Can I ditch NTL phone line?

[tuggy]

Im currently subscribed to:-

10mb BB
Family Pack TV
and standard telephone line rental.

I want to keep the family pack tv and 10mb BB but im looking at using voip instead, its costing me more in line rental then calls i use.

Am i able to just cancel my phone line and keep everything else?

I had a cost leaflet through the post with my bill today and it said that you have to have telephone line rental with all the tv packs??

[m0nk3y]

sorry the answer is No :(

Ive been down this road... if you have tv you have to pay line rental regardless.

The best you can do is try for a discount on your services.

[King Of Fools]

You can take one of the value packs:
http://www.home.ntl.com/page/td6

for £49.99 per month plus upgrade to 10Mb for £13.

[iffy]

dunno if ntls policy has changed,3 yrs ago i had the bb/tv/and phone.i cancelled me tv package and phone and just had the bb..wich im still doin.they said u cant cancel ur phone sir,,i said i never use it i use a moblie.they did a check on me phone usage and was stunned too see i never use it at all,,so they cancelled it for me,might be diff now all u can do is ring em and ask,;)

[orangebird]

dunno if ntls policy has changed,3 yrs ago i had the bb/tv/and phone.i cancelled me tv package and phone and just had the bb..wich im still doin.they said u cant cancel ur phone sir,,i said i never use it i use a moblie.they did a check on me phone usage and was stunned too see i never use it at all,,so they cancelled it for me,might be diff now all u can do is ring em and ask,;)

They may nake the phone unusable, but you will still have to pay for the line rental. It's always been this way.

[iffy]

yer ur right my phone is unsable but i only get chraged for bb.. might have changed now,,was 3yrs ago,,so maybe i was lucky,:dunce:

[King Of Fools]

You can have BB without the phone - this has always been the case. However, you cannot have TV without the phone.

You can have one of the following options:
phone
phone and TV
phone, TV and BB
phone and BB
BB

You cannot have the following options:
TV
TV and BB

[masterfu]

Hi guys
I have already wrote my story in different part of the forum yesterday.
And that makes me exeption from the rule. I have BB and TV ... no telephone.
Briefly, I bought Triple plan, had installed only BB and TV. Plenty of phone calls to Customer Service made no difference. Just created more confusion.
Some people from NTL said You can't have telephone as we are at max capacity in that region with telephones .... and You will be paing 28.99 insted of 32.99. As I wanted to check if I can actually pay 10.50 less I called again. This time lady said I can have it somehow ... gosh. Plus she said if I dont have it I will pay 17 and 21 for my services ... more than triple plan costs.
Pure madness hehe.

Anyway I was sold Triple plan even though they knew telephone can't be installed. Strange practice I must say ...

[Jules]

I have never understood why you MUST have the phone line

[King Of Fools]

I have never understood why you MUST have the phone line
Economies of scale.

NTL do not make any profit on the TV packs.

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

Hi guys
I have already wrote my story in different part of the forum yesterday.
And that makes me exeption from the rule. I have BB and TV ... no telephone.
Briefly, I bought Triple plan, had installed only BB and TV. Plenty of phone calls to Customer Service made no difference. Just created more confusion.
Some people from NTL said You can't have telephone as we are at max capacity in that region with telephones .... and You will be paing 28.99 insted of 32.99. As I wanted to check if I can actually pay 10.50 less I called again. This time lady said I can have it somehow ... gosh. Plus she said if I dont have it I will pay 17 and 21 for my services ... more than triple plan costs.
Pure madness hehe.

Anyway I was sold Triple plan even though they knew telephone can't be installed. Strange practice I must say ...
But you are still paying for a telephone line. Lots of people are in the same situation as you. The point is you have to "pay" for the telephone line even if you do not have one installed.

[masterfu]

And that makes point. Where there is monopoly there is no true care about customers ... Why bother ? They have no real choice.
Imagine guys that in my country (Poland) about 15 years ago phone was something luxurious. You had to wait few years to have one !!! Because there was only one telephone company plus it was government-owned.
Now things are different luckyly.

Jules: I guess I need telephone to contact bloody Customer Service in NTL :)) when You call them they ask for telephone number bla bla ... plus it is free. I dont want to spend extra money calling from mobile.
Fortunatelly I got friends next flat with Full Triple package :) So I use their phone. You can say, ok use e-mail or web communication. I say pointless, no response and I sent a lot enquires.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

I have started looking for alternative ... BT line 10 pounds or so ? BB plenty of choice ... but 2Mb uncapped about 17 plus sky for 18. That is about the price of Triple plan for 49.
I would like to stay with around 30. Any ideas guys ? I still got time to quit with 30 days money back guarantee.

[orangebird]

<SNIP>
I have started looking for alternative ... BT line 10 pounds or so ? BB plenty of choice ... but 2Mb uncapped about 17 plus sky for 18. That is about the price of Triple plan for 49.
I would like to stay with around 30. Any ideas guys ? I still got time to quit with 30 days money back guarantee.

BT line in't any cheaper than ntls.

[masterfu]

BT line in't any cheaper than ntls.

I know it is not. I am just trying to find solution to the problem.
I am not one of those who will take what is given and what is not given.

[King Of Fools]

There is the new TalkTalk plan for £20.99 for phoneline and 8Mb BB. Then you could add Sky on maybe just Freeview.

[masterfu]

I just checked that TalkTalk plan and it looks quite good to be honest.
40GB per month is about right. Plus freeview or sky like you said and it works.
Plus You can call international for free, huh

[Mr Angry]

As a matter of fact it is illegal under consumer law for ntl to insist on you taking both, or indeed any combined, services.

I have referenced the appropriate legislation elsewhere on these forums. The practicalities of exercising your right not to be forced into accepting a bundle may prove complex, and cost prohibitive. However, if you were to challenge NTL on this in a legal capacity they would quickly backtrack.

For any of the NTL legal eagles reading this (yeah, right) it falls under the "unfair terms in Consumer Contracts legislation". http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/Legal/UTCC/default.htm

[Neil]

As a matter of fact it is illegal under consumer law for ntl to insist on you taking both, or indeed any combined, services.

I have referenced the appropriate legislation elsewhere on these forums. The practicalities of exercising your right not to be forced into accepting a bundle may prove complex, and cost prohibitive. However, if you were to challenge NTL on this in a legal capacity they would quickly backtrack.

For any of the NTL legal eagles reading this (yeah, right) it falls under the "unfair terms in Consumer Contracts legislation". http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/Legal/UTCC/default.htm

Cracking post (as always). :tu:

[orangebird]

Cracking post (as always). :tu:

Yes, but as no-one is 'forced' to sign up to ntl's tv (therefore they're not 'forced to sign up to their phone line), they can't use the old 'unfair terms in Consumer Contracts legislation' line effectively. :shrug:

[Mr Angry]

That is not the point being discussed here. The fact is that the caveat included as standard terminology is in breach of the law and current guidelines (since 1999) in respect of consumer contracts.

Being pedantic about people "forced" or not "forced" into contracts serves no purpose and is, in all honesty, a bit of a p**s poor defence.

No one is suggesting that ntl force customers to take up contracts, what is at issue here is the fact that they do force you to accept chargeable services which you may not want or require, in this case a phone line, and that is illegal.

Bundled deals where a supplier implies that he / she cannot provide one without the other are illegal, full stop.

[orangebird]

That is not the point being discussed here. The fact is that the caveat included as standard terminology is in breach of the law and current guidelines (since 1999) in respect of consumer contracts.

Being pedantic about people "forced" or not "forced" into contracts serves no purpose and is, in all honesty, a bit of a p**s poor defence.

No one is suggesting that ntl force customers to take up contracts, what is at issue here is the fact that they do force you to accept chargeable services which you may not want or require, in this case a phone line, and that is illegal.

Bundled deals where a supplier implies that he / she cannot provide one without the other are illegal, full stop.

BUt ntl do also provide one service without the other. They'll more than happily provide you with tv, and not phone. You'll just be charged the same amount anyway. ntl are doing NOTHING illegal at all.

[masterfu]

I am actually quite pleased with broadband it self for that matter. I could complain a bit about digital TV. Quite often you can see artefacts of compression. But my point is that I was offered Triple plan for 32.99. I asked the guy who sold it to me, are you sure I can have it. Because I couldnt see my flat number in avablility list onnline. He said sure everything is OK.
So I decided to take it. And then technician comes leaving me with 2 packages not telling me anything about 3rd one. No one is actually calling me saying, we are sorry but for technical reason it is impossible to offer You telephone. I would say ok doesnt matter just let me pay less or sorry I need it I quit. But instead I was constantly floated by chap who sold it to me and by customer services ??? WHAT kind of buisness is that I must ask ????
HOW it can work that way for christ sake.
Plus chap who sold me the package said I dont need written contract, when I asked for one to sent to me.
That kind of practices **** me off big time i must say.
Because quality of broadband is just fine or it would be perfect if upload speeds were faster. Because it is quite simple to slow 1Mb with 2 people just surffing. As You upload quite a lot while dowloading as we all know.

I really hope That Russ D will help me with that big confusion that arose.
Otherwise I will quit and try my luck with seperate deals.

[Neil]

BUt ntl do also provide one service without the other. They'll more than happily provide you with tv, and not phone. You'll just be charged the same amount anyway. ntl are doing NOTHING illegal at all.

My money is on Mr Angry having a better understanding of the law! :D

[orangebird]

My money is on Mr Angry having a better understanding of the law! :D

Really? Why?

[Mr Angry]

They'll more than happily provide you with tv, and not phone. You'll just be charged the same amount anyway.

Can you elaborate on that please?

[orangebird]

Can you elaborate on that please?

OK then. (please note prices are not current, just for the example)

Customer 1 - I'd like to have tv & phone please.
ntl - ok then, that'll cost £15 for the tv & £10 for the phone line, total £25.

Customer 2 - I'd like to have the tv service please.
ntl - we can provide you with that, but you'll need to take our phone service too.
Customer 2 - but I don't want your phone service.
ntl - OK then, but we'll have to charge you £25 pounds for the tv & a dormant phone line then.

[Neil]

OK then. (please note prices are not current, just for the example)

Customer 1 - I'd like to have tv & phone please.
ntl - ok then, that'll cost £15 for the tv & £10 for the phone line, total £25.

Customer 2 - I'd like to have the tv service please.
ntl - we can provide you with that, but you'll need to take our phone service too.

[Dutch Accent from beer advert]Schtop!![/Dutch accent from beer advert]

That is exactly the problem that Mr Angry is referring to ^^

[orangebird]

[Dutch Accent from beer advert]Schtop!![/Dutch accent from beer advert]

That is exactlythe problem that Mr Angry is referring to ^^

No, it's not. He was on about bundling services. ntl can give the tv without the phone. It just won't cost any less than the tv with the phone. Considering Hhe's a budding lawyer, I don't think the concept is that hard to work out.

[Mr Angry]

Cheers, thanks.

So, In effect they are bundle charging you for services you either cannot or don't wish to receive. This is quite clearly contrary to consumer credit law and falls specifically within the remit of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. As such it is, I assure you, illegal.

I must emphasize this is not just me saying this for the sake of being controversial or "right on" - Everyone should check the link provided earlier and follow up on the relevant legislation.

You'll be surprised just how much a company will try to get away with in the hope that their customers never get wise to certain information. Both the Consumer Credit Act and the OFT exist to empower consumers. It is in everyone's best interest to read the Act (specifically the Unfair Terms).

Update: "Dormant" is the new - "you don't want it, you don't need it and we're giving it to you and charging you for it either way".

[orangebird]

Cheers, thanks.

So, In effect they are bundle charging you for services you either cannot or don't wish to receive. This is quite clearly contrary to consumer credit law and falls specifically within the remit of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. As such it is, I assure you, illegal.

I must emphasize this is not just me saying this for the sake of being controversial or "right on" - Everyone should check the link provided earlier and follow up on the relevant legislation.

You'll be surprised just how much a company will try to get away with in the hope that their customers never get wise to certain information. Both the Consumer Credit Act and the OFT exist to empower consumers it is in everyone's best interest to read the Act (specifically the Unfair Terms).

If it's illegal, how have the OFT missed it for the past eight years then? :rolleyes:

[Mr Angry]

In pretty much the same way that from the beginning of personal banking up until April of this year they "missed" the fact that Late payment fees were illegal. As a result of public pressure highlighting their shameful inaction the OFT were forced to report on the scandal and take steps to enforce the law on such charges.

This is a black and white issue but as long as people are prepared to delude themselves by thinking "...but that can't possibly be right, if it's illegal they wouldn't be doing it" then companies will continue to abuse the system and their customer rights.

Can I add a geeky wee spazzy face to my post too?

[orangebird]

In pretty much the same way that from the beginning of personal banking up until April of this year they "missed" the fact that Late payment fees were illegal. As a result of public pressure highlighting their shameful inaction the OFT were forced to report on the scandal and take steps to enforce the law on such charges.

This is a black and white issue but as long as people are prepared to delude themselves by thinking "...but that can't possibly be right, if it's illegal they wouldn't be doing it" then companies will continue to abuse the system and their customer rights.


If you say so. :sleep:

[Mr Angry]

It's not me "saying so" ....it's a thing called "the law".

Apologies if I've offended your sensibilities by addressing your attempts at glib sarcam with facts.

[orangebird]

It's not me "saying so" ....it's a thing called "the law".

Apologies if I've offended your sensibilities by addressing your attempts at glib sarcam with facts.


You interpret the law to say the way ntl trade is illegal. I interpret the law to say ntl are operating so it's not. There's no 'fact' when it comes to acts of law.

[Mr Angry]

Sorry, both your interpretation and my interpretation are irrelevant in this scenario.

Indeed, even our opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

What we are discussing here is consumer law, black and white, for all to see and read at the OFT site. Ergo all that is required is a rudimentary grasp of the english language.

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with the legislation. At least then you can arrive at a more informed conclusion as to how ntl are failing to honour their committments under current consumer contract law in several regards.

[orangebird]

Sorry, both your interpretation and my interpretation are irrelevant in this scenario.

Indeed, even our opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

What we are discussing here is consumer law, black and white, for all to see and read at the OFT site. Ergo all that is required is a rudimentary grasp of the english language.

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with the legislation. At least then you can arrive at a more informed conclusion as to how ntl are failing to honour their committments under current consumer contract law in several regards.
All law is about interpretation. And yes, I have studied Law.

Dare you, go on. Take ntl to court and let me know how it goes. I've got my comfy seat and ringside snacks ready. :rofl: :rolleyes:

[Admin Edit(Mick): Personal Comments Removed]

[lutz64]

In response to the original post, yes it is possible. I am currently on 10mg BB and family pack tv no phone line and no charge for it either. This of course was a direct result of a freindly chat with the ever helpful retentions dept. They forgot to charge for the line rental for over a year when they did I told them I didn't want to pay it and if they didn't comply I would cancel, taht seemed to do the trick. No phone line and no charge. As I understand Family pack is £30 (inc. phone line) I pay £20.:D

[UncleBooBoo]

In response to the original post, yes it is possible. I am currently on 10mg BB and family pack tv no phone line and no charge for it either. This of course was a direct result of a freindly chat with the ever helpful retentions dept. They forgot to charge for the line rental for over a year when they did I told them I didn't want to pay it and if they didn't comply I would cancel, taht seemed to do the trick. No phone line and no charge. As I understand Family pack is £30 (inc. phone line) I pay £20.:D

It won't last, it's just a matter of time before they audit your account and start charging you for it again. Not to mention the bill they will send you for backdated payments!

It has happened many times and has been posted about on here where somebody has had tv without a phoneline for a long time to find it appear on there bill with a request for backdated payments!

But if you can get away with if for now good luck to you!

[Mick]

A bit late, but regardless.... A complaint has been received regarding this thread.

Firstly - Members should refrain from making personal and insulting remarks during your use of this forum.

Secondly - Members should not be discussing openly in threads, comments received via the reputation system. Such posts and remarks are subject to deletion.

Discussing individual reps in threads is off-topic, not conducive nor relevant to the topic.

[lutz64]

Yes I understand about getting a bill after a long time thats what happend, but when I contested it and cancelled my phone line they put me on to retentions. They agreed to stop chargeing me for the line and when I get my bill it states that the phone line is free, so technically I have an inoperational phone line which appears on the bill for free.:D

[JoshGrey]

Hi
just wanted to add my 2 pennies worth.

on the point of the "late payment fees" the recent decision was quite clear. At the risk of being provocative, they are not illegal as so many press headlines shouted.
The decision was that companies can only charge what it costs them to administer late payments. This was clarified because some companies were charge several times more than the simple cost of that administration. It's an important distinction because any challenges to late payment charges would only stand to secure the extra over and above the cost of the admin.

Now on to the question of being forced to have "phone service". My expectation is that ntl/Telewest would say that they charge £25 for the TV...oh and btw that includes a phone line. You can use it or not if you want. Where they are running a risk is that all of their promotional material suggests that there is a separate charge and this causes confusion. To be honest ntl/Telewest have focussed so much on appearing to be cheaper than anyone else that they have put themselves in an awkward position. It would not take much to switch the online and advertising emphasis from basically being a phone company who provides extra cable services (BB and TV) to a cable company which provides services (BB, TV, mobile and if you want it telephone)

At this point a "legal" challenge would likely lead to an overt increase in the TV package prices (to retain some or all of the £10) and an increase in the number of "unusable" ntl landlines where people switch them off to go else where. Having said that don't let that put you off mounting a challenge if you want. I would tend towards an idea higher in this thread that suggested focussing on getting more of the services that you do want for the same or better money - effectively try to get an extra £10 of stuff.

[noyeast]

where one recieves a service for tv and phone, but the phone is never connected and left "dormant" this is a clear breach of contract as ntl is not delivering the service that you are paying for.

if this has continued for a while you are well within your rights (regardless of UTCC) to demand the money for the phone line to be returned to you.

[JoshGrey]

where one recieves a service for tv and phone, but the phone is never connected and left "dormant" this is a clear breach of contract as ntl is not delivering the service that you are paying for.

if this has continued for a while you are well within your rights (regardless of UTCC) to demand the money for the phone line to be returned to you.
You're absolutely correct. If ntl never connect your phone line but charge you nonetheless you can claim back for the charges since you never received the service.

But if I understand correctly ntl does connect the phone it just that some people don't want to use it.

ntl/Telewest says:
You can have tv and phone for £25 or just tv for £25.
Might not be palatable and their marketing might muddy the waters but that's what they are doing. My bill says the phone is free the implication is "free whether I use it or not"...my TV however is "£10" more than the explicit banner headline advertising for the package I have...if I look at the fine print though it suggests a different case....

All very confusing and labrythine really ntl/Telewest - would it really be so difficult to offer TV at £10 more and then "throw in phone for free" if people want it...more to the point can't we have that message across ntl/Telewest online and customer service?

[Mr Angry]

Josh, tuppence well spent. You are entirely correct on the legality of late payment fees - they cannot represent anything beyond a genuine pre-estimate of the liquidated losses and I have referenced this in other threads.

The core of the issue is that to date none of the institutions challenged legally have been prepared, despite their assertions in printed materials that their charges are both "fair" and "transparent", to go to court to defend or explain the breakdown or make up of their charges.

In the past eighteen months Abbey alone has refunded in excess of £85,000 in late payments to customers that I am aware of. In light of the ongoing "snowballing" nature of claims being lodged for them to assert that a one day appearance in County Court to defend the initial claim eighteen months ago would not have made "commercial sense" seems a bit far fetched to say the least and suggests that they, not alone, are uneasy about explaining the makeup of their costs.

And again, your phone analogy is on the money, no pun intended.