??..New T&Cs..??

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Funnily enough I signed up to have a BT line in my flat without signing anything. And they held me to a minimum term when I cancelled it.

But yeah it's just Ntl.

They really are the most evil of all companies

Presumably you just rented the line off them though. It's the fact that ntl hire you the set top box/cable modem that makes it a hire agreement, which most certainly requires a signature to be enforceable by law. I actually got rid of my ntl tv and phone within the 12 month period (neither of them worked properly) for this very reason. Unfortunatley you can tell certain people this until you're blue in the face, they won't listen once they have their ntl caps on.

Originally Posted by cr80123

Presumably you just rented the line off them though. It's the fact that ntl hire you the set top box/cable modem that makes it a hire agreement

.

It is not an hire agreement - ntl provide you with the broadband/TV/Phone services - this is what you are paying your monthly subscription for - the equipment is provided free of charge, how that can be an hire agreement is quite frankly beyond me.

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Mick

.

It is not an hire agreement - ntl provide you with the broadband/TV/Phone services - this is what you are paying your monthly subscription for - the equipment is provided free of charge, how that can be an hire agreement is quite frankly beyond me.

Rubbish. Someone like Sky provide the equipment free of charge i.e. it is yours to keep once you have fulfilled the minimum term. NTL require the return of equipment, it is never yours and therefore never provided free of charge.

Originally Posted by cr80123

Rubbish. Someone like Sky provide the equipment free of charge i.e. it is yours to keep once you have fulfilled the minimum term. NTL require the return of equipment, it is never yours and therefore never provided free of charge.

The point that you seem to be so inept in grasping is that your paying for and subscribing to the services (Broadband/TV/Phone). I never said the equipment was to keep - the equipment is provided free of charge whilst using the services - this doesn't make it an hire agreement just because you say it does.

They are " regulated hire agreements " in NTL';S own wording.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

They are " regulated hire agreements " in NTL';S own wording.

Again though can you prove that? You posted something today and failed to supply a legitimate source - so you cannot say it is in ntl's own wording because of a failure to prove it. Otherwise its just pure speculation.

Originally Posted by cr80123

Rubbish. Someone like Sky provide the equipment free of charge i.e. it is yours to keep once you have fulfilled the minimum term. NTL require the return of equipment, it is never yours and therefore never provided free of charge.

my bill says 'primary set top box' = £0.00

ATV Family pack = £13.50

Line Rental = £10.50

cable modem = £0.00

Broadband Internet 2MB = £24.99

- that says my equipment is supplied FOC - and I pay for the service, I use. So long as they maintain their equipment for free, during our contract, I am happy with that.

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Mick

The point that you seem to be so inept in grasping is that your paying for and subscribing to the services (Broadband/TV/Phone). I never said the equipment was to keep - the equipment is provided free of charge whilst using the services - this doesn't make it an hire agreement just because you say it does.

Er no it makes it a hire agreement because they want the equipment back. They hire (or lend if it makes it easier for you) it to you!

See this is exactly the attitude I mean. We have a (presumably internal) ntl document posted admitting they can't enforce unsigned contracts, I can assure you I got out of one after consulting a solicitor for that very reason, and yet still we have people willing to argue that it's not the case presumably out of some sort of internet stupidty/stubborness. I mean if I was to meet you down the pub, show you the above mentioned ntl internal document, tell you I'd had it confirmed by my solicitor that it was unenforcable due to the fact it was unsigned, and that I'd got out of my contract early for that very reason, what would you do? Stare into your beer and say it doesn't make it a hire agreement just because I said it was?

Originally Posted by Mick

Again though can you prove that? You posted something today and failed to supply a legitimate source - so you cannot say it is in ntl's own wording because of a failure to prove it. Otherwise its just pure speculation.

Snore all you like mick, it seems to have rattled some cages.
Because it has been removed now people cannot judge for themselves, but it is plain to me it is not something done by someone one boring evening.
How would a scammer know information such as the legal department email address?
Because I will not disclose the source it is seen as a scam, see it as you and anyone else want, but one thing I do not do is condone a witch hunt, which would happen if I did disclose the source, I have a few more scruples than that thanks, and plainly more than NTL do.
Cheers.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Well sorry to hear that, more fool someone who doesnt demand it in black and white with all respect.

Or maybe I know that I had agreed to keep the line for a certain length of time and didn't run off whining when I cancelled it and had to pay a minimum term penalty.

Believe it or not a few people in this country still do have the ability to respect agreements without needing to have them signed in their own blood and a squadron of lawyers checking them every 5 seconds.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Or maybe I know that I had agreed to keep the line for a certain length of time and didn't run off whining when I cancelled it and had to pay a minimum term penalty.

Believe it or not a few people in this country still do have the ability to respect agreements without needing to have them signed in their own blood and a squadron of lawyers checking them every 5 seconds.

Thats a very admirable attitude, and all very well if you are dealing with companies not of the reputation of NTL, but even then youre entitled to a contract, and entitled to have that contract adhered to just as much as they expect you to adhere to it.
There is no minimum term penalty if you have not received a copy of the signed contract, or have not received a welcome pack.
Also, they are required to inform you of your rights to cancel when theyre on your doorstep or at a stand, otherwise theyre breaking the law, your right to cancel has to be in writing.

Originally Posted by cr80123

Er no it makes it a hire agreement because they want the equipment back. They hire (or lend if it makes it easier for you) it to you!

Again - I will reiterate that customers do not hire the equipment. You are paying and subscribing for the 'services' ntl provides. The equipment that ntl provides to allow you to use the services is free of charge during your use of the service. There is no such thing as an hire agreement associated with the equipment that ntl provides.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Funnily enough I signed up to have a BT line in my flat without signing anything. And they held me to a minimum term when I cancelled it.

But yeah it's just Ntl.

They really are the most evil of all companies

Yep, thats my recent experience with BT, contract posted, signed by them and a statement that if you don't want it call or don't let it be installed.
__________________

Originally Posted by Mick

Again - I will reiterate that customers do not hire the equipment. You are paying and subscribing for the 'services' ntl provides. The equipment that ntl provides to allow you to use the services is free of charge during your use of the service. There is no such thing as an hire agreement associated with the equipment that ntl provides.

Didn't we start this debate here too?
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...849#post577849

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Mick

Again - I will reiterate that customers do not hire the equipment. You are paying and subscribing for the 'services' ntl provides. The equipment that ntl provides to allow you to use the services is free of charge during your use of the service. There is no such thing as an hire agreement associated with the equipment that ntl provides.

Ok Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m convinced! If someone lets you have something for a fixed period and then wants it back theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re not hiring (or lending!) it to you, we havenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t seen a document posted with ntl admitting they canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t enforce unsigned contracts, you didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t remove that document then, astonishingly, have the nerve to cast doubt on the validity of it, I didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t go and see a solicitor who didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t confirm that it was an unsigned hire agreement and therefore unenforceable, ntl didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t back down when my solicitor wrote to them pointing this out, I didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t get out of my contract within the minimum term and am still paying ntl for my tv and telephone service.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by cr80123

Ok Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m convinced! If someone lets you have something for a fixed period and then wants it back theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re not hiring (or lending!) it to you, we havenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t seen a document posted with ntl admitting they canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t enforce unsigned contracts,

Now the document has been removed, but I think it said they 'had difficulty' enforcing the contract. Possibly due to people like yourself who are always looking for loopholes and trying to get something for nothing.
What is cheaper for Ntl? Dragging you through the courts to get a minimum payment off for the rest of the year off you or disconnection?

Originally Posted by cr80123

you didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t remove that document then, astonishingly, have the nerve to cast doubt on the validity of it,

Anything posted on here without proof of where it came from is suspect. If I knocked something up in Word stating that Tony Blair eats children and posted it would you believe that too?

Originally Posted by cr80123

ntl didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t back down when my solicitor wrote to them pointing this out, I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t get out of my contract within the minimum term and am still paying ntl for my tv and telephone service.

Again what is cheaper for Ntl?

To be perfectly honest I'm sure they were glad to see the back of you if this is the way you acting in your dealings with them.