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

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I am not asking you or anyone to accept it, i put it up to give people something to think about, if they think " well there isnt a named source so it cannot be right" thats fine by me.
On the subject of sources, how many times do you or anyone buy a paper and think " well there is no named source so it cannot be true "
If that was the case, there would be a lot of bankrupted newspapers.

Again, I can't speak for anyone else but, when I read a newspaper, the majority of the articles show the journalist who wrote them by name. We either choose to trust them or not.

However, none of us know you. As such, you require us to take a leap of faith whereby we should believe what someone we don't know tells us, that they have also been told by someone else we don't know.

[cr80123]

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.

I did keep on trying to tell you, didn't I Mick? And, as I've also said many times, an unsigned copy of an agreement regulated by that act is not legally enforceable.

Originally Posted by cr80123

I did keep on trying to tell you, didn't I Mick?

Possibly but it paled into insignificance.

ntl don't hire you the equipment. They provide you them for free during your use of the service that you subscribe to. Not HIRE. Subscribe!!!

Subscribe

verb {I or T}


to pay money to an organization in order to receive a product, use a service regularly or support the organization: - She subscribes to several women's magazines.

- I subscribe £10 a month to the charity.

Subscriber

noun {C}


someone who subscribes to a product, service or organization: - Cable television companies have launched major campaigns to increase their number of subscribers.

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Mick

Possibly but it paled into insignificance.

ntl don't hire you the equipment. They provide you them for free during your use of the service that you subscribe to. Not HIRE. Subscribe!!!

Subscribe

verb {I or T}


to pay money to an organization in order to receive a product, use a service regularly or support the organization: - She subscribes to several women's magazines.

- I subscribe £10 a month to the charity.

Subscriber

noun {C}


someone who subscribes to a product, service or organization: - Cable television companies have launched major campaigns to increase their number of subscribers.

Well it's a little difficult to know how to proceed when faced with such overwhelming obtuseness!

Quoting the definition of the word subscribe isn't going to help you I'm afraid. I know what the word means, presumably you do too now.

You subscribe to the service and hire the equipment for crying out loud! The fact that it's not listed separately on the bill is neither here nor there - they're lending you a piece of equipment, they want back. Why in the hell do you think ntl would say that it's a hire agreement regulated by the consumer credit act when they weren't actually hiring you anything? Honestly, this is getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted by cr80123

Well it's a little difficult to know how to proceed when faced with such overwhelming obtuseness!

I fully understand the situation. Got a degree in consumer law? Or are you getting so precious over this issue off the whim of what a soliticitor has apparently told you?

Originally Posted by cr80123

You subscribe to the service and hire the equipment for crying out loud! The fact that it's not listed separately on the bill is neither here nor there

The fact is that it is listed on the bills and reads £0.00!!! I am sure homealone has pointed this fact out to you already in this thread.

[Nugget]

Have we recieved any categoric proof that that's what ntl said yet, or are we still expected to take somebodys word for it?

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by Mick

I fully understand the situation. Got a degree in consumer law? Or are you getting so precious over this issue off the whim of what a soliticitor has apparently told you?



The fact is that it is listed on the bills and reads £0.00!!! I am sure homealone has pointed this fact out to you already in this thread.

Erm well, I don't think you need a degree in consumer law to see that ntl themselves admit their contract is based on the Consumer Credit Act, and then to go and look up the said act. I assure you anyone of reasonable intelligence could do that!

[ian@huth]

I have dug out an even earlier copy of my agreement with NTL . This again says that it is a Hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. What part of "HIRE AGREEMENT" are people failing to recognise?

A couple of paragraphs from this are:

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers the Agreement and lays down certain requirements for your protection which must be satisfied when the Agreement is made. If they are not the owner cannot enforce the Agreement against you without a court order.

and

You have a right to cancel this Agreement. You can do so by sending a WRITTEN notice of cancellation to the ntl office as shown above. You have FIVE DAYS starting from the day after you received this copy.

These quotes are from the Agreement with a printing reference of NTLNS043 in the bottom right hand margin.

From my understanding of the Act the facts quoted in the original post are a correct interpretation of it.

[cr80123]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I have dug out an even earlier copy of my agreement with NTL . This again says that it is a Hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. What part of "HIRE AGREEMENT" are people failing to recognise?

A couple of paragraphs from this are:

and
These quotes are from the Agreement with a printing reference of NTLNS043 in the bottom right hand margin.

From my understanding of the Act the facts quoted in the original post are a correct interpretation of it.

At last, a voice of sanity!

Let me put two questions to you Mick:

1) Do you now accept that ntl's agreements are hire agreements and thus subject to the Consumer Credit Act?

2) If so, do you know the status of unsigned agreements within this act? (I'll give you a clue, I've already posted the answer before somewhere in this thread!)

Originally Posted by cr80123

At last, a voice of sanity!

Let me put two questions to you Mick:

1) Do you now accept that ntl's agreements are hire agreements and thus subject to the Consumer Credit Act?

I need to see something that is legitimate and uptodate and not base my judgement on the whim of a solicitor or what someone posted claiming to be something internal from ntl (from when?) and what I do dispute is that the equipment is not hired out.

Originally Posted by cr80123

2) If so, do you know the status of unsigned agreements within this act? (I'll give you a clue, I've already posted the answer before somewhere in this thread!)

See above.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Nugget

How can you define something 15 months old as recent? In a business sense, that's practically obsolete.

Technology wise yes, if it were issued by a legal team it is likely to be pretty current, law is an evolving not revolving matter.

[Chrysalis]

Come on guys it doesnt take much intelligence to work out the legalities of this.

If NTL provide equipment it is not subscribing, when you subscribe to something the company does not get it back. It is gone. Subscribing you have it once, examples subscribing to magazines and tv channels. You dont return the magazines at end of subscription and you cannot return watched programs either.

The equipment is defined as 'loaning'
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loaning
"loaning - disposing of money or property with the expectation that the same thing (or an equivalent) will be returned"

I expect that NTL used to charge for modem rental etc. and they do indeed charge for things like 2nd boxes but by making it free they had a way to not use the word hiring, but I think you are still effectively hiring the equipment but its cleverly buffered in the price.

The document ian showed has no argument against it, if it clearly says hire agreement then thats what it is. I will try to dig out my contract which is from august 2003.

[Bob]

And when I got digital TV we never actually got a contract from NTL. The CS department at the time said it was too confusing for people to understand so they wouldn't be sending one (dunno how true that was). Mind you that was five years ago and TBH I never really thought about it again... until now

[Gareth]

Yep, same here... I didn't get one from NTL (although I didn't think anything of it at the time either) but I have had one from BT when I switched back to them earlier this year, and I recently found an old one I had from BT before I went to live in France.

Not that it's an issue for me, as I'm well past the minimum period, but I find the info useful nonetheless.