Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrotnig
Like I've said, the so-called 'cooling off period' doesn't apply once the services are installed.
It is commonly mistaken for a 'trial period', when it isn't.
The said period legally only applies to installations that are sold by a salesman who calls at the customer's house. It's then 'distance selling'. These are always booked for seven days later anyway as a matter of process.
If a customer rings up, requests the service, then changes their mind the day after install...it's bad luck I'm afraid.
Like I've said earlier, get a company to install some windows then tell them you've changed your mind the day after they have fitted them. Not going to happen.
And please don't tell me I'm posting 'naughties'. Dealing with these sort of requests used to be my job, and the whys and wherefores of the contract were part of our in-depth training for that job.
There is, as I have stated, a different situation if the service does not work properly once installed. The customer is then entitled to reject the service under the sale of goods act. Although the company will always offer to get it fixed, which in many cases the customer is happy with, the customer is under no obligation to accept this.
|
The cooling off period is FIVE days from the day the customer receives either a second copy of the agreement or a separate copy of cancellation rights. This is applicable to all contracts signed face to face with a NTL representative and is not signed on NTL premises. It does not need to be in the customers home. When the contract is signed in the presence of a NTL representative it would be normal practice for the second copy to be given to the customer at that time.
Having discussed the cooling off period at the start of the contract there still remains the more important question of whether a valid contract exists under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If the contract is not in writing in the prescribed form and signed by both parties and the customer supplied with a copy then NTL are in breach of the Act and the contract would possibly not be enforcable in law.