I have to pay for a wireless router that is free to new customers?

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The last time Virgin changed their T&Cs was in Feb 2007. By now I reckon that even the most relaxed court would judge a customer to have accepted them. Therefore the 30 day rule would be enforceable (especially as it applies to both side and therefore is not 'unfair')

Actually, the fact that they changed them probably works against them. Unless they notified you in writing, which they didn't, they can't just randomly change the contract and expect you to be bound by it.

Also, the contract says that the T&Cs can change any time they like, but legal president says that if they did do that then the contract could be cancelled immediately by you.

You have to remember that contract law says there are certain things you can't sign away, including the right to cancel a contract if any part of it changes. Since the contract says that you agree to the T&Cs, if they change what you agreed to change and sure enough courts have always ruled that you can then cancel the contract.

Consider the alternative: Contact says you are bound by the T&Cs for one year, VM change the T&Cs to say you are only allowed to download 1 byte per day and hay too bad you agreed to it and are locked in.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

So that would probably also apply to Sky, BT, be broadband, and quite a few other companies then?

Yes, it does. I think there is additional regulation for ADSL providers anyway, but most seem to offer 1 month minimum contracts.

As none of them have asked for to send back a written contract, and be broadband never sent anything in hard copy (was all done through the net)

You agree to the T&Cs when you sign up. A signature is not necessary for agreement but is the preffered method. You can agree when signing up online without one, for example.

However, if they change the contract in any way then it would have to be agreed with you again, and you would have the option to back out regardless of previously agreed minimum contract lengths.

Originally Posted by whydoIneedatech

Maybe it would not end up in court but having bailiffs after you and any of the Major ISP's on the case is a sure fire way to destroy your credit history.

That won't happen. It doesn't work that way in the UK.

In order to get the bailiffs involved, there needs to be a decision made in court. That means time and money over what is usually a relatively small amount of money, so companies hardly ever bother. Also, even if they did go to court, it's far from a sure thing they would win.

Instead, they usually just ask a "debt recovery" company to get involved. These companies have no legal rights like bailiffs, they can't come and take stuff from your house and there is no mark on your credit record. All they can do is write deceptive and threatening letters, or try to call you up on the phone. PayPal uses them a lot, and generally they get bored and give up chasing debts that people are refusing to pay after a few weeks.

There will definitely not be a mark on your credit report unless you loose in court. Otherwise, you are free to dispute any debt and there is no legal way anyone can claim that debt or put a mark on your credit report for it. If you look at your credit report, you will notice that it doesn't list debts specifically, only loans taken, inquries made, missed regular payments etc. Unless there is a decision in court, it will not list money owed.

So why don't you prove us otherwise, oh and by the way you will need provide written documentary proof to the contrary, not hot air, actually stop paying your bill to whoever your ISP is and tell them all the above and see how far it actually gets you.

I did just that a few months ago. VM were charging me too much so I cancelled the direct debit. I had already called and written to them a few times and got fed up wasting my time, so I just cancelled it and waited for them to contact me. Eventually they did and we sorted things out. I had been with them for over a year anyway, but I did check and there is no mark against my credit record or anything like that. The bailiffs didn't smash my door down either.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Actually, the fact that they changed them probably works against them. Unless they notified you in writing, which they didn't, they can't just randomly change the contract and expect you to be bound by it.

Actually when Virgin changed the T&Cs, they sent them in the post to all ntl and telewest customers as part of the 'Welcome to Virgin Media' packs. So customers were informed in writing

Also, the contract says that the T&Cs can change any time they like, but legal president says that if they did do that then the contract could be cancelled immediately by you.

Yes, the contract can be cancelled. Which is already built into the Virgin Terms anyway, so nothing special there. It is the same clause that allows the contract to be cancelled if the prices change

You have to remember that contract law says there are certain things you can't sign away, including the right to cancel a contract if any part of it changes. Since the contract says that you agree to the T&Cs, if they change what you agreed to change and sure enough courts have always ruled that you can then cancel the contract.

Again, agree completely.

Consider the alternative: Contact says you are bound by the T&Cs for one year, VM change the T&Cs to say you are only allowed to download 1 byte per day and hay too bad you agreed to it and are locked in.

For the 3rd time, the Virgin terms allow you cancel your contract if things change

Yes, it does. I think there is additional regulation for ADSL providers anyway, but most seem to offer 1 month minimum contracts.

Be Broadband is a 3 month contract, both Sky and BT run 12 month contracts, and TalkTalk are currently on 18 month contracts

You agree to the T&Cs when you sign up. A signature is not necessary for agreement but is the preffered method. You can agree when signing up online without one, for example.

Then how can you prove in court that you didn't see or agree to the terms and conditions was my point.

Poppers argument was that a company would have to show a signed written document to do that to prove that you agreed.

It is either one or the other.

However, if they change the contract in any way then it would have to be agreed with you again, and you would have the option to back out regardless of previously agreed minimum contract lengths.

I agree for the 4th time. As does Virgin

There will definitely not be a mark on your credit report unless you loose in court. Otherwise, you are free to dispute any debt and there is no legal way anyone can claim that debt or put a mark on your credit report for it. If you look at your credit report, you will notice that it doesn't list debts specifically, only loans taken, inquries made, missed regular payments etc. Unless there is a decision in court, it will not list money owed.

But even the the fact you have missed payments etc don't help

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:50 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

the Credit Reference Agences DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO STORE YOUR PERSONAL DATA IN LAW other than court ORDERED rulings,WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT END OF STORY.

Not the end of the story, as it seems they DO have a legal right

This is from the Information Comissioners Office

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...%20sharing.pdf

Part of which says the following:

The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.

It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

and it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule

The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

and a bit further on

As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

[popper]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:50 ----------


Not the end of the story, as it seems they DO have a legal right

This is from the Information Comissioners Office

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...%20sharing.pdf

Part of which says the following:

The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.

It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

and it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule

The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

and a bit further on

As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

"Not the end of the story"

LOL, now that totally depends how much time you look and realise that above ICO underlings reply came about Directly from the surlyBonds bank charges/CRA posts, and peoples formal papers to the ICO to make best efforts to then go directly to and use in court, so they were quite happy with that wrong view and note, as it allows them to go directly to court and show best effort to resolve the points.

i assume everyone knows and is aware that the ICO dont make the law,and so can only give a "view", just as the home office gave a "view" and got the "view" wrong many times.

only the courts can rule on the law, and they have slapped the ICO and HO several times for getting it wrong and giving bad advice and bad views to the public as official bodys of the govt.

you got to love it, the way that underling wormed that cover note, without once refering to the legal passages that matter in the DPA in this case , and how its a view of this lower first line ICO person in the ICO not a law , yes the ICO also have bad customer care DPA agents, he should have perhaps passed it up the line to someone higher to get a far better non commital announcement.

the key words clearly state
"This note sets out the Information Commissioner’s view on the matter."

"It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account
data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years
beyond."

i like this bit best he makes it out as though they rather than he that didnt put in the research and time to get the answers "argument" and "assumption" and "this is not the case" LOL
"

"The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case."

heres a direct quote from the Experion Executive legal person to surlyBonds legal papers from that link above, you can find it in several places infact if you look..

Experion said "“As far as Experian are aware there is no specific legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled.

It was agreed throughout the credit industry alone, that the six years is considered as a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle.

This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held”

you said it yourself "it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule "
and even Experion had to finally confirm it after legal threats and papers, there is NO LAW.,
"end of story" as somone said somewere

the unsigned ICO view above that consent is NOT required is clearly wrong.

"industry practice" does NOT a law make

---------- Post added at 07:26 ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 ----------

the SurlyBonds footer:
"The legal bit: My views based on a post-grad law degree and an uncle who's a QC. But, I accept no liability for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any of my advice - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured solicitor.
Last edited by SurlyBonds; 24-04-2007 at 09:23 PM."

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by popper

Experion said "“As far as Experian are aware there is no specific legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled.

It was agreed throughout the credit industry alone, that the six years is considered as a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle.

This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held�

you said it yourself "it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule "
and even Experion had to finally confirm it after legal threats and papers, there is NO LAW.,
"end of story" as somone said somewere

So the case where they filed the legal papers went to court and was found agains Experion then? Because if it wasn't then it is again a VIEW and not a legal ruling

And just because there isn't legislation, doesn't meant to say it is illegal. We used to do fine in the world before the idea that everything needs a law

[Stuart]

Back on topic please.

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Actually when Virgin changed the T&Cs, they sent them in the post to all ntl and telewest customers as part of the 'Welcome to Virgin Media' packs. So customers were informed in writing

I never received anything. If I had, I could have chosen not to agree to it and had my account terminated there and then, despite any minimum contract periods.

For the 3rd time, the Virgin terms allow you cancel your contract if things change

No, the law allows it.

Be Broadband is a 3 month contract, both Sky and BT run 12 month contracts, and TalkTalk are currently on 18 month contracts

Zen, Demon, Tiscali and just about every other ADSL provider who is not BT is 1 month.

Then how can you prove in court that you didn't see or agree to the terms and conditions was my point.

How can they prove that you did? The "EULA" is usually just a text file. Edit it and print it off, the click "I agree". I remember one company tried to claim that their EULA was copyright so you couldn't change it, but of course the court threw that out as non-negotiable contracts are not legally enforceable.

But even the the fact you have missed payments etc don't help

Sorry, should have been more clear, they only list missed loan repayments. Missed payments for services like BB or TV are not listed. In fact, it doesn't even mention that you have a subscription.

A credit report only covers loans (including credit cards), legal judgements and some personal data such as time in your current job and at your current address.

[BenMcr]

I'm not at all sure what the point is that you are trying to make? No one has disputed the ability to break a contract if the terms/price change.

As for minimum contract periods, they will vary between companies. That is one of things you look at when you take out services

And as has been said, this gone very off topic