Quote:
|
Originally Posted by timmyf2371
Your best bet may be to read up on the Sale of Goods act and also the Unfair Contract Terms act.
Firstly, the Unfair Contract Terms act states that a trader selling goods cannot exclude liability for a breach of a consumerââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s rights under the Sale of Goods Act. With regards to services, contractual exclusion clauses are not illegal but they are not enforceable if they are unreasonable - something which ntl's attempt to get out of paying compensation could very well be deemed as.
Now, onto the Sale of Goods act.
According to the DTI website, any goods supplied in the course of the service must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose. If they are not the consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement or compensation. It also mentions that any goods supplied in the course of the service must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose. If they are not the consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement or compensation.
I'd be interested to see how ntl staff would try and escape their obligations under the above mentioned acts.
|
hmm good try... but not guaranteeing a fault free service on a residential contract is not unreasonable. It is also reasonable to expect a customer to report a fault that they are having-> otherwise the company may have no way of telling that there is a problem, and therefore can't do anything to resolve it.
With regards to your second comment- a customer will get a repair/replacement modem etc when necessary- but this can only be organised if the fault is reported. Again, it will happen within a "reasonable" time- perfectly acceptable within a residential contract.
A business contract will have Service Level Agreements and compensation for breach of these, but this is completely different to the consumer residential contract- the way of dealing with faults/compensation in ntl residential contracts is not unreasonable.