NTL Broadband Terms & Conditions Moving House? - Page 4

cr80123 · 25-02-2005, 13:01

So if that's the case Ian, and the contract is for a specific address, then anyone moving would still be liable for their old contract whether their new house had cable or not. You can't have it both ways.

25-02-2005, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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.

If the installation is free then that part isn't technically a contract under UK law as there hasn`t been an exchange.

Further, I disagree that a court would take the view that the contract is tied to a specific address, if only for the fact that NTL continue the same contract at a new property if they can supply the services there. If they cancelled the original contract and started a new one after a property move then they might have an argument, but they do not.

ian@huth · 25-02-2005, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by cr80123

So if that's the case Ian, and the contract is for a specific address, then anyone moving would still be liable for their old contract whether their new house had cable or not. You can't have it both ways.

Depending on the wording of your contract you could still be liable for your old contract if you moved to another NTL cabled area and asked for services there. We are talking contracts here and you have to look at each and every term in the contract and not rely on what penalties NTL have chosen not to apply in the past for breach of contract.

cr80123 · 25-02-2005, 13:21

Well it's not just could be liable, you will be liable if what you're saying about the contract being tied to a specific address is correct. However, Scrotnig says this isn't the case. Does anyone know for sure?

intalex · 25-02-2005, 13:21

Quote:

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.

I like this. It concurs with common sense thinking. If you argue that "the customer is breaking the contract because he is moving", then you are asking to justify the fact that a customer cannot even move houses because he is tied to his broadband connection contract. How on earth do you justify something ridiculous like that???

ian@huth · 25-02-2005, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If the installation is free then that part isn't technically a contract under UK law as there hasn`t been an exchange.

Further, I disagree that a court would take the view that the contract is tied to a specific address, if only for the fact that NTL continue the same contract at a new property if they can supply the services there. If they cancelled the original contract and started a new one after a property move then they might have an argument, but they do not.

The contract is for provision of services including installation in return for which a consideration is paid. It is a legal document subject to UK law covering the whole of the transaction even though a part of it may be provided free.

NTL or any company can decide not to penalise a customer for breach of contract if they so wish.

orangebird · 25-02-2005, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

No-one's worthy!!!

25-02-2005, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The contract is for provision of services including installation in return for which a consideration is paid. It is a legal document subject to UK law covering the whole of the transaction even though a part of it may be provided free.

I still entirely disagree, if no consideration has been paid for the installation then it cannot be considered to have been covered under the strict terms of a contract.

ian@huth · 25-02-2005, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by intalex

I like this. It concurs with common sense thinking. If you argue that "the customer is breaking the contract because he is moving", then you are asking to justify the fact that a customer cannot even move houses because he is tied to his broadband connection contract. How on earth do you justify something ridiculous like that???

Nobody is saying that the customer is breaking the contract because they are moving. What is being said is that the contract is for 12 months and contains several ways of termination without penalty during that 12 month period. Any termination other than for the stipulated reasons will incur a penalty equal to the payment for the remaining period of the contract. The breach of contract would only occur if the customer refused to pay that penalty. However NTL may decide not to impose that penalty if they so wish. That is why I have suggested that services are reduced to the minimum value possible within the contract so as to reduce the penalty to a minimum. You can ask NTL not to impose the penalty due to your mitigating circumstances which they may or may not do.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I still entirely disagree, if no consideration has been paid for the installation then it cannot be considered to have been covered under the strict terms of a contract.

That's complete nonsense and I think you know that. Say for instance that you signed a contract for the supply of a new car and the contract stated that you would get FREE delivery, FREE number plates, FREE road tax, FREE 12 months insurance, FREE 3 year warranty, FREE 3 years servicing, FREE 3 years roadside assistance, etc. What would your reaction be if you take delivery and find that you are billed for the FREE items already supplied and would have to pay for any future repairs, servicing and roadside assistance. Would you consider the company to be in breach of contract?

orangebird · 25-02-2005, 13:54

The contract is with the person, not the address.

The person agrees to pay for the minimum service for a minimum of 12 months - whether or not within that 12 months they cannot receive the service under circumstances with ntl cannot prevent. Get over it.

ntl have to recoup the costs of the time and wages for someone to load your order on the system. Someone to book your installation. Someone to go to your house with (the cost of) the materials and hardware required for the service you ask for. The costs are there, and ntl are NOT being unreasonable in asking a customer to be prepared to EVENTUALLY cover the costs of all that, let alone pay for the continuing service. It takes 14 months of revenue from the 'average' customer before ntl break even, let alone make some kind of profit.

And PS, by using and paying for services, you agree to the t&cs - read them sometime....

intalex · 25-02-2005, 13:58

Well, whatever's unwritten will always be considered a goodwill gesture (in the eyes of Customer Services) when it is in the favour of the customer. Oh well, I have to give up arguing about this any more and agree that both parties have equal grounds for this case and it could go either way. I guess you NTL staff should get in touch with your policy-makers and ask them to include a section on "moving houses" in the t&c's.

25-02-2005, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Would you consider the company to be in breach of contract?

Technically, there was no contract.

cr80123 · 25-02-2005, 14:03

Get over what? If the contract is with the peron not the address, then they are free to move at any time during the contract. If ntl can no longer supply the services they agreed to in the contract (regardless of circumstances) then they have to supply an equivalent or better service at the same price, or they are in breach of contract. That is the law. It's entirely irrelevant whether ntl have to recoup wages/time/hardware costs or not.

ian@huth · 25-02-2005, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Technically, there was no contract.

I think that you would find there was.

Contracts always have to be between people but they can specify location. If you have NTL services installed you are not allowed to modify or interfere with them. If you move, under your theory, you can take the service with you but under NTLs T&Cs you cannot do the movement of the equipment yourself. Now take you pick, pay the penalty or pay NTL to move the equipment. Anyone here know the cost of laying several miles of fibre and supplying all the other equipment that would be involved?

scrotnig · 25-02-2005, 14:16

Nice to see all the barrack room lawyers out in force again in this thread.

The contracts are 100% watertight. End of story. People seem to think that just because they didn't fully read the contract, this somehow makes it unfair when they get caught out by something they didn't read. It doesn't.

If you sign up to a service for 12 months, you have to pay for the service for 12 months. I can't believe people are somehow suggesting that THEM making a material change to the situation (IE moving) is somehow ntl's fault and they should be released from contract.

If you don't think you're going to be in a property for 12 months, don't agree a 12 month contract.

Try telling Sky you're moving to somewhere they cannot service (yes there ARE such areas) and therefore you want out of the contract.

Once again, people will argue black is white.

As an aside, the poster in this thread should have some redress as he was specifically told that he could cancel if moving to a non-cabled area, but this is still not part of the contract.