NTL Broadband Terms & Conditions Moving House?

[ian@huth]

Just for a laugh consider the position if you lived in a rented house and signed a contract for a builder to put a swimming pool in your back garden. Just as the installation is finished you get notice from your landlord that you have to vacate the premises in 28 days. What do you do?

1. Not pay for the swimming pool because you can't use it.

2. Ask the builder to move it to your new address or you won't pay for it.

3. Tell the builder that there is nowhere at your new address for him to move the swimming pool to so you're not paying for something you can't use.

4. Tell the builder he should build a swimming pool at every address so it will be there if anyone wants to use it in future.

[intalex]

not sure about a standalone phone line. i think if you take up a phone and TV package deal, then you are bound to it for 12 months. call them ask what their salespeople say!

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Keytops

I'd just cancel the payments and let them try and find you to bill you :>

Which their bailiffs will certainly do, and then add several hundred pounds in charges for doing so.

[intalex]

(i) Most people nowadays want internet, and usually broadband rather than dial-up (makes the install-anway theory potentially profitable)! In England i doubt anyone wants a swimming pool in their back garden - looking out of my window at this very moment gives me that impression anyway.

(ii) A swimming pool is not supposed to be a "transferrable" service/product, but NTL's broadband, to some extent, is. The question is, what happens when it isn't transferrable? Well, when you are investing in anything which is fixed to your rented accomodation, you want to know about the implications when you do move. So what you do is you ask before you agree to buy such a service/product. What you don't expect is for the supplier to change their story because to me, this is like the company breaking a promise seeing that one person made the promise and another is failing to honour it.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by cr80123

So what happens when somebody moves to a cabled area? Presumably they have to start a new 12 month contract as the old one is with that person specifically at their old address.

Contracts are specific to the person, not the address. If you move and take the services with you, you are still on your old contract.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by intalex

Ian, you finally come up with the same argument about following what's in writing rather than what's agreed verbally. What if I told you that I never did sign my contract or send it back to NTL (I have my unsigned contract at home)? Then NTL haven't got aything from me in black and white!!!

If you have only got a verbal contract then that contract can only be based on the discussions that took place. If NTL sent you a contract and cannot prove that you received it and you didn't sign and return a copy then NTL could be on dodgy ground if it came to court action. They should have a procedure that checks for the return of a signed contract and chase this up if it isn't returned. You have to be careful though that you don't take any action that implies acceptance of a different contract to your verbal one. Such actions could be paying a bill that has reference to terms and conditions applicable to the account which you are paying or clicking an I accept box on your computer that says that you have read the terms and conditions.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by intalex

If they were not obliged to, then they shouldn't have used that when selling their product in the first place. I'm not blaming the salesperson here, as he was only telling me what the normal procedure at that time was. The fact that this unwritten rule has canged recently should mean that it should apply to customers who sign up since the change of the rule.

How do NTL propose to build up a good reputation when customers not at fault end up losing money?

Ian, you finally come up with the same argument about following what's in writing rather than what's agreed verbally. What if I told you that I never did sign my contract or send it back to NTL (I have my unsigned contract at home)? Then NTL haven't got aything from me in black and white!!!

That doesn't matter. BY allowing the installers in, you have consented to the contract, as ntl don't supply services under any other contract.

[cr80123]

Well the swimming pool analogy is complete nonsense because ovbiously you've agreed to having the swimming pool built at that address. As someone has stated that if you move house your contract moves with you (if it's an ntl area) then the contract is clearly with the person not the address. If your contract doesn't move with you, and is with both you and the address, then you will be responsible for both your old and new contracts. Can someone who works for ntl confirm which it is?
__________________

Sorry Scrotnig, you replied whilst I was typing!

So therefore it's up to ntl to supply the services at your new address and if they can't they're in breach of contract.

[intalex]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

That doesn't matter. BY allowing the installers in, you have consented to the contract, as ntl don't supply services under any other contract.

Interesting, but how am I to know what these t&c's are, and how different they are from my negotiations with the salesperson? After all, the amount going out of my account each month is exactly what the salesperson had said would be the case.
__________________

If you have only got a verbal contract then that contract can only be based on the discussions that took place. If NTL sent you a contract and cannot prove that you received it and you didn't sign and return a copy then NTL could be on dodgy ground if it came to court action.

I didn't sign it because I could never be bothered, not because I didn't accept it. Since there was nothing written in the t&c's about moving houses, I accept my verbal agreement with my salesperson to be the additional "clause" regarding moving houses, not some unwritten rule which can be changed whenever NTL want.

They should have a procedure that checks for the return of a signed contract and chase this up if it isn't returned.

I couldn't agree more. This way, they would get some feedback about their t&c's from people who actually do bother to read them and could amend it to clarify any uncertainties.

You have to be careful though that you don't take any action that implies acceptance of a different contract to your verbal one. Such actions could be paying a bill that has reference to terms and conditions applicable to the account which you are paying or clicking an I accept box on your computer that says that you have read the terms and conditions.

I'm not going to use that argument anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm not just trying to sort my own situation out and bow out, but am trying to make a point altogether about the fact that this change of unwritten rules cannot be implemented on people before they get a chance to see this rule documented somewhere.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

It still does not alter the facts that NTL contracted to provide a service and you contracted to pay for it. You, unfortunately, are the person breaking the contract and the one that should suffer.

I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.

[ian@huth]

Allowing installation to take place doesn't imply acceptance of any contract other than the one previously agreed which could be verbal or written. If, however, the installer asks you to sign, and you do sign, a quality of installation document that states the installation is for goods and/or services in accordance with the companies standard terms and conditions then you are covered by those T&Cs whether you have read them or not.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by intalex

Interesting, but how am I to know what these t&c's are, and how different they are from my negotiations with the salesperson? After all, the amount going out of my account each month is exactly what the salesperson had said would be the case.

When placing the order the salesman will inform you that you will be bound by ntl's terms and conditions which will be sent to you to sign and return. If you choose not to sign and return them, it doesn't matter, as by letting the installers in, having been informed that this is only done under the published contract, you're deemed to have accepted tham, and you'd have a hell of a job convincing any court that you didn'ty know about the contract when you let the installers in.

That said, it is certainly the case that the salesman will have told you that if you move to a non cabled area you will be released from contract, as this was certainly the company's policy at the time. It's not your fault the policy has changed and, whilst you CAN be held to contract, I would push the issue and ask that you be released as this was your understanding at the time you signed up. You will probably need a manager for this though.
__________________

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.

Whilst sounding plausible, that's not the case here, for the simple reason that the change in ability to provide the service has been brought about by the customer moving house, not by the company's inability to provide the service.

Contracts have to fair to BOTH sides, not just the customer. On your basis a customer could conceivably have grounds to force ntl to lay cable in a non cabled area. Such a contract would be deemed unfair and unenforcable.

[cr80123]

Yes ntl would have to either lay cable, or offer an equivalent or better service at the same price. The only way they could enforce the contract is if it explicitally stated that you would be liable for it if you moved to a non-cabled area.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Contracts have to fair to BOTH sides, not just the customer. On tyour basis a customer could conceivably have grounds to force ntl to lay cable in a non cabled area. Such a contract would be deemed unfair and unenforcable.

Which under English law would also render the contract null and void.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.

Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.

If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.

The contract is with a named person or persons but is for installation of the services at a specific address and any court would take the view that the contract is tied as much to the address as to the person.

I know that I have argued in another thread about the validity of a verbal contract but that was about a dispute over whether the contract was for a fixed length of time or a minimum ongoing length of time.