[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Actually, the fact that they changed them probably works against them. Unless they notified you in writing, which they didn't, they can't just randomly change the contract and expect you to be bound by it.

Actually when Virgin changed the T&Cs, they sent them in the post to all ntl and telewest customers as part of the 'Welcome to Virgin Media' packs. So customers were informed in writing

Also, the contract says that the T&Cs can change any time they like, but legal president says that if they did do that then the contract could be cancelled immediately by you.

Yes, the contract can be cancelled. Which is already built into the Virgin Terms anyway, so nothing special there. It is the same clause that allows the contract to be cancelled if the prices change

You have to remember that contract law says there are certain things you can't sign away, including the right to cancel a contract if any part of it changes. Since the contract says that you agree to the T&Cs, if they change what you agreed to change and sure enough courts have always ruled that you can then cancel the contract.

Again, agree completely.

Consider the alternative: Contact says you are bound by the T&Cs for one year, VM change the T&Cs to say you are only allowed to download 1 byte per day and hay too bad you agreed to it and are locked in.

For the 3rd time, the Virgin terms allow you cancel your contract if things change

Yes, it does. I think there is additional regulation for ADSL providers anyway, but most seem to offer 1 month minimum contracts.

Be Broadband is a 3 month contract, both Sky and BT run 12 month contracts, and TalkTalk are currently on 18 month contracts

You agree to the T&Cs when you sign up. A signature is not necessary for agreement but is the preffered method. You can agree when signing up online without one, for example.

Then how can you prove in court that you didn't see or agree to the terms and conditions was my point.

Poppers argument was that a company would have to show a signed written document to do that to prove that you agreed.

It is either one or the other.

However, if they change the contract in any way then it would have to be agreed with you again, and you would have the option to back out regardless of previously agreed minimum contract lengths.

I agree for the 4th time. As does Virgin

There will definitely not be a mark on your credit report unless you loose in court. Otherwise, you are free to dispute any debt and there is no legal way anyone can claim that debt or put a mark on your credit report for it. If you look at your credit report, you will notice that it doesn't list debts specifically, only loans taken, inquries made, missed regular payments etc. Unless there is a decision in court, it will not list money owed.

But even the the fact you have missed payments etc don't help

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:50 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

the Credit Reference Agences DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO STORE YOUR PERSONAL DATA IN LAW other than court ORDERED rulings,WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT END OF STORY.

Not the end of the story, as it seems they DO have a legal right

This is from the Information Comissioners Office

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...%20sharing.pdf

Part of which says the following:

The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.

It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

and it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule

The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

and a bit further on

As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.