NTL Broadband Terms & Conditions Moving House?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by h3adru5h

not trying to be funny about this scrotnig.... but it's my job to know about these things. A cooling off period IS applicable regardless of whether the services have been installed or not. Where are you getting your information from??

I got exactly the same information from the Ntl legal team in Hook when I questioned it. It was in relation to a major complaint I was dealing with and every bit of info I could lay my hands on backed up what Scrotnig is saying.

As far as Ntl are concerned once the service is installed, which will be seven days or more since the agreement was made, it will not be removed except under the most extreme circumstances.
Any time this has been questioned by a customer to me when they go off to check it with a lawyer they have never come back to dispute it further as far as I know.

[h3adru5h]

In some cases you may sign up and get installed while within the cooling off period. Although this cooling off period is mainly for the agreement, if services have been installed during the cooling off period then nothing has changed.

However, if you are outside of the cooling-off period then ntl: are not obligated to cancel your services and you have accepted the 12 months minimum term agreement with ntl:

This is a bit of a dark area that does cause a lot of confusion for customers (with whatever company you sign up to). The best advice would be to seek consumer advice from the OFT or citizens advice if you are unsure of any legalities regarding the contract, terms & conditions etc...

Originally Posted by dezzo

As far as Ntl are concerned once the service is installed, which will be seven days or more since the agreement was made, it will not be removed except under the most extreme circumstances.
Any time this has been questioned by a customer to me when they go off to check it with a lawyer they have never come back to dispute it further as far as I know.

This is probably cos I get it

[scrotnig]

Ok since everyone here is going to claim ntl are ripping people off and have illegal contracts, why don't you all take this up with BT as well:

Your right to cancel: You have a right to cancel your order for any of the services without charge. However you will lose that right once we have begun to provide the service with your agreement.

So, is BT also issuing contracts that don't meet with the approval of the barrack room lawyers? Or is everyone just plain wrong?

The law does NOT compel companies to spen hundreds (and in BT's case, potentially thousands) of pounds providing a service so that the customer can change their mind on a whim the next day. Consumer laws are NOT in existence solely to protect customers from dishonest companies...they also protect companies from dishonest customers.

BT, Sky, ntl, Telewest, and loads of other firms all have contracts like this, and damn right they should.

There are far more instances of customers ripping companies off than vice versa. A shame Watchdog never features any of them.

[ian@huth]

If installation is always at least 7 days after the customer has received the second copy of the Agreement or a cancellation rights notice then it cannot be cancelled under cooling off laws because the time will already have expired.

The initial cooling off period is not the issue in this thread though.

The issue is whether NTL has complied with the law regarding content of the Agreement, signatures to the Agreement and provision of customer copies of the Agreement.
__________________

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Ok since everyone here is going to claim ntl are ripping people off and have illegal contracts, why don't you all take this up with BT as well:


So, is BT also issuing contracts that don't meet with the approval of the barrack room lawyers? Or is everyone just plain wrong?

The law does NOT compel companies to spen hundreds (and in BT's case, potentially thousands) of pounds providing a service so that the customer can change their mind on a whim the next day. Consumer laws are NOT in existence solely to protect customers from dishonest companies...they also protect companies from dishonest customers.

BT, Sky, ntl, Telewest, and loads of other firms all have contracts like this, and damn right they should.

There are far more instances of customers ripping companies off than vice versa. A shame Watchdog never features any of them.

I for one am not saying that NTL rip anyone off with unfair contracts.

What I am saying is that the NTL contract is fair and legally binding AS LONG AS THE CORRECT PROCEDURES STIPULATED IN THE RELEVENT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE FOLLOWED. NTL do not always follow the correct proceedures.

If anyone is in any doubt what those proceedures are then please read post #139 in this thread and the documents linked in that post.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If

I for one am not saying that NTL rip anyone off with unfair contracts.

What I am saying is that the NTL contract is fair and legally binding AS LONG AS THE CORRECT PROCEDURES STIPULATED IN THE RELEVENT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE FOLLOWED. NTL do not always follow the correct proceedures.

If anyone is in any doubt what those proceedures are then please read post #139 in this thread and the documents linked in that post.

I am sure you are right, this is true of most companies though.

The reality is, the whole 'contract' scenario is based on the majority of people playing along with the spirit of it. Not many companies would let a situation such as this go to court. Even if they win, the adverse publicity means it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, my earlier post about the BT contract wasn't aimed at your good self. I note with interest how certain others seem to have shut completely up since I posted it.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

I am sure you are right, this is true of most companies though.

The reality is, the whole 'contract' scenario is based on the majority of people playing along with the spirit of it. Not many companies would let a situation such as this go to court. Even if they win, the adverse publicity means it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, my earlier post about the BT contract wasn't aimed at your good self. I note with interest how certain others seem to have shut completely up since I posted it.

The only court action that might occur is if NTL decided to enforce payment of remaining months on a early cancelled contract. If the customer was billed for this and the customer decided not to pay then court action may ultimately follow.

BT have many different contracts, which one was you referring to?

[cr80123]

Well I don't think there's any longer any doubt about it to be honest.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The only court action that might occur is if NTL decided to enforce payment of remaining months on a early cancelled contract. If the customer was billed for this and the customer decided not to pay then court action may ultimately follow.

I know from previous roles that this almost never happens...any outstanding debt is passed to the internal debt recovery department. If they can't recover it, they pass it to an outside agency. I am not aware of any cases ever going to court, though I couldn't say categorically that none have whatsoever.

BT have many different contracts, which one was you referring to?

Not sure, it's from the back of one of their advertising booklets.