Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyB
When anyone signs up to VM (and many many other services) you agree to a minimum contract length.
It's not VMs fault if you decide to move during that contract to an area that VM do not service.
They are not penalise the customers for moving, it's for ending the contract early.
So you then want out of the contract early, so is it not right that VM charge you for ending that contract early?
Isn't that normal practice for many things if you want to end the contract early?
If you're not sure if you will be able to complete the minimum contract terms, and you're not happy with the early termination fees, then I would suggest that you don't take the offer.
|
But often, especially for those in private rented accommodation, it's not a case of 'deciding' to move. They have no choice & often don't know when they have to leave.
I get what you're saying about contracts, but if a customer is willing to stay with VM, it's not their fault that VM failed to cable up their new home. They used to be able to offer Off Net services in cases like this, but they sold that division off and that's not the customers fault either.
People basically have four choices:
1) Take out a VM contract & hope for the best (because this is cheaper).
2) Take out a rolling 30 day VM contract (but this is more expensive).
3) Do what some do and just don't pay any outstanding bill, let alone any early early termination fees (but you run the risk of being traced by the debt collection agencies that VM will pass the debt to. This would probably affect your credit rating for a couple of years too, which could be problematic for some).
4) Forget VM and go with a supplier who can provide a service at the majority of UK addresses. If speed is important, there are now more & more companies able to offer higher speeds than in the past.
---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
The alternative type of contract would be to pay a high cost, up front. Are people prepared to do that, or would they prefer the costs that VM incur, be spread over the course of the contract?
|
Minimum contracts were originally introduced to make it worthwhile for a company to install/supply equipment etc.
These days, VM will charge the maximum that they can (regardless of the actual costs to themselves) get away with, either in general or to individual customers.
New customers obtain good deals to hook them in, so VM are likely to make less on these contracts over the course of it's duration.
A lot of contracts are now in force since VM started requiring this in return for offering discounted retention deals, these are contracts where most of the costs that VM incur eg installation, the cost of the equipment supplied etc have already been factored in and recovered.