Leaving the country during the first 12 months of my contract?

[Harhoo]

Hi;

I have been with NTL for about four years now for TV and Phone; I am thinking of adding broadband. However, there is a good chance that in about 6 months I will be selling my house and going abroad for a year. Equally there is a good chance I will be renting my house and going abroad for a year.

If I get broadband, will I still need a 12 month minimum term contract if I have other services?
If I sell up and move abroad within 12 months, will I need to pay a cancellation fee?
If I rent up and move abroad will I need to pay a cancellation fee?
Does anybody know a good broadband ISP who doesn't have a 12 month+ minimum term?

Thanks a lot to anybody who can help!

[Willc0]

Where in the UK are you? Would open up a few more options

[Harhoo]

Sorry: Nottingham.

[Graham M]

I wouldnt think youd need to pay anything as you are moving to a "new area with no NTL access"

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I wouldnt think youd need to pay anything as you are moving to a "new area with no NTL access"

That doesn't make any difference now, and hasn't done for nearly two years. You sign for 12 months, you pay for 12 months.

Harhoo, I suggest you find an ISP that doesn't have a 12 month minimum contract.

[Watchman]

bluntly put IMHO, what MAY happen in 6 months or so, paying the remainder of the contract/cancellation fee is nothing in the the scheme of things compared to moving away etc.

what would it equate to? cost/wages/expenses etc

[Neil]

Originally Posted by orangebird

That doesn't make any difference now, and hasn't done for nearly two years. You sign for 12 months, you pay for 12 months.

I *thought* Mr Angry (a forum member here) had proven this not to be the case?

I'll see if I can find the relevant thread.

[Harhoo]

Well, yes, I know it's not the greatest amount, but am reluctant to give NTL, whom I have given large sums of money to over the past four years and in return I have had OK but hardly great service, an extra 100+ pounds for, effectively, nothing. Bearing in mind that selling up and moving abroad for a year or two is going to cost me a shedload of money it makes sense to try and avoid splurging it out unneccesarily.

It looks like it might be better me going with zen.co.uk, whom you can leave with one month's notice, paying 24.99 a month and getting 8MB speed than going with NTL and paying more for a 1 or 2 MB service.

If I do this, however, will probably fire off my cable package with NTL and just go to Freeview to save the money I am paying for broadband, so may phone up NTL and see if I can negotiate with them to allow me a 6 month Broadband contract instead of me dropping my cable.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Neil

I *thought* Mr Angry (a forum member here) had proven this not to be the case?

I'll see if I can find the relevant thread.

No, it wasn't proved. The discretionary action (read - not in the t&cs, ever) of early termination of contracts due to moving to an off net area finished in Jan 05.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by orangebird

No, it wasn't proved. The discretionary action (read - not in the t&cs, ever) of early termination of contracts due to moving to an off net area finished in Jan 05.

The rules regarding early cancellations of contracts (be they NTL's or someone elses) are very clearly defined by the OFT.

"Discretionary" actions are of no relevance to a contract whereby they do not appear in the terms of the contract.

Unfortunately for NTL the Office of Fair Trading haven't moved their goalposts since 2001 - irrespective what NTL did in Jan '05.

The following is considered to be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts - 2001 - SCHEDULE 2 (Regulation 5(5))

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

NTL cannot therefore claim a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract where you move house to an area they do not service. It is their problem that they cannot continue to provide you their services (an off net area).

As a consumer you have no control over what is an "on net" and an "off net" area - they do and this is therefore a "condition whose realisation depends on his (their) own will alone".

Quite simple really.




(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

[Neil]

Nice one Mr A.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The rules regarding early cancellations of contracts (be they NTL's or someone elses) are very clearly defined by the OFT.

"Discretionary" actions are of no relevance to a contract whereby they do not appear in the terms of the contract.

Unfortunately for NTL the Office of Fair Trading haven't moved their goalposts since 2001 - irrespective what NTL did in Jan '05.

The following is considered to be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts - 2001 - SCHEDULE 2 (Regulation 5(5))

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

NTL cannot therefore claim a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract where you move house to an area they do not service. It is their problem that they cannot continue to provide you their services (an off net area).

As a consumer you have no control over what is an "on net" and an "off net" area - they do and this is therefore a "condition whose realisation depends on his (their) own will alone".

Quite simple really.




(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

So why does any service provider that has a minimum term contract bother then, if it's not worth the paper it's written on?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by orangebird

So why does any service provider that has a minimum term contract bother then, if it's not worth the paper it's written on?

Because most service providers can actually provide the service?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Because most service providers can actually provide the service?

That's what I thought - AFAIK ntl:telewest is the only ISP with such geographical limitations.

[orangebird]

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?