Unhelpful ODCA response re eircom terms/conditions

daymobrew

Last week I wrote to the Office of the Directory of Consumer Affairs about the termination terms for eircom's anytime internet dial-up package (Clause 9.3 in http://home.eircom.net/products/flatrate/terms).

They responded quickly but they feel

that the matter of charging the final billing period at a different rate does not come within the of the EC (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 and 2000.

The main reason for this view is because

what is at issue in this situation is a termination clause which is clearly outlined in the eircom net terms and conditions which all consumers agree to before signing up to the service.

Nor do they feel that there is

any evidence of misleading advertising because the termination clause is clearly outlined in the eircom net terms and conditions.

The letter pointed out that eircom recently removed the 30 day notice requirement because the ODCA pointed out that it contradicted the advertised "no minimum contract" (I believe this point was reported on this forum a few weeks ago).

And finally

Although it is not a matter that this office can enforce we would like to have higher visibility for Clause 9.3 for consumers and in this regard we have advices ComReg, that they may be able to achieve this under Clause 3.2.4 of the ComReg Code for Tariff Presentation (D11/04) which reads as follows: "In presenting tariffs with the caveat that terms and conditions apply, the presentation should also reference the location where end-users can acquire the full set of information relevant to the tariff"

I don't believe this ComReg clause will make eircom really highlight the outragous clause in their T&C.

I had hoped that the ODCA would reply telling me that I was right (that the clause it ridiculous) and that they would beat eircom net up about it and refund all the victims of the clause. But then I woke up to reality. I can't (really) blame the ODCA but it is such an evil clause. I think I'll write to the Minister for Communications next.

tomk

It may be an "evil clause", but if you object to it so much, why did you agree to it in the first place?

ZENER

I read your thread a while back about this and while I sympathise with you I can't help agreeing with tomk and some of the point the commission made.

You agreed to these T&C's by signing the contract and now because it doesn't suit you you moan about it. Perhaps Eircom could have made it more obvious at the time but then you could say it was some other term you disagreed with and the IT should be made more obvious and so on and so on.

Just accept that you fcuked up and move on a little wiser for your troubles.

ZEN

daymobrew

I was writing on behalf of others hit with large bills because of this clause.
tomk and ZENER: Thanks for the quick critical reactions

When I wated to cancel my eircom net anytime subscription I read the T&C to see how I was supposed to do it without breaching the T&C. I wrote to eircom 30 days in advance of the end of my billing period asking that my account be cancelled at the start of the next billing cycle. I followed up with an email.
They cancelled the account when they received the letter and I got a bill of 130 euro. As I had proof that they ignored a portion of my request I was easily able to get refunded the amount.
Others have gone to Small Claims Court (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=187362) and won. Why would eircom settle if the clause was fair?

How many people read all the T&C of online services (or software you are about to install) before continuing? If you *need* something you'll probably just accept it.
I've read my ntl broadband T&C (found a nice get-out clause), my job contract and my mortgage contract. A lot of them are not written in clear language but in legal-ese.