If installation is always at least 7 days after the customer has received the second copy of the Agreement or a cancellation rights notice then it cannot be cancelled under cooling off laws because the time will already have expired.
The initial cooling off period is not the issue in this thread though.
The issue is whether NTL has complied with the law regarding content of the Agreement, signatures to the Agreement and provision of customer copies of the Agreement.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrotnig
Ok since everyone here is going to claim ntl are ripping people off and have illegal contracts, why don't you all take this up with BT as well:
So, is BT also issuing contracts that don't meet with the approval of the barrack room lawyers? Or is everyone just plain wrong?
The law does NOT compel companies to spen hundreds (and in BT's case, potentially thousands) of pounds providing a service so that the customer can change their mind on a whim the next day. Consumer laws are NOT in existence solely to protect customers from dishonest companies...they also protect companies from dishonest customers.
BT, Sky, ntl, Telewest, and loads of other firms all have contracts like this, and damn right they should.
There are far more instances of customers ripping companies off than vice versa. A shame Watchdog never features any of them.  |
I for one am not saying that NTL rip anyone off with unfair contracts.
What I am saying is that the NTL contract is fair and legally binding
AS LONG AS THE CORRECT PROCEDURES STIPULATED IN THE RELEVENT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE FOLLOWED. NTL do not always follow the correct proceedures.
If anyone is in any doubt what those proceedures are then please read post #139 in this thread and the documents linked in that post.