Moving out of area - contract?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by orangebird

That's not fact at all Neil - I don't beleive there's anything in the t&cs about being able to cancel early if you moved to a noncabled area, it was just a (very good) discretionary unwritten rule. So, no, there isn't any 'entitlement' to do this.

As Scrotnig says, I think this is no longer happening anyway...which is a shame, and not a little bit stupid.

I think you are right, but I think the following could be construed as a reason for cancellation following a move:

ii. if we significantly reduce the content of the Services or make any significant change to the terms and conditions of this Agreement under Condition 26, you may terminate this Agreement by giving us one month's notice in writing within 30 days of such change irrespective of whether the minimum period in respect of such Services has expired.

Taken from 20. cancellation rights. If NTL can no longer provide the service, then surely that is a reduction in service. (Though obviously you could argue if they or you reduce the contents.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think you are right, but I think the following could be construed as a reason for cancellation following a move:



Taken from 20. cancellation rights. If NTL can no longer provide the service, then surely that is a reduction in service. (Though obviously you could argue if they or you reduce the contents.

Wishful, inspired thinking, but I'm sure you'd get laughed out of the door....

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think you are right, but I think the following could be construed as a reason for cancellation following a move:



Taken from 20. cancellation rights. If NTL can no longer provide the service, then surely that is a reduction in service. (Though obviously you could argue if they or you reduce the contents.

The contract for the provision of services is for supply of them to a named address. NTL can still provide the same services to that address so you cannot claim a reduction in service.

[intalex]

Orangebird, looks like you work for NTL.

What do NTL have to say about customers who do not have a BT phone line at their new addresses (and hence cannot use NTL Freedom ADSL)? Are you saying that it is legal for NTL to force customers to have a BT line installed and pay the line rental for it every month on top of paying the full price for NTL Freedom?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by intalex

Orangebird, looks like you work for NTL.

What do NTL have to say about customers who do not have a BT phone line at their new addresses (and hence cannot use NTL Freedom ADSL)? Are you saying that it is legal for NTL to force customers to have a BT line installed and pay the line rental for it every month on top of paying the full price for NTL Freedom?

No, I'm not saying that at all. You just have to pay the remainder of your contract. No-ones making you install a BT line.

[legend]

Have NTL done away with the 'jeopardy move' scenario then? Although TBH I am not sure of the situation where a cust is moving to an ntl area which cannot provide all services, ie in Milton Keynes

Chris

[intalex]

Right, so now you think I should pay for the remainder of my contract and have no service in return. This, in spite of the fact that my Salesperson assured me that NTL will either transfer the same services to my new address (free of charge for first transfer), or failing that (i.e. if new area is non-NTL-broadband-enabled), will cancel my contract without penalty. Whatever happened to verbal promises made at the time of signing up? This is one of the key things I discussed with the Salesperson seeing that I was going to move houses within 3-4 months of signing up. Was he just "doing whatever it takes" to make the sale?

[ian@huth]

If NTL enforces the contract and forces customers moving to pay up for the remainder of their contract time, what happens if the new occupier of the property wants the same NTL services as the former occupier? Would the new occupier be charged for the period that the old occupier has already paid for? If you are moving house and have paid the council tax for the year in full then you either get a refund for the time after you vacate or the buyer pays you for the time that they are in occupation.

[intalex]

Actually, let's put it this way. Assuming that NTL Cable Broadband was the only service around (and it was only available in some areas), and that there was no alternatives such as NTL Freedom ADSL to serve the non-cables areas, could NTL still hold customers to the rest of the contract even though they can't supply customers moving to non-cabled areas for the remaining duration of their contracts?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by intalex

Actually, let's put it this way. Assuming that NTL Cable Broadband was the only service around (and it was only available in some areas), and that there was no alternatives such as NTL Freedom ADSL to serve the non-cables areas, could NTL still hold customers to the rest of the contract even though they can't supply customers moving to non-cabled areas for the remaining duration of their contracts?

Legally they can. You have to remember that in most cases you are getting free installation as well as the use of the services ofr the period before you move. You can imagine that if a customer signed up for NTL and then a month later decided to move to a non cabled area that it has cost NTL a fair amount of money and they are not a charitable institution.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by intalex

Right, so now you think I should pay for the remainder of my contract and have no service in return. This, in spite of the fact that my Salesperson assured me that NTL will either transfer the same services to my new address (free of charge for first transfer), or failing that (i.e. if new area is non-NTL-broadband-enabled), will cancel my contract without penalty. Whatever happened to verbal promises made at the time of signing up? This is one of the key things I discussed with the Salesperson seeing that I was going to move houses within 3-4 months of signing up. Was he just "doing whatever it takes" to make the sale?

In a word, yes...

I think the unwritten poluicy about cancelling contracts early for noncabled areas changed quite recently...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by intalex

Actually, let's put it this way. Assuming that NTL Cable Broadband was the only service around (and it was only available in some areas), and that there was no alternatives such as NTL Freedom ADSL to serve the non-cables areas, could NTL still hold customers to the rest of the contract even though they can't supply customers moving to non-cabled areas for the remaining duration of their contracts?

It appears this is what they do with tv/tele: they will let you out of contract for tv and telephone if they can't provide it. It's just with BB that they are trying to push Freedom. A strange half-way house I think, especially since Freedom is inferior compared to the higher tier Cable BB. Either they keep you under contract because they can, or acknowledge the fact that Freedom is an inferior service.

Edit: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=23625 shows a recent example of a customer who appears to have been allowed to cancel tv/tele but not BB

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If NTL enforces the contract and forces customers moving to pay up for the remainder of their contract time, what happens if the new occupier of the property wants the same NTL services as the former occupier? Would the new occupier be charged for the period that the old occupier has already paid for?

Yes - the contract is with the customer, nit with the building.

If you are moving house and have paid the council tax for the year in full then you either get a refund for the time after you vacate or the buyer pays you for the time that they are in occupation.

You can't really compare council tax to cable services.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Yes - the contract is with the customer, nit with the building.

I would say that the contract is with the customer and also with the building. If the contract is solely with the customer then they should continue to serve that customer with the contracted services.

Originally Posted by orangebird

You can't really compare council tax to cable services.

We are comparing the payment for these services not the content of them. Why should NTL, or any other company, be able to charge two people for the supply of the same one product at the same time.

[intalex]

I understand what you mean here, and agree that it is necessary for NTL to tie customers down to 12-month contracts to make the entire deal (inc. free installation, half-price line rental, and other offers) still profitable. However, it's not that I didn't know that I was going to move houses within 3-4 months of signing up with NTL. I had clarified this with the Salesperson and he told me what the normal procedure was for customers moving houses (transfer same service to new address or cancel contract without penalty), and only then did I sign up.

I would really like to have my cable broadband transferred to my new address, but it is not my fault that my new address is in a non-broadband-enabled area. I wouldn't even mind taking up the NTL Freedom ADSL services if it didn' require a BT Line. Paying for a BT Line and NTL Freedom each month will cost me more than 50% extra on top of what I was paying for my 300k NTL Cable Broadband service.

We already have NTL's phone and TV package at my new address (have had it for a few years now so way beyond any minimum contract terms), and if this saga continues too long, then I'll probably have to cancel both of those and change to Freeview with TopUpTV to go with a new BT Line and NTL Freedom ADSL. That is the only way I will stay close to my current monthly expense:

Currently:
£19.50 for NTL TV and Phone + £17.99 for 300k Cable Broadband = £37.49

If I am forced into taking up NTL Freedom:
£10.50 for BT Phone + £7.99 for TopUpTV + £16.99 for NTL Freedom ADSL = £35.48

Actually, now that I have done the maths, maybe this wouldn't be a bad idea after all, with a saving of £2 each month!!! Once my 12 months with NTL are over, I could also transfer my ADSL to a faster provider. Sounds like a win-win situation to me !!! I shall think this over later today!