Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update: tfl is taking me to court I'm trying to get an ooc claim from them but they have not been replying to my emails. 
    • Thousands of Chinese companies are making synthetic opioids and shipping them around the world.View the full article
    • Are these the important pages I need to upload ? 1.  pages 1-4 are court form 10a 2.  2 pages of the CCA agreement  3.  Default notice from NewDay, 22/02/20 4.   Lowell letter stating they own debt ,     Dated 16/11/20 5. Unheaded letter also dated 16/11/20 from NewDay saying they assigned “all of the respective rights etc,”  to Lowell on 23/10/20 I make this 9 relevant pages from what I can see   ( all other pages are statements/default notes and lots of FCA info sheets) just needing your confirmation in advance as I don’t want to send over pages that are not required thank you  UCM      
    • Just out of curiosity aesmith - are you a lawyer?
    • I spoke to a pro-bono entity this afternoon.  They advise I must initiate a claim in the court v the receiver if I want to then file an application for an order for sale.  I must have a claim/ proceedings to be able to force a sale. The judge in the current proceedings  has told me that I cannot force the lender to sell and the lender cannot interfere either.   If the receiver isn't acting correctly and isn't selling - this means I must make a claim against the receiver I could initiate a claim. Or much quicker  - the other entity - with a charge already - could use that to make an application for an order for sale.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

BT TV price increase, no longer a full right to cancel services?


Andy111
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1761 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Surprised this has not been directly addressed any were that I can see (except merely mentioned in an article elsewhere) but is BT (and assumingly other providers now) trying to circumnavigate what has previously been a right to walk away from mid contract services when they rise prices?.  

 

Because I had the email a couple of days ago telling me about a £4 price rise for the TV part of our package (TV, broadband & phone line).  Great I thought, the right to walk away from contract penalty free or negotiate a better deal.  The email even mentions about being able to leave penalty free and in the past, as its a package this has meant being able to walk away from the entire package penalty free.  But now I've seen mentioned that as BT have only increased the TV service this time (by £4per month) instead of everything that people can only cancel the TV element and are still liable for the other elements for the contract duration despite everything being a package in a single contract!.

 

If this is true surely this is wrong and a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the right to leave mid contract clause by putting the entire rise onto a single element?.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have 3 separate contracts within the bundle or just one ......I doubt it.....the one contract covers all the services. 

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-6007065/How-leave-broadband-TV-phone-mobile-provider-WITHOUT-paying-penalty.html

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought, but the wording of the email and from what's been mentioned in an article in an email from money saving expert, is suggesting because BT is only increasing the TV element of the 3 element package (which is within a single contract) this time that BT can still keep customers tied to the other 2 elements (broadband & phone line) as the prices for those have not been touched.  Meaning they would let's customers cancel the TV part penalty free but not the rest.

 

Surely this can be right, because said a single contract for all 3.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your monthly bill shows one amount as total for the months services...you cant single out one element of the bundle.The total package increases and therefore the terms and conditions of the total package has changed mid contract ...this is BT surely you dont expect them to get anything correct.:biggrin:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyorch said:

Your monthly bill shows one amount as total for the months services...you cant single out one element of the bundle.The total package increases and therefore the terms and conditions of the total package has changed mid contract ...this is BT surely you dont expect them to get anything correct.:biggrin:

Nope, they are all as bad as each other trying to give false information & impressions when they want to rise prices.  Though the small print of the email states "separate contracts apply".  Think I aught to ask BT for those 3 separate contracts & bills then lol.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ask them to explain and provide details of the three separate contracts...and if there are three separate contracts...why do they accept one payment to cover the three? 

 

Also if you were to default on payment...which contract would you be in default of and which service would they terminate ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, BT look to to indicating the broadband and phone line is the main contracted service and the TV package is more an add-on!.  Well that's the feeling I'm getting from there response, and thus altering the price of the add-on does not affect the main core contract.  Though they still insist that each service is covered by an individual agreement.  

 

Even if this was the case, begs the question why are providers only trying this trick now when previously its been a 100% service right to walk penalty free, and what happens to the remaining elements (broadband & phone line) that are priced at a discounted fee due to being part of a package?.  Hence why surely BT's explanation is contradictive as remove the add-on that causes a single multi service package discount and the remainder will likely cause a price rise due to lack of multi service?. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only advise from my experience with Virgin Media Bundles..if you try to take away an element of the bundle the total package increases because you have reduced the supposedly discounted package.Still as far as VM are concerned its one contract and one price increase for the package.

 

I suppose its how you entered the contract...did you sign for a bundle and if so what did that bundle contain or did you add the TV later.....if so then its not really a bundle deal.

It all really needs reviewing by the  Ombudsman as I also detect unfair trading and confusing billing.

 

https://www.ombudsman-services.org/sectors/communications

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyorch said:

I can only advise from my experience with Virgin Media Bundles..if you try to take away an element of the bundle the total package increases because you have reduced the supposedly discounted package.Still as far as VM are concerned its one contract and one price increase for the package.

 

I suppose its how you entered the contract...did you sign for a bundle and if so what did that bundle contain or did you add the TV later.....if so then its not really a bundle deal.

It all really needs reviewing by the  Ombudsman as I also detect unfair trading and confusing billing.

 

https://www.ombudsman-services.org/sectors/communications

 

As I recall at the time of sign up (90% certain) it was a single multi service offer (which also included the pre paid credit card) covered by a single price & single contract.  At no point did we ever sign for just broadband and phone line and then add the TV as an extra service during sign up.  6 months in (June 2018) the usual price rise notification and confirmation we could quit our entire contract penalty free due to said price rise period.  We called, BT reduced the cost by £0.50 in return for resetting the minimum term, all content and conditions remained the same.

 

This is about principle & rights than anything & not being told I signed up for or each element is covered by individual contracts like seems to be the blanket BT response when asked about and challenged over cancellation rights than allowing the total cancellation as has always been the norm with price rises.

 

Edited by Andy111
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...