18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors

Hi all,

I wonder if anyone can give me some advice or pointers on the following.

A friend of mine is in the process of trying to end her 3G mobile phone contract as money is a bit
tight and she cannot afford the monthly payments.

She wrote to 3 and told them that she wished to cancel and they have written back to her and told
her that she is in an 18 month contract which does not end until September, and that if she wants to
cancel now she will have to give them £313. This was originally stated as the remaining line rental,
although they are now calling this a 'cancellation fee.'

On top of this she has been late paying her bill for this month due to money being tight.

3 are now saying that her account is being transferred to a debt collection agency (even though she
assured them that her bill would be paid when she gets paid in 2 weeks time) and 3 are saying that
the debt collection agency will add further costs possibly bringing the total she owes up to £700 -
£900.

My questions are:

Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to get out of it is immoral,
punitive and unfair. Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has been challenged in court?

Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with whichever debt collection
agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own fees on top of the original
debt, and are these enforceable in court?

Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length of this post.


Regards,


Chris

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Get her to call three and say she wants the contact details of the
telephone regulator to lodge a complaint with them. They might get
scared at that point, but probably not. She will then have to write to
the regulator stating her case etc. A few weeks later they will get a
letter from the regulator and at that point will probably drop it.

I had a phone stolen from Vodafone and someone wracked up a £700 bill
overnight calling India despite my having a £100 a month call limit. I
refused to pay and after a few letters from them and a few letter from
me it they left it. I never got around to writing to the regulator and
they never got around to fixing a court date.

I am fairly sure that they will actually have to get a judgment in
court against her to send in the collectors. It's not like parking
offences where you are automatically guilty and it can quickly result
in your car being towed away from your house and sold at auction. Read
the letters very carefully, don't panic into paying the claimed
escalating bill - it's all bluster designed to make one cave in.

In message <1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Chris Morrison
<hidden@nospam.priv> writes

>My questions are:
>
>Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+
>to get out of it is immoral,
>punitive and unfair.

Not really, she agreed the terms and didn't have to choose to sign up to
a 18 month contract. The fee that they are asking for sounds like the
remainder of the term so she is not being let off of anything they are
just asking for the payment she agreed to so there is no point in
cancelling.

>Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
>Regulations
>1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this
>has been challenged in court?

I doubt she would get anywhere on unfair terms, she might possibly get
somewhere on compassionate grounds but they have probably seen plenty of
people who take long deals and then decide to cut and run early because
they have seen something else.
>
>Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with
>whichever debt collection
>agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own
>fees on top of the original
>debt, and are these enforceable in court?
>
The Debt Collection Agencies will always want to add fees, not the types
one would want to be involved with and best avoided if at all possible.

>Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the
>length of this post.
>
The obvious one is don't enter into contracts that you are not willing
or unable to fulfil. I would suggest that she appeals to their better
nature and hopes that they take compassion but whilst it might seem
harsh I doubt she will get anywhere with threats as they will view it as
her being in breach of contract.
--
Paul Harris

Id suggest her talk to a solicitor and get a IVA, then ask 3 to take her to court. In court you will just say I can only
afford
£1 a month, and judge will say ok, and thats it.
DCA's, just ignore them, they try various methods to scare you but they cant do a damn thing without a court order.
(Which they never get)
They are NOT bailiffs!

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:dUjuvwX3jd2FFwtx@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Chris Morrison <hidden@nospam.priv> writes
>
>>My questions are:
>>
>>Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to get out of it is immoral,
>>punitive and unfair.
>
> Not really, she agreed the terms and didn't have to choose to sign up to a 18 month contract. The fee that they are
> asking for sounds like the remainder of the term so she is not being let off of anything they are just asking for the
> payment she agreed to so there is no point in cancelling.
>
>>Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
>>1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has been challenged in court?
>
> I doubt she would get anywhere on unfair terms, she might possibly get somewhere on compassionate grounds but they
> have probably seen plenty of people who take long deals and then decide to cut and run early because they have seen
> something else.
>>
>>Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with whichever debt collection
>>agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own fees on top of the original
>>debt, and are these enforceable in court?
>>
> The Debt Collection Agencies will always want to add fees, not the types one would want to be involved with and best
> avoided if at all possible.
>
>>Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length of this post.
>>
> The obvious one is don't enter into contracts that you are not willing or unable to fulfil. I would suggest that she
> appeals to their better nature and hopes that they take compassion but whilst it might seem harsh I doubt she will get
> anywhere with threats as they will view it as her being in breach of contract.
> --
> Paul Harris

basically no judge is going to ask you to pay more than you can afford to pay.

You can't get an IVA until you owe >£15K IIRC.

"nick" <no@reply.thx> wrote in message
news:45d9eaba$0$8753$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Id suggest her talk to a solicitor and get a IVA, then ask 3 to take her
> to court. In court you will just say I can only afford
> £1 a month, and judge will say ok, and thats it.
> DCA's, just ignore them, they try various methods to scare you but they
> cant do a damn thing without a court order. (Which they never get)
> They are NOT bailiffs!
>
> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:dUjuvwX3jd2FFwtx@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>> In message <1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Chris Morrison
>> <hidden@nospam.priv> writes
>>
>>>My questions are:
>>>
>>>Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
>>>get out of it is immoral,
>>>punitive and unfair.

Well not if you sign it. Gosh some agreements (like mortgages) tie both
sides for up to 25 years, and when my mum died :-( Liverpool Victoria paid
out on a policy taken out by her mum when she was a little girl ~75years ago
and hadn't had a premium paid for over 50 years.

"Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder if anyone can give me some advice or pointers on the following.
>
> A friend of mine is in the process of trying to end her 3G mobile phone
> contract as money is a bit
> tight and she cannot afford the monthly payments.
>

Should have looked at her budget before agreeing to a contract.

> She wrote to 3 and told them that she wished to cancel and they have
> written back to her and told
> her that she is in an 18 month contract which does not end until
> September, and that if she wants >to
> cancel now she will have to give them £313. This was originally stated as
> the remaining line rental,
> although they are now calling this a 'cancellation fee.'
>

That's right, she is being charged a fee for cancelling the contract she
has, so it is a cancellation fee. Trying to be clever will not get your
friend (you) anywhere.

> On top of this she has been late paying her bill for this month due to
> money being tight.
>

Well she deserves everything she gets, we only have your word for it. Some
people enter in to agreements with no intention of paying, or try to get
away with a discount.

> 3 are now saying that her account is being transferred to a debt
> collection agency (even though she
> assured them that her bill would be paid when she gets paid in 2 weeks
> time) and 3 are saying that
> the debt collection agency will add further costs possibly bringing the
> total she owes up to £700 -
> £900.
>

They can't trust her - would you trust a late payer to pay within a
specified time going by past non payment of bills?

> My questions are:
>
> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
> get out of it is immoral,
> punitive and unfair.

Not really, would you like to run a company and have people refusing to pay
the bills? She (you) agreed to the contract and fully understood how much
it would cost. If she lives on such a low income that a phone bill would
mean putting her in debt then it was a stupid decision in the first place
not to go with a PAYG.


>Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
>Regulations
> 1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has
> been challenged in >court?
>

No, you can't get away with having a service and refusing to pay for it. It
doesn't matter what excuse is used, companies hear them all the time.

> Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with
> whichever debt collection
> agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own
> fees on top of the original
> debt, and are these enforceable in court?
>

The debt collection agency can add a reaonable fee. They can also add
further costs, including when the bailiffs call to take her property at a
later stage as I think she will probably still refuse to pay.

> Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length
> of this post.
>
>

Tell your friend not to enter in to contracts if the payments can't be met.
At least now that will not happen again due to a poor credit rating. Other
advice is be more responsible and think first.
Pay the bill and get a PAYG on a cheaper network. Learn from mistakes.

<william.hooper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171897825.990201.95440@q2g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
Get her to call three and say she wants the contact details of the
telephone regulator to lodge a complaint with them.

What about - how can he complain about herself for refusing to pay a bill ?

They might get
scared at that point, but probably not.

Yes, silly idea that one!

She will then have to write to
the regulator stating her case etc. A few weeks later they will get a
letter from the regulator and at that point will probably drop it.

They will definitely drop her letter in the bin. A regulator will not even
interfere in a case were a person has refused to pay and wants to end a
contract early without penalty.

I had a phone stolen from Vodafone and someone wracked up a £700 bill
overnight calling India despite my having a £100 a month call limit. I
refused to pay and after a few letters from them and a few letter from
me it they left it. I never got around to writing to the regulator and
they never got around to fixing a court date.

That is nothing to do with this, in your case the phone was stolen.

I am fairly sure that they will actually have to get a judgment in
court against her to send in the collectors. It's not like parking
offences where you are automatically guilty and it can quickly result
in your car being towed away from your house and sold at auction. Read
the letters very carefully, don't panic into paying the claimed
escalating bill - it's all bluster designed to make one cave in.


And so people should, there are far too many people putting companies out of
business by refusing to pay bills. Often they take out a contract and a
friend says "you could have got that cheaper" - so they try everything to
get out of a contract. You obviously have no idea of legal procedures and
you keep trying to make comparisons that do not really relate to the
original message.

I hope the person is made to pay in full.

Unfortunately you have completely misunderstood the situation, albeit due to some significant
details being left out by myself.

First, there is no question of her refusing to pay, she has written to 3 (I prepared the letter) and
stated that she is more than happy to pay for the services that she has actually received and used,
she has also stated that she will pay for the handset provided under the contract. although we know
that it was fully paid for during the first six months of the contract.

*She is NOT refusing to pay her bill or for the services she has used, I don't know how that
conclusion was reached.*

Dev wrote:
> "Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
> news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wonder if anyone can give me some advice or pointers on the following.
>>
>> A friend of mine is in the process of trying to end her 3G mobile phone
>> contract as money is a bit
>> tight and she cannot afford the monthly payments.
>>
>
> Should have looked at her budget before agreeing to a contract.
>

This was over a year ago, people's circumstances change.

>> She wrote to 3 and told them that she wished to cancel and they have
>> written back to her and told
>> her that she is in an 18 month contract which does not end until
>> September, and that if she wants >to
>> cancel now she will have to give them £313. This was originally stated as
>> the remaining line rental,
>> although they are now calling this a 'cancellation fee.'
>>
>
> That's right, she is being charged a fee for cancelling the contract she
> has, so it is a cancellation fee. Trying to be clever will not get your
> friend (you) anywhere.
>
>> On top of this she has been late paying her bill for this month due to
>> money being tight.
>>
>
> Well she deserves everything she gets, we only have your word for it. Some
> people enter in to agreements with no intention of paying, or try to get
> away with a discount.
>

I have got nothing to gain by posting untruths. How can I get reliable advice if I do not post the
facts?

>> 3 are now saying that her account is being transferred to a debt
>> collection agency (even though she
>> assured them that her bill would be paid when she gets paid in 2 weeks
>> time) and 3 are saying that
>> the debt collection agency will add further costs possibly bringing the
>> total she owes up to £700 -
>> £900.
>>
>
> They can't trust her - would you trust a late payer to pay within a
> specified time going by past non payment of bills?

As stated above where did the idea come from that she has history of non-payment of bills. All her
past bills have been paid on time. You might like to read the post more thoroughly in future.

>
>> My questions are:
>>
>> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
>> get out of it is immoral,
>> punitive and unfair.
>
> Not really, would you like to run a company and have people refusing to pay
> the bills? She (you) agreed to the contract and fully understood how much
> it would cost. If she lives on such a low income that a phone bill would
> mean putting her in debt then it was a stupid decision in the first place
> not to go with a PAYG.
>

Again, where did this idea come from that she is refusing to pay her bill or ever has done. Are you
one of these people that believe that if you keep repeating a lie over and over again then it will
take on the appearance of the truth and people will believe it?

>
>> Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
>> Regulations
>> 1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has
>> been challenged in >court?
>>
>
> No, you can't get away with having a service and refusing to pay for it. It
> doesn't matter what excuse is used, companies hear them all the time.
>

See above.

>> Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with
>> whichever debt collection
>> agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own
>> fees on top of the original
>> debt, and are these enforceable in court?
>>
>
> The debt collection agency can add a reaonable fee.

Says who? Please state the sections of the Acts or Parliament, detailed on the Statute Book of this
land that provide for that.

They can also add
> further costs, including when the bailiffs call to take her property at a
> later stage as I think she will probably still refuse to pay.
>

That line again!

>> Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length
>> of this post.
>>
>>
>
> Tell your friend not to enter in to contracts if the payments can't be met.
> At least now that will not happen again due to a poor credit rating. Other
> advice is be more responsible and think first.
> Pay the bill and get a PAYG on a cheaper network. Learn from mistakes.
>

My friend, who is understandably concerned as she has never had to deal with anything like this
before, does not want something for nothing, she is not refusing to pay for what she has used and
she has been a 3 customer for just over a year, so they have made more than enough profit from her.

She just wants to bring the contract to and end and pay for what she has used, no-more, no-less. I
cannot see anything unreasonable in that.

Thank you to those who replied with useful advise.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
news:1171940622_9029@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Unfortunately you have completely misunderstood the situation,
> albeit due to some significant
> details being left out by myself.
>
> First, there is no question of her refusing to pay, she has written
> to 3 (I prepared the letter) and
> stated that she is more than happy to pay for the services that she
> has actually received and used,
> she has also stated that she will pay for the handset provided under
> the contract. although we know
> that it was fully paid for during the first six months of the
> contract.
>
> *She is NOT refusing to pay her bill or for the services she has
> used, I don't know how that
> conclusion was reached.*
>

Seems like she is refusing to pay though...
On signing up she comitted to a minimum term of 18 months. With that
in mind, 3 has every right to expect her to pay the line rental for
the full 18 months, or a suitable cancellation fee, which will likely
add up to the same thing.
One option to save money would be to drop down to a lower tariff (if
there is one), but i'm not sure on 3's position on tariff downgrades,
I know they've started charging customers to downgrade, but don't know
of its all customers or just those signing up after a certain date.

If your friend is having financial problems, I'd suggest she make up a
list of all her current debtors, including what they are owed now or
over the next year or so (in 3's case). Then go visit a financial
advisor and determine the best course of action....
Not knowing her financial standings, and if she owes lots of money,
I'd suggest (Assuming she has a good credit rating) a personal loan
(with payment protection), so as to reduce monthly repayments...
obviously factoring in 3's cancellation fee into the loan amount so it
can be terminated now rather than hanging on to it for the minimum
term.

"Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
news:1171940622_9029@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Unfortunately you have completely misunderstood the situation, albeit due
> to some significant
> details being left out by myself.
>
> First, there is no question of her refusing to pay, she has written to 3
> (I prepared the letter) and
> stated that she is more than happy to pay for the services that she has
> actually received and used,

So she already owes them money for previous months line rental?

> she has also stated that she will pay for the handset provided under the
> contract. although we know
> that it was fully paid for during the first six months of the contract.

Pay for the phone? It's hers anyway, all 3 want is what they are owed under
the contract and that is the remainder of the 18 months line rental.

> *She is NOT refusing to pay her bill or for the services she has used, I
> don't know how that
> conclusion was reached.*

So she already owes them money and is now refusing to pay for future line
rental? No wonder three have passed it to debt collectors.

>> The debt collection agency can add a reaonable fee.
>
> Says who? Please state the sections of the Acts or Parliament, detailed on
> the Statute Book of this
> land that provide for that.

A good source of information on what you can expect from debt collectors is
the Office of Fair Trading guidelines on the matter.

> My friend, who is understandably concerned as she has never had to deal
> with anything like this
> before, does not want something for nothing, she is not refusing to pay
> for what she has used and
> she has been a 3 customer for just over a year, so they have made more
> than enough profit from her.

But she is refusing to honour the contract she agreed to and wants to get
out of it without any penalty. Obviously three disagree with you and see
some more profit to be had by quite rightly expecting a customer to honour
the full term of their contract.

> She just wants to bring the contract to and end and pay for what she has
> used, no-more, no-less. I
> cannot see anything unreasonable in that.

You may not see anything unreasonable but obviously three do. She signed a
contract and three quite reasonably expect her to honour it. If she wants
out early then she'll have to buy herself out, nothing wrong with that.

You and she need to accept that she will have to pay off the remainder of
the contract.

"Jack Torrence" <room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45daa99f$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
>
> But she is refusing to honour the contract she agreed to and wants to get
> out of it without any penalty. Obviously three disagree with you and see
> some more profit to be had by quite rightly expecting a customer to honour
> the full term of their contract.
>

I think this is the key point. You only owe money for services you have
recieved.

A breaking of a contract is merely that. Whether money has to be paid as
compensation for this breaking isn't for the parties involved to decide,
since that's probably defined in the contract too.

Shak

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:41:25 +0000, Chris Morrison
<hidden@nospam.priv> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I wonder if anyone can give me some advice or pointers on the following.
>
>A friend of mine is in the process of trying to end her 3G mobile phone contract as money is a bit
>tight and she cannot afford the monthly payments.
>
>She wrote to 3 and told them that she wished to cancel and they have written back to her and told
>her that she is in an 18 month contract which does not end until September, and that if she wants to
>cancel now she will have to give them £313. This was originally stated as the remaining line rental,
>although they are now calling this a 'cancellation fee.'
>
>On top of this she has been late paying her bill for this month due to money being tight.
>
>3 are now saying that her account is being transferred to a debt collection agency (even though she
>assured them that her bill would be paid when she gets paid in 2 weeks time) and 3 are saying that
>the debt collection agency will add further costs possibly bringing the total she owes up to £700 -
>£900.
>
>My questions are:
>
>Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to get out of it is immoral,
>punitive and unfair. Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
>1999 or some such. Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has been challenged in court?

I was locked into a 25 year contract and if I had at any time decided
that I wanted out of it i would have had to have repaid my mortgage -
if i hadn't then my bank would have pursued me through the courts.
Being tied into an 18 month contract and then being chased for the
outstanding debt certainly isn't immoral - did your friend enter the
contract of her own free will? Or did 3 force her to sign up?
>
>Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with whichever debt collection
>agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own fees on top of the original
>debt, and are these enforceable in court?

A contract exists between your friend and 3, likewise a contract
exists between 3 and the debt collection agency (or more likely 3 have
sold the debt of £313 on - there is no contract between your friend
and the debt agency
>
>Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length of this post.

Suggest your friend contacts 3 and offers to pay down the debt at an
amount to be agreed per month, also ask 3 if she may downgrade to a
cheaper contract.

The main thing is for your friend not to hide her head in the sand,
but to communicate with 3, explain hr problem and try and get it
sorted

Good luck
--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:02:18 +0000, Chris Morrison
<hidden@nospam.priv> wrote:

>Unfortunately you have completely misunderstood the situation, albeit due to some significant
>details being left out by myself.
>
>First, there is no question of her refusing to pay, she has written to 3 (I prepared the letter) and
>stated that she is more than happy to pay for the services that she has actually received and used,
>she has also stated that she will pay for the handset provided under the contract. although we know
>that it was fully paid for during the first six months of the contract.
>
>*She is NOT refusing to pay her bill or for the services she has used, I don't know how that
>conclusion was reached.*

What did the contract she signed require her to pay? It would have
stated that she was to pay £x per month for 18 months. Whether or not
the phone was paid for after 6 months is immaterial.

It's not a question of refusing to pay for services recieved - it's a
question of meeting all of the terms of the contract she signed
--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply

hidden@nospam.priv declared for all the world to hear...
> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to get out of it is immoral,
> punitive and unfair.

No it isn't. Your friend knew what he/she was getting into and had 14
days to cancel if not happy.

> Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with whichever debt collection
> agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own fees on top of the original
> debt, and are these enforceable in court?

I think if your friend paid up in a reasonable time there would be no
fees.

> Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the length of this post.

Your friend needs to find £313. In reality there's no point cancelling
early as your friend will still end up paying £313 in line rental and
will actually be able to use the service. If you cancel early you still
pay all the line rental but with no benefit!
--
Regards
Jon

hidden@nospam.priv declared for all the world to hear...
> she has also stated that she will pay for the handset provided under the contract. although we know
> that it was fully paid for during the first six months of the contract.

Withh all due respect, you do not know.

In most phone contracts the Device is entirely separate from the Airtime
and is not relevant.
--
Regards
Jon

"Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
> get out of it is immoral,
> punitive and unfair.

Why? You you understand what 'contract' actually means?

> Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
> Regulations
> 1999 or some such.

Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an amount
every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service, they've kept
their end of the bargain so why should she not be required to keep hers?

> Does any know of any cases or precedents where this has been challenged in
> court?

Not in this case because the contract is entirely fair.

> Since she is a 3 customer and has not entered into any contract with
> whichever debt collection
> agency they choose to use, how do they have the right to add their own
> fees on top of the original
> debt, and are these enforceable in court?

They have every right. She should have reached an agreement with 3 before it
got this far. Unfortunately they hear the "I'll pay you in 2 weeks when I
get paid" thing all the time, they don't believe a word of it, basically.

Best thing your friend can do is contact 3 and ask that if she pays the £300
now if they will drop the debt collection.

"Mark Hewitt" <nomail@here.com> wrote in message
news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>
> "Chris Morrison" <hidden@nospam.priv> wrote in message
> news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>
>> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
>> get out of it is immoral,
>> punitive and unfair.
>
> Why? You you understand what 'contract' actually means?
>
>> Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
>> Regulations
>> 1999 or some such.
>
> Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
> amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
> they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be required to
> keep hers?
>

So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
you have?

Shak

In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
writes
>"Mark Hewitt" <nomail@here.com> wrote in message
>news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>>
>> Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
>> amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
>> they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be required to
>> keep hers?
>
>So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
>further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
>you have?
>
They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any money
as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due
to pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
presumably stop paying them the money.

In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide
the contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach
of the contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them
for the money.
--
Paul Harris

"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net...


>> Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
>> amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
>> they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be required
>> to keep hers?
>>
>
> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
> further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
> you have?
>


what kind of phone contract requires you to pay your 18 months in advance? -
none i know of.


--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/

In article <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, me@privacy.net (Shak)
wrote:

> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to
> provide further service, would they then owe you money for any
> remaining contract you have?

Not aware of a cellphone network ever going bust

--
Paul Cummins
*FREE* mobile phone - http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070* - http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life - http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* - http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r

On Feb 21, 2:06 pm, "Shak" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Mark Hewitt" <nom...@here.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chris Morrison" <hid...@nospam.priv> wrote in message
> >news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> >> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
> >> get out of it is immoral,
> >> punitive and unfair.
>
> > Why? You you understand what 'contract' actually means?
>
> >> Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
> >> Regulations
> >> 1999 or some such.
>
> > Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
> > amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
> > they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be requiredto
> > keep hers?
>
> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
> further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
> you have?
>
> Shak- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course not -- unless you'd paid the entire 18 months line rental up
front -- in which (unlikely) case you'd be an unsecured creditor and
you'd join the long list of other unsecured people/companies who
wouldn't get paid... much like if the OP's 'friend' went brankrupt,
Three would be unlikely to get a penny.

All hypothetical of course, since you don't pay for 18 months up-
front, and any telco that was going bust would likely be snapped up by
a competitor for either its customers and/or infrastructure.

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:aHcfbDxPIH3FFwlK@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
> writes
>>"Mark Hewitt" <nomail@here.com> wrote in message
>>news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
>>> amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
>>> they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be required
>>> to
>>> keep hers?
>>
>>So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
>>further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
>>you have?
>>
> They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any money
> as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
> would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due to
> pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
> presumably stop paying them the money.
>
> In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide the
> contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach of the
> contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them for the
> money.

Ok. So a service provider can break a contract, walking away without
penalty, if they're no longer able to provide that service?

If so, I think that it's fair that a customer who can't pay should be able
to do the same, provided they will no longer use the service from that point
onwards as well. The promise to subscribe is only as strong as the promise
to provide a service IMO.

Shak

"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20070221175026.3244A@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
> In article <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, me@privacy.net (Shak)
> wrote:
>
>> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to
>> provide further service, would they then owe you money for any
>> remaining contract you have?
>
> Not aware of a cellphone network ever going bust
>

Although I seem to recall virtual operators going down the pan more than
once (maybe), it was more a hypothetical question to prove the disparity of
these contracts.

Shak

"Usenet User" <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172087688.958128.167750@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
On Feb 21, 2:06 pm, "Shak" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
> further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
> you have?
>

Of course not -- unless you'd paid the entire 18 months line rental up
front -- in which (unlikely) case you'd be an unsecured creditor and
you'd join the long list of other unsecured people/companies who
wouldn't get paid... much like if the OP's 'friend' went brankrupt,
Three would be unlikely to get a penny.

All hypothetical of course, since you don't pay for 18 months up-
front, and any telco that was going bust would likely be snapped up by
a competitor for either its customers and/or infrastructure.

==============

But the provider doesn't warrant that they'll be around in 18 months either.
There's no provision for a "cancellation fee" from them if they're no longer
able to provide the service, right?

Shak

"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:aHcfbDxPIH3FFwlK@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>> In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
>> writes
>>>"Mark Hewitt" <nomail@here.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>>>>
>>>> Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
>>>> amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
>>>> they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be required
>>>> to
>>>> keep hers?
>>>
>>>So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
>>>further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
>>>you have?
>>>
>> They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any money
>> as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
>> would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due to
>> pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
>> presumably stop paying them the money.
>>
>> In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide
>> the contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach
>> of the contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them for
>> the money.
>
> Ok. So a service provider can break a contract, walking away without
> penalty, if they're no longer able to provide that service?
>
> If so, I think that it's fair that a customer who can't pay should be able
> to do the same, provided they will no longer use the service from that
> point onwards as well. The promise to subscribe is only as strong as the
> promise to provide a service IMO.
>

I should add that this presumes aother parts of the contract have been
settled, like the payment of services already used (not sure how that would
work since we usually pay in advance anyway) and covering the cost of any
subsidised phone.

Shak

>>
>> Not aware of a cellphone network ever going bust

RABBIT?


--
Ken Ward, Bolton, UK.

In message <5456kkF1usgbeU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
writes
>"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
>> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:aHcfbDxPIH3FFwlK@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>>> In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
>>> writes

>>>>So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
>>>>further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
>>>>you have?
>>>>
>>> They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any money
>>> as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
>>> would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due to
>>> pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
>>> presumably stop paying them the money.
>>>
>>> In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide
>>> the contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach
>>> of the contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them for
>>> the money.
>>
>> Ok. So a service provider can break a contract, walking away without
>> penalty, if they're no longer able to provide that service?
>>
No they can't, that would only happen if they have been liquidated as a
result of being bankrupt, not just because it is inconvenient. A
contract is a legal document and one should think carefully before
committing ones self and that applies to both sides of the deal.

>> If so, I think that it's fair that a customer who can't pay should be able
>> to do the same, provided they will no longer use the service from that
>> point onwards as well. The promise to subscribe is only as strong as the
>> promise to provide a service IMO.
>>
If the OP's friend goes bankrupt then the service provider would
probably not get paid but if they have not gone bankrupt they still have
to meet the obligations of the contract that they entered into. There
is no point in the providers having different contracts for different
periods if they just let people walk away when it suits them. If you
enter into a 18 month contract you get different terms to those you
would get in a 12 month contract. It appears that you think it is
acceptable to say after X months I can't afford it anymore or have
changed my mind so I wish to just stop paying and cancel now with no
penalty.
>
>I should add that this presumes aother parts of the contract have been
>settled, like the payment of services already used (not sure how that would
>work since we usually pay in advance anyway) and covering the cost of any
>subsidised phone.
>
You don't seem to appreciate that a contract for a service for 12 or 18
months is not negotiable after you have started unless both parties
agree. Say there are two deals, one gives 400 mins. a month and the
other gives 600 mins. Both with the same phone and same service
supplier. The former is for 12 months and the later with the additional
minutes is for 18 months. Should someone be allowed to sign up for the
18 month deal, use 600 mins. a month for twelve months and then say I
wish to stop paying now because I can't afford it and just cancel the
contract. If you think it is acceptable what is to stop the
unscrupulous from signing up to the 18 month contract, getting the
additional benefits and then pulling out after twelve months?
--
Paul Harris

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Al35jl6grX3FFwF+@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <5456kkF1usgbeU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
> writes
>>"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>>> news:aHcfbDxPIH3FFwlK@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>>>> In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
>>>> writes
>
>>>>>So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
>>>>>further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining
>>>>>contract
>>>>>you have?
>>>>>
>>>> They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any
>>>> money
>>>> as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
>>>> would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due
>>>> to
>>>> pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
>>>> presumably stop paying them the money.
>>>>
>>>> In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide
>>>> the contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach
>>>> of the contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them
>>>> for
>>>> the money.
>>>
>>> Ok. So a service provider can break a contract, walking away without
>>> penalty, if they're no longer able to provide that service?
>>>
> No they can't, that would only happen if they have been liquidated as a
> result of being bankrupt, not just because it is inconvenient. A contract
> is a legal document and one should think carefully before committing ones
> self and that applies to both sides of the deal.

Ok, but would you still have a claim of £333 (or whatever) on a bankrupted
service provider? If not, why not?

>>> If so, I think that it's fair that a customer who can't pay should be
>>> able
>>> to do the same, provided they will no longer use the service from that
>>> point onwards