out, when I signed up to the deal offering 3GB of data for £15 that there was no other comparable deal available. None of the other phone companies offered any such deal at the time, if any of them were offering 20GB of data for £15 -£20 you can rest assured that I would not have opted for the one I did opt for.

 

Which confirms that their offering wasn't unreasonable AT THAT TIME.

The fact that all the networks are offering more (for the same, or for less) now merely reflects increasing availability and increased competition .... not that the contracts at that time were unfair.......

I can say "but I can get 20Gb for £20 now!" I have already said it and I will say it again. It is a fact and it makes the deal I have now appear extortionate. The whole point of my query on here was to ascertain whether or not there was any way of terminating the contract in favour of one offering a better deal because of changed circumstances.

 

So, you want contracts made 2 years ago to be judged based on the changes since.

What if you agreed 2 years ago to change £1000 into dollars every month, at the exchange rate in force then, each month for 24 months .......

The pound could go up or down against the dollar ... you might win or lose by such a deal, and according to your 'logic' you ought to be able to insist the contract be altered (if it moves in your favour).... but I bet you'd squeal if it moved in the other side's favour!.

yet, the whole point of a contract is certainty : you agree a deal and (absent the exclusions granted by either the T's & C's or by law) ; both sides stick to it or are liable to damages to put them in the position they'd be if the contract had been fulfilled.

 

For the currency swap I described, either side may gain or lose by comparison with current rates.... that isn't the point. They get certainty, and can plan accordingly. They accept the risk of 'losing out' for the benefit of the certainty (or in your case for the better rates than PAYG at that time +/- the dongle you got for reduced price?).

 

I did not have a choice, as I've already said, when I entered into the contract, there was no other such deal available, nor was there a '30-day rolling contract' or 'pay as you go' option where mobile internet access is concerned.

 

That would be incorrect. I was using PAYG data 2 years ago (on Virgin, buying a bundle whenever I needed), and 30-day rolling contracts (giving data on '3' as part of a bundle) 2 years ago.

 

http://www.lifehacker.co.uk/2014/09/03/planhacker-uks-best-payg-deals-tariffs-compared

summarises some of the plans then available, and notes:

Paying anything more than £15 a month for a PAYG bundle isn't really worth it, as you can a rolling 30-day contract that comes with a whole lot more and is nearly as flexible

So, back in 2014 there were PAYG bundles, and 30-day rolling contracts......

They may not have been exclusively for data, but data was included!.

 

You'll probably now say "But I would have been paying for minutes and text I didn't use" (+/- "but the data costs more than taking a 2 year contract").

No surprise there : the companies offer better terms with 2 year contracts because they are 2 year contracts ...... if you want the flexibility you'll likely have to pay more per month, or get less for your money per month.......... of course, when the market starts offering more for less, you aren't locked into a 2 year-contract!.

Like the other two caggers in my good books you repeat stuff I already know but do not appear to have any knowledge of incidents where the predicament I find myself in can be challenged other than to say, basically, 'tough'. I find it difficult to accept that nobody has ever tried to, or been successful in, terminating one of those 2 year contracts, I just thought that regular advisers on a consumer action forum might have heard of such cases and be able to advise constructively, 'not much we can do about that' is defeatist.

 

Sorry if we've repeated 'stuff you already know'. From your posts you didn't give the impression of knowing much consumer / contract law........ like the aspects of certainty, and grounds for terminating a contract.

 

If you can find the solution you want, feel free to let us know. Until then, if there isn't one, it isn't defeatist to tell you our interpretation of the current state of the law, even if that isn't the answer you are looking for ; especially given the explanations for you of why that is the case.

 

Again, not my fault that consumer / contract law doesn't have a magical solution for you, and I prefer 'realist' to 'defeatist' - would you prefer I make up an answer to make you feel better, and then you write to EE using that argument and they laugh at your attempt?.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Bazza,

I did not say that the deal was unfair at the time of signing up for it. On the contrary I said it was the best available at the time. My contention is that it has become unfair and unreasonable since I signed up for it, that deals available now, including by the same company, offer much more for the same price. Due to changes by the company itself a unit of data for which I pay £5 is now being offered for 75p. I don't know about anybody else but it p's me off and I do not intend to meekly accept it without a fight.

The example you give of changing £1000 per month into dollars at a fixed rate is not only inappropriate, it is irrelevant. We are not talking about currency fluctuations, we are talking about a specific amount of data at a specific price. I did not say that the amount of data or its cost fluctuated or changed in any way in my case (certainty). I simply point out that the company is now offering the same amount of data for 75p per unit and seems to be determined that I continue to pay £5 per unit for it and they quote a clause which was reasonable at time of signing but has since become unjustifiable. The company has altered the charge per unit terms of its standard 2 year contracts from £5 per unit to 75p per unit (certainty shattered). I was given no indication that such fluctuations could possibly occur over the period of a 2 year contract therefore it could not be asserted that in signing the contract I accepted that they could or would occur. Your example binds you to a fixed rate of exchange despite any fluctuations that you know may very well occur. Even so, if it fluctuated to the extent fluctuation occurred in my contract I would certainly not be content to let it go unchallenged.

When I signed up to the deal the contract was for 3GB per month for £15 per month. It was the best such deal available to me at the time. I do not believe Virgin's deal was any better than that, I checked them all out at the time and they were all pretty much the same, as they are now pretty much the same in bettering those deals. My contract was exclusively for data. Minutes, texts, etc had nothing to do with it.

I do not claim to be knowledgeable in matters relating to contract law, or consumer law for that matter, I asked for advice off you for goodness sake. I have tried to present the facts of my case as I see them, from my perspective. It is obvious that I have failed to do so. You, on the other hand, and one or two others who have portrayed themselves as being knowledgeable in such matters, have played the role of devil's advocate admirably and presented the alternative argument from the point of view of the other party to the contract. It was in that sense that I said you are repeating stuff I already know, ie, that is what the company already told me.

Heaven forefend that the vagaries of consumer/contract law could possibly be your fault, but it's that having put yourself up as some sort of adviser/commentator with some experience on matters relating to those laws and then not delivering that disappoints.

[BazzaS]

You are still not being treated unfairly, then or now.

 

You chose a contract with a 2 year term.

 

Additionally : your calculations for the unit cost of data are flawed; you've not taken into account the cost of the dongle / the reduction in its cost that you got by taking out the 2 year contract.

 

It still remains : if you want to be charged for data at today's rates and not the rates you agreed to 2 years ago - don't take out a 2 year contract!.

 

I can't "deliver" what contract law doesn't allow. Sorry about that.

What do you want : being told how things are or people making things up to keep you happy?

If telling you "how it is" disappoints you : expect disappointment - what exactly do you think people can "deliver"?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Whilst involved in those exchanges here over the past couple of weeks I have also been in communication with the complaints department of the company that I have complained about. That communication has now been successfully concluded but before going on I feel that I must respond to Bazza'a latest post.

It was my contention that I was being treated unfairly in relation to other customers who, as I have already described were in receipt of greatly enhanced terms. The fact that those enhanced terms became available after I had signed up to the deal do not alter the fact that paying £5 now for the same units of data as are being offered to others now for 75p is unfair and unjustifiable. I can't understand how anyone can argue that this is fair nor do I believe that any law exists that condones the unfairness of it.

The attitude taken by the shop assistants were the same as yours Bazza, and like you they ridiculed, scorned and contemptuously dismissed my contention on the grounds that I was ignorant of the law.

With classic smugness you went a step further, not only by making up ridiculous scenarios as examples for comparison, but by asserting that my calculations were flawed. You have based that assertion on the assumption that the cost of the dongle should be taken into account. You have made that assertion to justify to yourself the unjustifiable. The dongle was free and therefore did not have a cost implication for the deal. The bumph advertising the deal and the contract sealing the deal stipulated that the dongle was free and bore no part of the cost of the data, which was the deal.

By asserting that it is part of the deal you are conceding that the deal as it stands is unjustified and therefore you feel obliged to make up reasons to justify it.

I did not expect anyone to 'deliver' anything, nor did I expect anyone to say anything just to make me feel happy. I certainly did not expect anyone offering advice on a consumer forum to fabricate reasons for justifying, or try to get me to accept against my better judgement, the stance taken by the company.

Now, far from disappointment, I can tell you exactly what can be, and indeed what I did, deliver.

The afore mentioned complaints dept began as the shop assistants in the shop left off. A contract is a contract. No way out. Can't cancel without it costing. Fair or not fair not relevant. So it went on over several emails. I persisted in putting my case, setting out the argument as I did here from my perspective.

Over the course of several emails I got an admission in writing that from my point of view as a consumer the deal was unfair but from their point of view I was bound by a contract and had no alternative but to accept the situation.

I was simultaneously trying to put the idea in their heads that I was not necessarily intent on terminating the deal/contract but merely upgrading it to a more reasonable one even if that meant extending the time period of the newly upgraded contract. I did not commit to signing up to another 2 year contract in so many words but they appeared to get the impression that I was prepared to do so and I did not dissuade them of that impression initially.

So, the position thus far, I had written admittance that they; (a) considered the contract to be unfair, and (b) that they were prepared to allow consideration of an offer with fairer terms.

By this stage I was ready to deliver the coup de grace in the form of Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which says:

 

62 Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair

 

(1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.

(2) An unfair consumer notice is not binding on the consumer.

(3) This does not prevent the consumer from relying on the term or notice if the consumer chooses to do so.

(4) A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

(5) Whether a term is fair is to be determined—

(a) taking into account the nature of the subject matter of the contract, and

(b) by reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed and to all of the other terms of the contract or of any other contract on which it depends.

 

 

This clause not only recognises that there is such a thing as an unfair term in a consumer contract but that such a term is not binding. It also goes on to define what an unfair term is. Basically, if the circumstances existing when the terms were agreed changes to the extent where obligations under the contract causes significant imbalance and become detrimental to the consumer then it could be regarded as unfair and ceases to be binding on the consumer. My contract left me at a financial disadvantage so any term binding me to it would be unfair therefore not binding in law.

 

The email responding to this, received yesterday morning, was a joy to read, sweet. They offered me three choices:

 

1. Terminate the contract unconditionally, only asking that I give 30 day's notice.

2. Upgrade my current contract with more favourable terms.

3. Take advantage of any of their current deals

 

And the icing on the cake, totally unexpected: As a gesture of goodwill they offered to credit my account with the equivalent of 2 months payment of my account with them as a full and final settlement of my complaint.

 

I chose option 1 and accepted with thanks their gesture of goodwill.

 

My advice to anyone who might find themselves in a similar situation would be not to pay any attention those who, with smug arrogance, proclaim their legal prowess whilst belittling yours. Fortunately they do not determine what is or isn't fair terms. Unfortunately they don't appear to be aware of the laws that do either.

[BazzaS]

With classic smugness you went a step further, not only by making up ridiculous scenarios as examples for comparison, but by asserting that my calculations were flawed. You have based that assertion on the assumption that the cost of the dongle should be taken into account. You have made that assertion to justify to yourself the unjustifiable. The dongle was free and therefore did not have a cost implication for the deal. The bumph advertising the deal and the contract sealing the deal stipulated that the dongle was free and bore no part of the cost of the data, which was the deal.

 

Right ... the dongle was free. It wasn't part of the deal at all.

 

For a 30-day rolling contract they would have charged what? £70? £100? £150?

But they gave it to you because they love you so much.

Of course it was subsidised as part of the deal!.

 

Some mobile networks still do this ; but (for example) O2 have moved to a more transparent model with their 'Refreesh' tariff, making the contract paying for the handset monthly separate to the airtime contract.

So, they don;t say "Handset FREE!", and "airtime contract £40/month", 24 month contract, but instead

"Hansdet £20/month", "airtime contract £20/month" (for the same allowances), 24 month contract.

 

Only a fool would believe the handset was 'free' and not dependant on recouping the subsidy through the contract...... it is only 'free' in terms of no up-front payment..... it still gets paid for!.

So, some of your monthly fee was a dongle subsidy ; your calculations are still flawed.

 

http://shop.ee.co.uk/dongles/pay-monthly-mobile-broadband/4gee-wifi/details#

Their current wi-fi dongle. £79.99 for a 30-day contract (£18/month for 4Gb or £23/month for 16Gb allowance).

That same £18/month for 4Gb, for 24 months: dongle upfront cost £29.99

That same £23/month for 16Gb, for 24 months: dongle upfront cost £nil

 

so, the £80 dongle suddenly becomes 'free'!.

Or is it really that they have just worked out :

4Gb tarrif, the £18 is actually £15.83 for the 4Gb data, and £2.17 for the dongle.

Dongle cost (paid for across the 30 days) (£79.99 +£2.17) : £82.16

Dongle cost (paid for across the 24 months) [£29.99 + (£2.17 x 24)] = £29.99 + 52.08= £82.07

 

16Gb tarrif: The £23 is actually £19.52 for the 16Gb, and £3.48 for the dongle.

Dongle cost (paid for across the 30 days) (£79.99 +£3.48) : £83.47

Dongle cost (paid for across the 24 months) (£3.48 x 24) = £83.52

 

They probably work out the required sales cost of the dongle is about £83. The figures are appoximations (due to rounding), but the device certainly isn't 'free' in terms of they are giving it away out of good nature, or that they are making a significant loss on it!.

 

In the same way, your data calculations ignore the dongle cost ..... so remain flawed.

 

My advice to anyone who might find themselves in a similar situation would be not to pay any attention those who, with smug arrogance, proclaim their legal prowess whilst belittling yours. Fortunately they do not determine what is or isn't fair terms. Unfortunately they don't appear to be aware of the laws that do either.

 

By you quoting the Consumer Rights Act?

which wasn't in force when you took out the contract? and isn't retrospective!.

 

What you have actually done is appeal to the company to make a commercial decision to negotiate to retain you as a customer. You could have done this most effectively without hollow threats of "unfair contracts", but by pointing out the disparity and asking them to reach that commercial decision.

But you wanted to go in 'guns blazing' instead, as your 'style' seems to be to argue (but to argue without understanding!).

 

You got lucky. I'm glad you got lucky. But if you took the approach of arguing less, and negotiating and calm logic more, you'd have less need to rely on luck.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Bazza,

Just to clarify your latest assertions in support of your own stance.

Yes, the dongle was free, they said so repeatedly. In the bumph advertising the deal, in the contract and during my recent exchanges with them. They even stated that any money they may wish to recoup as a result of my terminating the contact early had nothing to do with recovering the cost of the dongle. They even told me in the shop that they did not want the dongle back whether they agreed to my terminating the contract early or not.

So, again, the dongle was not the issue. If you refuse to accept that then I suggest that you contact the company yourself and put them right as you see it on how to apply their contracts.

You then go on to give various examples with calculations that are totally irrelevant to my circumstances.

I did not have a 30 day rolling contract. I had a 2 year contract for mobile broadband access to 3Gb of data at a cost of £15 per month.

What you claim O2 do by way of example has nothing to do with my contract with EE.

Handsets, air-time, wi-fi was not involved. I had a mobile broadband dongle similar in size to a USB memory stick, and, like a memory stick, plugged into my computer.

The gadget in the link you so generously provide to support your own deluded assertions is not a mobile broadband dongle therefore any terms and conditions relating to it have no bearing on the substance of my case. It follows that all your elaborate calculations relating to that device are basically elaborate waffle, the only possible object of which is to justify your own stance to yourself.

If EE thought for one minute that they could get away with making a case such as the one you are attempting to make, don't you think that they might have tried it on? Even they did not consider it an option to call in aid other company's contracts or other devices contracts.

At no time did I presume to second guess what they probably did or did not work out. In my exchanges with the company I restricted my remarks to the facts and our interpretations of, and reactions to, the facts.

I was very cordial and polite in my negotiations with the complaints department of the company. They were equally cordial and polite with me. At no time did they insult my intelligence or seek to belittle as flawed the case I was making. I realise that your preferred MO is to decide upon a conclusion with no regard for the facts and then invent all sorts of waffle to justify your jump to it. It is a further example of your arrogance that you would presume to advise me on negotiation/communication skills especially since you have been misrepresenting the law and rubbishing my attempts to stand up for my consumer rights from the start and using mostly foul means to justify the misguided stance that you decided, for reasons better known to yourself, to take.

"By you quoting the Consumer Rights Act?"

I set out in my very first post of this thread that I signed up to the contract just over a year ago. The Consumer Rights Acts became law in March 2015, some 8 months or so before the commencement of my contract. Signing up to, and executing the terms and conditions of the contract, are both well within the purview of the Act, even if I were to accept that your assertion that it is not retrospective was correct. Obviously you have either not read my posts or you have failed to understand or grasp their contents choosing instead to supplement what I write with your own deluded fancies. Incidentally, anyone signing up to a 2 year contract prior to March 2015 would find their 2 year term expiring in a day or two anyway so the circumstances I was faced with would not apply to them anyway. I thought your calculation skills would have signalled that small fact.

What I have actually done is to successfully challenge the company's right to hold me to an unfair contract. They accepted that it was unfair even if you don't and they have released me from it.

Entertaining as those exchanges are I see no point in continuing with them, especially since I find myself repeating the same thing over and over again and that neither facts, truth, the law or what I have managed to do despite your assertion that it was not possible, does not seem to penetrate that noggin of yours. I only continued thus far merely to show to anyone else who might be following this thread that it is worthwhile to fight their corner and that by following bad advice such as you offer they are certainly doomed. DOOMED you hear.

[BazzaS]

Yes, it was free. Of course it was.

 

Completely independent of the contract.

Except, the only handed them out 'for free' to people who signed up for 2 year contracts ..... theyb weren't just handing them out to all and sundry, were they?

30-day contracts or PAYG they weren't free...........

 

If you believe the contract didn't supply them with the money they instead would have required you to pay for the device, I have some friends interested in selling you the Eiffel Tower .... its a great investment opportunity.

 

Yes, the figures I used (in a vain attempt to allow logic and reason to permeate your thinking) were for a wi-fi dongle. EE sell them (for contracts) now in place of USB dongles, which is why I used them as an example.

 

3 still sell dongles on contracts, if you insist I use a dongle as an example, but its a less dramatic example, as dongles are so cheap now. However, the cost of the dongle is factored into the 12-month contracts, so they become 'free' instead of £20 (for a 30-day rolling contract or PAYG).

They still aren't 'free', but paid for by the 12-month contract.

http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Devices/ZTE/MF730M?memory=0&colour=Black

 

No doubt now that you can't say "its not a dongle" the refrain will become "but now it is 3, not EE". Yes, it is, because EE only do their USB dongle on PAYG

http://shop.ee.co.uk/dongles/pay-as-you-go-mobile-broadband/huawei-e3533/details#

 

Why might that be?. Oh, because dongles are so cheap now that customers on 12-month+ contracts expect more 'free' for their money ......

[BazzaS]

I have some friends interested in selling you the Eiffel Tower .... its a great investment opportunity.

 

Great news!. They've just advised me that due to Brexit, the Eiffel Tower is now available for you, for free.

 

Its a 2-year contract, payable upfront (just for the paperwork, and administrative fees, only £20,000), but the attraction itself is free!.