Being charged for time *after* my contract ended. Can anyone offer hope?

[manifest]

Hi all,

I got a call from my very-worried father last week because NTL had called my parent's house (I don't live there) demanding that I owe them a relatively large sum of money. The problem is I moved out of the house where it was connected last summer! At this point my entire student 9 month contact had been fully paid for and therefore I didn't expect to have to deal with them again because the contracted number of months was up.

When I originally agreed the contract over the phone I was never informed that:

1) they don't disconnect your account at the end of the agreed contract.
or
2) that I would need to contact them to remind them that the contract was over.

Nor was I aware that a company could renew a contract without my permission.

This is causing me a massive amount of stress, as you can imagine. Being a student, there is no way I can pay all this money for an account that hasn't been active (used by myself) since last summer - when I and my housemates moved out of the house.

If anyone can offer me a glimmer of hope I would be eternally grateful - at the moment I feel incredibly exploited . What is the best approach to take on this matter?

Thanks for reading,

Chris

[bopdude]

First to the site, ( haven't done that in ages )
I can't help you in your problem but there are some NTL staff that lurk around this forum ( some don't bite )

Keep checking back, I'm sure they can / will advise you on what can / can't be done

[ian@huth]

Unfortunately contracts are for a minimum length of time, not for a fixed length of time. If you read the contract you can see full details of how the contract can be terminated. I presume that you have a copy of your contract? It is surprising that NTL have not contacted you before regarding unpaid bills. Did you have your mail redirected when you moved out? The new tenants of the house you rented have probably been using the services that you are being asked to pay for so you could try asking them for the money.

to cableforum . by the way.

[danielf]

I don't know how these student contracts work, but a few questions come to mind:

Have you got a copy of the contract you signed?

Where were the bills for this account sent?

How many months are they billing you for without you living at that address?

[Chris W]

The contract will only end on the conditions set out in the contract, which in this case are:

Originally Posted by ntl t & cs

3. Duration


3.1 For our Starter Pack the minimum period of service is 12 months [in your case 9months] starting on the date we activate the Services. You can only terminate this Agreement during that minimum period if conditions 19.4 or 20.1 apply otherwise we may charge you a cancellation charge which will be the charges which would have been payable to the end of the minimum period. After the minimum period, either you or us may terminate this Agreement on one month's written notice.

3.2 For all other Services (unless otherwise stated in our Price Lists) the minimum period of service is one month and either you or us may terminate this Agreement to the extent that it relates to such Services on one month's written notice.

in other words... you should have given notice to end the contract...

i'm afraid you have no legal defence, as you signed the contract (whether this be by telephone consent or an online click makes no difference) so are bound by it.

looks like you are going to have to pay up or face the consequences

[scrotnig]

Monkeybreath and others are right, student contracts are not fixed term, they are minimum term. The usual minimum is 12 months, student contracts are 9 months to account for the summer break when many move away.

It would be worth speaking to someone to see if you can get a sympathetic manager. I have to say it's unlikely though.

[ian@huth]

From the original post it would appear that the order for services was made over the telephone. I did ask the OP if they received a copy of their contract but there has been no response. The OP could have a case for not paying or for paying a reduced amount if they were not supplied with a copy of the contract and if no demand has been made for payment for several months after they moved out of the house.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

From the original post it would appear that the order for services was made over the telephone. I did ask the OP if they received a copy of their contract but there has been no response. The OP could have a case for not paying or for paying a reduced amount if they were not supplied with a copy of the contract and if no demand has been made for payment for several months after they moved out of the house.

i doubt it.... a telephone acceptance is enough for a contact to be binding. The terms and conditions are available to the customer on request, infact if it was a Broadband installation, they would also need to be agreed to online.

This acceptance would be treated in the eyes of the law as though the OP had read the contract- if he/she has not done so that is no legal defence.

Although i agree that it is not uncommon for ntl to continue billing people when they shouldn't, this has not happened in this case. The OP should have made his/herself aware of the contractual terms before agreeing and by not doing some has made him/herself liable for any lack of peformance on his/ her part.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

i doubt it.... a telephone acceptance is enough for a contact to be binding. The terms and conditions are available to the customer on request, infact if it was a Broadband installation, they would also need to be agreed to online.

This acceptance would be treated in the eyes of the law as though the OP had read the contract- if he/she has not done so that is no legal defence.

Although i agree that it is not uncommon for ntl to continue billing people when they shouldn't, this has not happened in this case. The OP should have made his/herself aware of the contractual terms before agreeing and by not doing some has made him/herself liable for any lack of peformance on his/ her part.

Whilst I agree that a contract exists whether it be verbal or written, the terms and conditions of any verbal contract can only be the ones discussed when the contract was made. None of us know what the OP or the CSR that he/she spoke to said so we cannot say what the contract is. The OP should have been sent a copy of the contract and should have been asked to sign and return a copy. If NTL do not have a signed contract then they could be on a sticky wicket if court action was commenced.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Whilst I agree that a contract exists whether it be verbal or written, the terms and conditions of any verbal contract can only be the ones discussed when the contract was made. None of us know what the OP or the CSR that he/she spoke to said so we cannot say what the contract is. The OP should have been sent a copy of the contract and should have been asked to sign and return a copy. If NTL do not have a signed contract then they could be on a sticky wicket if court action was commenced.

i agree with you, however a statement at the point of agreement along the lines of "you will be bound by ntl's terms and conditions for residental service (or similar)" would have been sufficient to include all terms from www.ntlhome.com/legals into the agreed contract.

I also doubt that a court would be sympathetic towards the OP, as it is normal for such a contract- eg with a mobile phone provider, gas/elec, telephone etc etc to have a "minimum period" rather than a fixed period. The court would apply the "reasonable man" doctrine.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

i agree with you, however a statement at the point of agreement along the lines of "you will be bound by ntl's terms and conditions for residental service (or similar)" would have been sufficient to include all terms from www.ntlhome.com/legals into the agreed contract.

I also doubt that a court would be sympathetic towards the OP, as it is normal for such a contract- eg with a mobile phone provider, gas/elec, telephone etc etc to have a "minimum period" rather than a fixed period. The court would apply the "reasonable man" doctrine.

Yes, it is as I said a question of what was said by the OP and CSR when the services were ordered. If any court proceedings were taken by NTL for recovery of the debt and this was defended by any competant lawyer then NTL would have to produce a signed contract or a valid recording of the telephone order to be able to win. In the absence of those proofs of contract the defence could be worded in such a way that a "reasonable man" would take the view of the OP. ie, the OP could say that he told the agent that he wanted the services for the nine months he would be at that address.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Yes, it is as I said a question of what was said by the OP and CSR when the services were ordered. If any court proceedings were taken by NTL for recovery of the debt and this was defended by any competant lawyer then NTL would have to produce a signed contract or a valid recording of the telephone order to be able to win. In the absence of those proofs of contract the defence could be worded in such a way that a "reasonable man" would take the view of the OP. ie, the OP could say that he told the agent that he wanted the services for the nine months he would be at that address.

i still don't think the competent lawyer would win- it is well known that company will not vary a contract on an individual basis, the OP would have had the cooling off period before installation to review the terms of the contract- allowing the equipment to be installed is implied consent, so the contract is agreed to. There is no need for signed documentation.

If the OP had asked for the contract to be for nine months only, he/she would have been advised of the cancellation terms, or referred to the contract to read this for his/herself.

At the end of the day i suppose the OP would probably win but this is only because of the nanny state that we now live in. The LCD put massive political pressure on the judiciary to rule in favour of the "poor vunerable consumer" and insufficient consideration is given to the position of the business- it is always "big powerful company exploiting poor innocent consumer".

anyway, i think i may head off topic soon so i might put my soapbox away

[carlingman]

Hi manifest,

Unfortunately for you the wise words above I have to agree with.

However when NTL called your parents to discuss the account I hope your parents told them where to go as they were obviously not speaking to the account holder.

I am guessing from your post they did, so nothing more than **** poor double standards from the complete communications company yet again.

You gotta love the way they pursue dead peoples debts and refuse to speak with their next of kin when they know they can never recover the debt.

Artcile found here

Yet when they have a good chance of getting the money from their original mis guidance they will go all out to pursue and break their codes of practice by talking with your parents as the non account holders.

[Neil]

Surely if they discussed this matter with anyone other than the account holder, they have breached the Data Protection Act??

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

i still don't think the competent lawyer would win- it is well known that company will not vary a contract on an individual basis, the OP would have had the cooling off period before installation to review the terms of the contract- allowing the equipment to be installed is implied consent, so the contract is agreed to. There is no need for signed documentation.

If the OP had asked for the contract to be for nine months only, he/she would have been advised of the cancellation terms, or referred to the contract to read this for his/herself.

At the end of the day i suppose the OP would probably win but this is only because of the nanny state that we now live in. The LCD put massive political pressure on the judiciary to rule in favour of the "poor vunerable consumer" and insufficient consideration is given to the position of the business- it is always "big powerful company exploiting poor innocent consumer".

anyway, i think i may head off topic soon so i might put my soapbox away

You are missing the point MB If the OP had never seen a contract there are no terms and conditions to review and allowing installation of the equipment would only imply acceptance of the verbal contract which would be far, far removed from the official NTL printed contract.

The telephone conversation could have gone along the lines of:

NTL "Good morning, NTL sales, how can I help you?"

OP "Good morning, I am moving into student accomodation for nine months, what would it cost for your services?"

NTL " Students can have a nine month contract for £xx.xx for y services"

OP "That's great mate, I'll have that, when cann you install it?"

NTL "Next Tuesday do you, now what's you name and address?"

The NTL sales person may not have said anything about the contract or its terms and conditions and may have been more interested in earning his or her commission or another sale towards his target or could even want to get the customer off the phone so he could go to his break.

It would all probably revolve around whether NTL sent the OP a written contract in duplicate and got back a signed acceptance.