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

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dezzo

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?



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?



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.

[Nugget]

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, 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.

So can I just confirm - do you still have the STB etc from when you were an ntl customer?

I'm just checking because I haven't been an ntl customer for years, and I've still got one of their boxes in my cupboard which, seeing as I no loonger receive bills from ntl, rather suggests that you don't pay for the box.

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by dezzo

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?



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?



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.

Eh?I just wanted a tv and telephone service that worked consistently. How is that trying to get something for nothing?

Ovbiously I wouldn't believe that Tony Blair ate children (the fact that you chose such a moronic example is a measure of your debating skills), however if someone posts something that I have first-hand experience of, and what they post directly confirms my experience, then yes I tend to believe them!

NTL haven't seen the back of me, I still have a broadband connection with them. Why would they be glad to see the back of me? Because I'm prepared to stand up for myself?

Originally Posted by orangebird

Seconded

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Nugget

So can I just confirm - do you still have the STB etc from when you were an ntl customer?

I'm just checking because I haven't been an ntl customer for years, and I've still got one of their boxes in my cupboard which, seeing as I no loonger receive bills from ntl, rather suggests that you don't pay for the box.

Yes of course it does. Because ntl are too incompetent to pick up some boxes, it means they aren't lending it to you and it's not a hire agreement.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by cr80123

Yes of course it does. Because ntl are too incompetent to pick up some boxes, it means they aren't lending it to you and it's not a hire agreement.

That's rather my point - if you (as a customer) were required to pay for the use of the box, ntl would ensure that all boxes were returned / collected at the end of the contract / whenever they stopped providing their services.

[ian@huth]

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.

Sorry Mick but you are wrong. I have just dug out the Customer Service Agreement that I signed when I first took NTL services and it clearly states

This is a hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you wish to be bound by its terms.

But Ian - you are not hiring the equipment as I keep saying.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Sorry Mick but you are wrong. I have just dug out the Customer Service Agreement that I signed when I first took NTL services and it clearly states

Hire of equipment or services?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Mick

But Ian - you are not hiring the equipment as I keep saying.

Then why does it have plastered all over the agreement that I signed that it is a hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Have a look at a copy of the agreement and tell me why it is issued under that particular act.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Then why does it have plastered all over the agreement that I signed that it is a hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Have a look at a copy of the agreement and tell me why it is issued under that particular act.

Hire of services or equipment?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Hire of services or equipment?

I haven't read all of the agreement as there is no need to. The simple fact that it states that it is a hire agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is sufficient to make it a rock solid contract under that act and be subject to the law regarding that act.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I haven't read all of the agreement as there is no need to. The simple fact that it states that it is a hire agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is sufficient to make it a rock solid contract under that act and be subject to the law regarding that act.

But your not hiring the equipment.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I haven't read all of the agreement as there is no need to. The simple fact that it states that it is a hire agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is sufficient to make it a rock solid contract under that act and be subject to the law regarding that act.

But, using the TV as an example, aren't you effectively hiring the channels from ntl? To me, this makes more sense as, if you don't pay the bill, you lose the channels but not the equipment.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Mick

But your not hiring the equipment.

What are you hiring then that means that they give you a contract under the auspices of that particular act?