Leaving the country during the first 12 months of my contract? - Page 2

Mal · 29-06-2006, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Because most service providers can actually provide the service?

ntl seriously need to start charging for installations again in that case.

What about Sky? If I moved from where I am now to a building where I wasn't allowed a dish, could I get out early?

But if you weren't allowed a dish, wouldn't that be because it was in some tenancy agreement or similar not to have the dishes, not Sky's lack of coverage?

Neil · 29-06-2006, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

But if you weren't allowed a dish, wouldn't that be because it was in some tenancy agreement or similar not to have the dishes, not Sky's lack of coverage?

Yes it would Mal.

orangebird · 29-06-2006, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

But if you weren't allowed a dish, wouldn't that be because it was in some tenancy agreement or similar not to have the dishes, not Sky's lack of coverage?

Yes, it would be, but the principles still the same. I would be be able to view Sky, so, would I be able to get out early?

Russ · 29-06-2006, 15:47

I'm sure I saw an episode of Watchdog where they said the customer is successful if they are the one who is not at fault in cases like this.

For example, I may move away for whatever reason. The new place I go to isn't in ntl's area. That would not be my fault therefore judgement would be in my favour.

However if I move somewhere which IS in an ntl area and Sky offer me a good deal and I chose it, that WOULD be my fault - I would make the choice of Sky over ntl.

Similarly, if I moved to a block of flats where a dish isn't allowed then I could not be held accountable for that.

Mr Angry · 29-06-2006, 15:50

It would depend on Sky's T&C.

orangebird · 29-06-2006, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It would depend on Sky's T&C.

Why would they hold any more water than ntls? If I'm unable to receive the service, then surely it should work the same?

Mr Angry · 29-06-2006, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Why would they hold any more water than ntls? If I'm unable to receive the service, then surely it should work the same?

Because in the above analogy you mentioned moving somewhere where the erection of dishes is not allowed. Sky might well be able to assert that you can recieve the services but in order to prove that they can supply the services they would need to affect "illegal trespass" (ie. erecting a dish where neither they, nor the occupants, are permitted to do so).

Whether you would be prepared to be complicit in such a trespass by affording them access to your property to prove their assertion is entirely debatable. However, I can't think of why anyone trying to legally terminate a contract would want to be seen to help the other party prove their case.

As I said, I'd need to study their T&Cs to establish what their premise is.

Bob · 29-06-2006, 16:31

The OP knows there is a chance that he is moving abroad and he therefore knows that he may not be able to fulfill the minimum contract beforehand. Is the law still the same then? I was just wondering

Chris W · 29-06-2006, 17:35

If you leave the country and aren't going to come back, then you won't need to cancel at all

They can't chase debts abroad ....