The country's three biggest broadband and home phone providers have agreed to slash their charges to customers who cancel their contracts early, following pressure from regulators. BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media have previously made subscribers pay full or nearly full charges for every month left on their contract in order to …
It shouldnt cost a penny! as long as you give back any equipment they give you in working order it should be free! if you want to keep it you pay. same should apply to mobile phone companies
Why should there not be a penalty for a breach of contract by the customer ?
When you sign up you agree to make specific payments for a specific period in return for the service during that period. If the company has been providing that service as agreed, they have every expectation of you to keep your side of the agreement. I'm sure that if the company you signed a contract with was not providing the service as expected, you would be wanting reductions on the bill for that, a contract is a two way agreement, not just for you to benefit from.
That said I can see why it would be unfair to insist on the full payment for the outstanding period plus an extra specific termination charge that wouldn't be applied if the contract was ended at term. However a reasonable charge to cover the unexpected loss of revenue is not unfair.
If there's no fault then the party breaking the contract should expect to pay penalties - conversely if the low-life scum-sucking "providers" aren't providing as they have a duty of care to do, they should be automatically paying out compensation without being threatened with legal action...
Must go, there's some porcine aviation activity.
Now mobile phone airtime providers thank you please..
Can we have this for Mobile companies too please? I want a new phone :-(
Why Pay? As long as your connected to an exchange with BT equipment, download as much as you can over a month (1TB+) they will soon end your contract. Works a treat.
Re: Why Pay?
Interesting suggestion! Would this not also work with VM cable?
... if BT offer me an 'upgrade', why should I have to submit to another minimum term?
Reducing the cost of contract buyouts is one thing. How about addressing the real problem - that of pigopolistic rolling minimum term contracts.
I agree, before I moved to Virgin I was on a 1 month rolling contract for ADSL with Entanet (well one of their resellers) and on a god awful 1 year rolling contract with BT for the phone line (the wife signed up for one of BT's deals without realising that it changed the terms of the contract).
As it happens I'm out of my 1 year contract with Virgin (thank god they don't have a 1 year rolling contract) and I'm happy with them. If I want to cancel I can at any time without penalty. However I'm thinking of upgrading the TV package so I'll be tied in for another year.
It's good that they're cutting their charges so if it turns out that I lost my job and couldn't afford to keep up with the payments I wouldn't have to shell out as much if they cancel the service, but I'd be happier if they changed it to a shorter contract, even 3 months rolling contract would be better than 12 months (so if you cancel your contract you have to pay for the remaining 3 months or part of the remaining 3 months).
Now I wouldn't go back to BT, and I'd probably not use Talktalk either with the 18 and 24 month contracts they have these days but I guess having to only pay £2 to £5 or whatever it is per month to leave the contract early is more bearable than a couple of hundred quid.
It still annoys me that I can't get ADSL without voice service on the line. Come on BT there's bound to be lots of us out there who would be happy with ADSL and no voice service, especially since lots of us have hundreds of minutes free on mobile contracts, or lots of free calls on PAYG.
Shome mishtake shurely?
Why does it cost more _not_ to provide BT Unlimited Anytime (£5pcm) than it does _not_ to provide BT Weekend (£2pcm) ?
It's a contract which you agreed to. Simple at first glance. But I object t being forced to have a contract when it isn't necessary. Fair enough to lock someone into a contract if the length of the contract is necessary for the provider to recover the upfront costs of equipment, lines and so on. But if my new provider is simply taking over an already-installed line from a previous provider and is not providing anything new themselves, there should not have to be a contract at all. Imagine if shopping at Tesco the first time locked you into an exclusive Tesco-only contract for the next 12 months.
I especially object to BT's habit of automatically rolling you over into a new 12 month contract when your old one finishes. That is completely unnecessary and can only be to be anti-competitive toward consumers who aren't paying attention.
Incorrect info re:Talktalk
Previously Talktalk charged a MAXIMUM of £70 for contract breakage or a pro-rata rate depending on your package - which ever was lower, the new rules now make it dearer to leave!
It never cost £33.48/mth to leave Talktalk.
Anon TT Employee.
OK for the sheep I s'pose
Only sign with a company that offers 1 month rolling contracts. They're obviously going to work harder to keep your custom. I guess most people aren't aware of these ISP's. I try to change that by recommending Zen and Freeola.
speaking of low-life scum-sucking "providers"
Now if something could be done about "Health Club" subscriptions in the US. They all utilize subscription contracts with mandatory credit card debits, early penalties and protracted cancellation processes.
OFCOM subverts contracts that users voluntarily signed up for...
And apparently took 18 months to do so. What a champion of the people /sarcasm off.
When is it going to be disbanded?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese Cameron - do what you promised. Get rid of another quango run by ex employees of the industry its supposed to regulate. FSA, IPCC anyone?