Strange attitude from UPC

Anan1

Along with many of you, I got my letter from UPC yesterday announcing changes to my call charges and telling me that I can cancel within 30 days if I do not agree with these changes. I called up and asked to be taken out of contract, and was told that this was impossible - that I could either stay in contract under the new t&cs or cancel. I then spoke to someone in customer loyalty who told me that I could not cancel, as the letter was 'a bulk mailing' and 'the changes did not affect me'. Called back later, to be told by someone else in customer service that I was indeed affected, but only if I wanted to be, as I 'could choose what calls to make', and that I therefore was not entitled to cancel. I finally got someone with a brain in customer loyalty, however his hands are tied by UPCs policy that people can only be released from contract when they leave. Is it not bizarre that a customer would start off wanting a simple note put on their account to the effect that they were no longer in contract and would end up being actively encouraged to leave?

colinod0806

I wouldn't call that a strange attitude. It's simple really, you either accept the changes and stay in your contract or you don't accept and leave.

You can't just use it as an excuse to have your cake and eat it.

Sponge Bob

You may cancel if you wish....you simply say the new contract does not suit you. Any sh1te from UPC...take it to Comreg and name names !

Also demand they pay you €100 compo for wasting your time.

jor el

So, you don't actually want to cancel your service, you just don't want to be in the contract? You're accepting the new terms, and continuing to use the service, but you feel they should let you out of the remaining term of your contract because.....? That's probably the most bizarre thing I've read in a while.

roast

This makes no sense...

gerryk

jor el wrote: »

So, you don't actually want to cancel your service, you just don't want to be in the contract? You're accepting the new terms, and continuing to use the service, but you feel they should let you out of the remaining term of your contract because.....? That's probably the most bizarre thing I've read in a while.

I don't see why. Last year, O2 made some changes to their call charges, which meant that people could be released from contract, if they wished. I called up, and had my contract terminated, and was transferred to a 30 day rolling contract with all the same terms of service.

In this case, UPC are the ones that invalidated the contract by altering terms. Why should a customer have to go through the hassle of immediately finding another provider because of something UPC have done?

RangeR

gerryk wrote: »

I don't see why. Last year, O2 made some changes to their call charges, which meant that people could be released from contract, if they wished. I called up, and had my contract terminated, and was transferred to a 30 day rolling contract with all the same terms of service.

In this case, UPC are the ones that invalidated the contract by altering terms. Why should a customer have to go through the hassle of immediately finding another provider because of something UPC have done?

I don't mean to sound facetious but I don't ever remember UPC = O2.
The contracts are different
The product offerings are different
How they run their business is different
The business models are different.

UPC are well within their rights to ask you to leave if you don't agree to their terms. It's their network.

Tea_Bag

RangeR wrote: »

I don't mean to sound facetious but I don't ever remember UPC = O2.
The contracts are different
The product offerings are different
How they run their business is different
The business models are different.

funny that, but EU law is the same for both contracts.

jor el

gerryk wrote: »

In this case, UPC are the ones that invalidated the contract by altering terms. Why should a customer have to go through the hassle of immediately finding another provider because of something UPC have done?

They will let you out of the contract, but they will terminate your service as well. There is no requirement in law for them to keep you on as a customer if you want to end the agreement with them.

Kensington

Tea_Bag wrote: »

funny that, but EU law is the same for both contracts.

It is indeed. You agree to the new terms and stay, or you leave.

cookie1977

I disagree Jorel. Regulation 17 states

(4) An undertaking referred to in paragraph (1) or a provider of electronic communications services referred to in paragraph (3) shall, not less than one month prior to the date of implementation of any proposed modification, notify its subscribers to that service —

(a) of the proposed modification in the conditions of the contract for that service, and

(b) their right to withdraw without penalty from such contract if they do not accept the modification.

(5) A subscriber referred to in paragraph (4) may withdraw from his or her contract with the undertaking or provider, without penalty if he or she does not accept a proposed modification referred to in paragraph

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0308.html

Would being kicked off UPC because you dont agree with a change to your T&C's not constitute a penalty?

dub45

cookie1977 wrote: »

I disagree Jorel. Regulation 17 states



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0308.html

Would being kicked off UPC because you dont agree with a change to your T&C's not constitute a penalty?

Surely you cannot have it both ways? You have the option to terminate the contract if you don't like the new terms. But if you want to stay then to some degree you are dictating to the supplier on what terms you wish to continue?
If that is the case then surely they are entitled to say that they will only supply on their terms?

I can see how customers might be happy with a supplier and not wish to leave but on the other hand not wish to accept the new terms. (For example as some have posted here not wishing to be upgraded to a new product "free"and then finding there is a price increase shortly after).

On the other hand you cannot be outside a contract surely? If there is a service problem I am sure you would feel free to ring and complain?

In any event if you are outside your 12 month contract you are on a rolling month's contract so can leave anyway.

jor el

cookie1977 wrote: »

I disagree Jorel. Regulation 17 states



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0308.html

Would being kicked off UPC because you dont agree with a change to your T&C's not constitute a penalty?

I don't think so. They are not kicking you off, you are choosing to leave. A penalty would be a like a charge, or forcing you accept the new terms, which they can't do. If you reject the changes, then you can't expect to keep using the service with those new terms attached, which is what people are asking to do. If you do, then you have accepted the changes.

For those claiming they've done out with the likes of O2, that's different. When people got out of those contacts, but kept using the service, they were starting a new contact (although it was only a 30 day rolling contact). UPC have no such contact. So if you reject the new terms then you can end the contact which ends the service. To keep using the service you need to start a new contact, which will be for 12 months.

cookie1977

jor el wrote: »

I don't think so. They are not kicking you off, you are choosing to leave. A penalty would be a like a charge, or forcing you accept the new terms, which they can't do. If you reject the changes, then you can't expect to keep using the service with those new terms attached, which is what people are asking to do. If you do, then you have accepted the changes.

For those claiming they've done out with the likes of O2, that's different. When people got out of those contacts, but kept using the service, they were starting a new contact (although it was only a 30 day rolling contact). UPC have no such contact. So if you reject the new terms then you can end the contact which ends the service. To keep using the service you need to start a new contact, which will be for 12 months.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. When I'm out of contract next Feb with upc what happens? They don't force me into another contract they just make me give 30 days notice and continue to provide me with service. Just like Vodafone and O2 do. So upc do have rolling monthly contracts. Althouggh it's not "specifically" mentioned as O2 and Vodafone do. In fact Vodafone At home don't but when you finish your 1 year initial contract then you're on a rolling monthly contract. The if they or any company make new cheap offers they can make me sign a contract to avail.

Being out of contract with them offers you leverage. Look at all the people who once they finished their contract with upc said they sign up again as long as upc removed the 7.75 surcharge for having no TV service.

vibe666

the O2 thing was different. it was a cockup by o2 in which they made changes to the contract (to facilitate the release of the iphone 4) without notifying their customers at least 30 days in advance which was a breach of the existing iphone contracts.

as a result of that, this allowed people locked into existing (expensive) fixed term/price iphone contracts to leave their contracts due to the lack of notification by o2 and change to different contract or payg tariffs without penalty.

i acually know a guy who'd bought two iphone 3GS's for himself and his wife a month earlier and was able to get out of both contracts. bit of a snafu on o2'a part, but not the same as UPC unfortunately. you can get out of the UPC contract now if you don't agree to the new terms, but you'll have to find another ISP.

cookie1977

vibe666 wrote: »

the O2 thing was different. it was a cockup by o2 in which they made changes to the contract (to facilitate the release of the iphone 4) without notifying their customers at least 30 days in advance which was a breach of the existing iphone contracts.

as a result of that, this allowed people locked into existing (expensive) fixed term/price iphone contracts to leave their contracts due to the lack of notification by o2 and change to different contract or payg tariffs without penalty.

i acually know a guy who'd bought two iphone 3GS's for himself and his wife a month earlier and was able to get out of both contracts. bit of a snafu on o2'a part, but not the same as UPC unfortunately. you can get out of the UPC contract now if you don't agree to the new terms, but you'll have to find another ISP.

It had nothing to do with lack of notification. It was a thread on boards here that made people aware of their rights under EU law which caused the furore. O2 had properly notified people on their site but no one cared or noticed until the boards thread. Also Vodafone at home changed broadband and off peak pland T&C's and people also exited contracts while staying with them. I was one of those. I also got out of contract from O2 after only signing up to a new contract and upgrading my phone 3 months previously.

vibe666

cookie1977 wrote: »

It had nothing to do with lack of notification. It was a thread on boards here that made people aware of their rights under EU law which caused the furore. O2 had properly notified people on their site but no one cared or noticed until the boards thread. Also Vodafone at home changed broadband and off peak pland T&C's and people also exited contracts while staying with them. I was one of those. I also got out of contract from O2 after only signing up to a new contract and upgrading my phone 3 months previously.

yes i know about that thread, and sorry but you might want to check the dates on it (when it was started and when the iphone 4 launch was) and go back and read the first page of the thread again and then come back.

also FYI, for the purposes of a legally binding contract, "notified on their website" and "properly notified" are two totally different things.

cookie1977

If you had read the first post in the thread you linked to you'd see that O2 did notify so I'm still not sure how you can say:
"without notifying their customers at least 30 days in advance which was a breach of the existing iphone contracts."
O2 did nothing wrong so I'm unsure what you mean by the above. O2 were not in trouble with comreg over the notification. Whereas upc have previously been in trouble about not properly publicising T&C changes.

Kensington

cookie1977 wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. When I'm out of contract next Feb with upc what happens? They don't force me into another contract they just make me give 30 days notice and continue to provide me with service. Just like Vodafone and O2 do. So upc do have rolling monthly contracts. Althouggh it's not "specifically" mentioned as O2 and Vodafone do. In fact Vodafone At home don't but when you finish your 1 year initial contract then you're on a rolling monthly contract. The if they or any company make new cheap offers they can make me sign a contract to avail.

Being out of contract with them offers you leverage. Look at all the people who once they finished their contract with upc said they sign up again as long as upc removed the 7.75 surcharge for having no TV service.

Once your 12 months are up it is the same contract, only the minimum term clausr no longer applies.

If you're in a contract with a minimum term and you wish to leave, then you can terminate it under the Regs, but that contract is over. Subsequently you are no longer a upc customer.

O2 and Vodafone made allowances in their situations by allowing you to waive the minimum term part and carry on with your existing price plan on a SIM-only basis (they don't want to force all those exiting over to competitors after all). UPC obviously don't think many people will follow through and so if you want to exercise Reg 17 your contract is torn up and UPC release you as a subscriber.

cookie1977

The fact is that unlike O2 and Vodafone who were changing plans for the worse and were looking at loosing a lot of customers leaving, UPC are for the most part improving plans and making them cheaper so they can afford to let the small number of people who don't want to be in contract go altogether. It would be interesting to see upc's take on the regs if they were broadly increasing plan prices or changing t&c's for the worse. I'd imagine it would be different.

vibe666

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you had read the first post in the thread you linked to you'd see that O2 did notify so I'm still not sure how you can say:
"without notifying their customers at least 30 days in advance which was a breach of the existing iphone contracts."
O2 did nothing wrong so I'm unsure what you mean by the above. O2 were not in trouble with comreg over the notification. Whereas upc have previously been in trouble about not properly publicising T&C changes.

you yourself have already stated that the first anyone knew about it was the boards.ie thread and since that was started on the 16-6-10 and the iphone 4 launch when the contracts changed was on the 12-7-10 that was less than 30 days notice.

if o2 (or any other provider) want to change the terms of an existing contract, they are required by law to inform their customer in writing no less than 30 days prior to the change taking effect.

they didn't. and unless you can show me a letter from o2 dated prior to the 13-6-10 stating the changes to the contract (i'll help you out with that, you won't find one because it doesn't exist), you really don't have anywhere to go with this.

Under Regulation 17 of the European Communities (electronic communications networks and services)(Universal Service and Users’ rights) regulations 2003 an operator shall not less than one month prior to the date of implementation of any proposed modification, notify its subscribers to that service of the proposed modification in the conditions of the contract for that service, and their right to withdraw without penalty from such contract if they do not accept the modification. If you wish to exercise your right under Regulation 17 please contact O2. The continued use of O2 services after the effective date of the change is deemed acceptance of the change.

o2 fecked up big time by not notifying it's iphone users of the change to the contract and they knew it so they had no choice but to bend over and let people out of the contract and still keep them as customers on different tariffs and i'm pretty sure that UPC and every other provider in the country learnt a big lesson from it, hence the letters posted out with plenty of notice on contract changes.

cookie1977

The thread maybe from that date but it doesn't mean that O2 didn't post the notification on their site with 30 days notice. I cant prove it anymore as O2 update rather than add individual notifications to their site. But if you read the thread there's no one who says O2 gave little or no notification. Also unlike upc who were in trouble about poor/late notifications with comreg, O2 have not been in this trouble. Here's the current notification page from O2

http://www.o2online.ie/o2/uploads/pdfs/terms/services/Customer-Notification-Terms_Jul-1-2011.pdf
They state the notification is the 12th of June but again I cant prove that. I could throw h it back to you and ask that you prove they gave insufficient notice, but that would be silly?

vibe666

cookie1977 wrote: »

The thread maybe from that date but it doesn't mean that O2 didn't post the notification on their site with 30 days notice. I cant prove it anymore as O2 update rather than add individual notifications to their site. But if you read the thread there's no one who says O2 gave little or no notification. Also unlike upc who were in trouble about poor/late notifications with comreg, O2 have not been in this trouble. Here's the current notification page from O2

http://www.o2online.ie/o2/uploads/pdfs/terms/services/Customer-Notification-Terms_Jul-1-2011.pdf
They state the notification is the 12th of June but again I cant prove that. I could throw h it back to you and ask that you prove they gave insufficient notice, but that would be silly?

as i've already said before, for the purposes of a legally binding contract "notification on a website" and "sufficient notification" are two totally separate things.

as a mobile phone provider you cannot assume that every single one of your customers is going to go onto your website at least once a month on the off-chance that you have changed the terms of your contract, not even if it had been a broadband contract. you have to inform all the affected customers in writing which means posting them out a letter to inform them, which o2 did not do, in direct breach of the regulation i posted previously.

there was a similar thing on here a while ago when a provider took out an advert in a newspaper for one day in a lame attempt at notifying it's customers, which made similar assumptions that were also wrong and there was an equally big stink made about that too.

cookie1977

vibe666 wrote: »

as i've already said before, for the purposes of a legally binding contract "notification on a website" and "sufficient notification" are two totally separate things.

as a mobile phone provider you cannot assume that every single one of your customers is going to go onto your website at least once a month on the off-chance that you have changed the terms of your contract, not even if it had been a broadband contract. you have to inform all the affected customers in writing which means posting them out a letter to inform them, which o2 did not do, in direct breach of the regulation i posted previously.

there was a similar thing on here a while ago when a provider took out an advert in a newspaper for one day in a lame attempt at notifying it's customers, which made similar assumptions that were also wrong and there was an equally big stink made about that too.

Well here I totally agree with you but unfortunately comreg have previously agreed with the networks that individual notifications are not necessary. As long as they publicize it on their site and in the paper (probably a 2cm*2cm column ) they are classified to have provided the notification properly. I'll try and find some evidence of that off comregs website.

Anan1

jor el wrote: »

So, you don't actually want to cancel your service, you just don't want to be in the contract? You're accepting the new terms, and continuing to use the service, but you feel they should let you out of the remaining term of your contract because.....? That's probably the most bizarre thing I've read in a while.

Because retaining me as a paying customer (albeit out of contract) makes more financial sense than sending me and my money to a different provider? As Kensington says, UPC appear to be playing hardball in the belief that most people won't leave. Although not, funnily enough, hardball enough not to offer further discounts as an inducement to stay with them. I would have been happy to continue paying the same and just be released from contract and, had UPC done that, i'd have been unlikely to leave. From their perspective, that would have been better than further discounting my package.

dub45

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well here I totally agree with you but unfortunately comreg have previously agreed with the networks that individual notifications are not necessary. As long as they publicize it on their site and in the paper (probably a 2cm*2cm column ) they are classified to have provided the notification properly. I'll try and find some evidence of that off comregs website.

I am afraid you are wrong there.

http://www.askcomreg.ie/news/changes_to_contracts___consumer_rights.7.1024.LE.asp

ComReg notes that certain providers of telephone and/or electronic communications services are proposing changes to consumer contracts (terms and conditions) in the coming period. ComReg has made it clear to all service providers that press notifications (and other forms of notification not sent to subscribers individually) are not considered as meeting the requirement of the Regulations.

My emphasis.

Also

Does my service provider have to let me know if it is changing my terms & conditions?

Yes, your service provider must let you know about the proposed changes to your terms and conditions at least one month in advance of when the new terms and conditions become effective. Additionally, your service provider must also give you details of your right to withdraw from your contract, without penalty, if you do not accept the proposed change to your contract terms. A press notice and/or a notice on your service provider’s website are not sufficient to let you know about the proposed changes to your contract terms and your right to withdraw.

Thor

Two things i have noticed here and i do know these for a fact.

It doesn't matter if they don't notify you within 30 days(Wait....) The only consequences of not notifying your customers within 30 days of that implementation means the person can withdraw and any point from the contract and possible legal problems if they charge people more on the contracts by not informing them.

What this means that if they change something in june, And you don't get notified, You can ring up in september and tell because you were never notified you never knew about the change and tuss are breaking out of the contract.

However, If they do notify you within 30 days, You are still allowed to get out of contract. The rule apply's to any change and any change you don't agree with means you can cancel your contract.

The problem with terminating your contract means, They no longer have to supply you with service

The point of this is that ultimtimately if they make a change to there service and you don't agree to said change and then you cancel your contract. If you were to still use there service then that would be you are technically accepting the change by still wanting use and pay for the service.

The reason O2 allowed there customers to stay on in most cases was mainly because they never(Properly) notified them, Which meant they were illegally charging them for a price increase that wasn't in there original contract.

The thing with UPC has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS!!

While the same rules apply to UPC, They did notify there customers within 30 days and gave you the option of cancelling your contract.

If the contract becomes null and void then they have no obligation to supply you with service.

If YOU withdraw from a contract, Then that means the contract no longer exists! Which means there is no terms of use and there is no condition that UPC have to be held by.

I seriously can't see anyone who would think otherwise!!

P.S that thing about having to look for another provider because UPC changed there terms and conditions is bollox if you are staying on after cancelling the contract!!

jor el

Thor wrote: »

The reason O2 allowed there customers to stay on in most cases was mainly because they never(Properly) notified them, Which meant they were illegally charging them for a price increase that wasn't in there original contract.

That, and those that stayed with O2 simply moved to a new 30 day contract. In this case with UPC, you can move to a new contract once you get out of the old one, but the new one will have the same terms you just rejected, and would now last a further 12 months. Accepting the changes means your existing contract period will remain, with no extension, but no shortening.

I too can't see how anyone thinks that they can reject the terms of a contract, end that contract, but continue using the service with the new terms of the contract (that they just rejected) in place. I understand what they're saying, and why they'd want to get out of the minimum term, but that's not how it works.

Anan1 wrote:

I would have been happy to continue paying the same and just be released from contract and, had UPC done that, i'd have been unlikely to leave. From their perspective, that would have been better than further discounting my package.

So what now? You move to another (more expensive and slower) provider, with a new full 12 month contract, just out of some sort of principle? If you are happy to continue paying, and using the service, then you do accept the term changes. If you do accept it, then you can't claim that you don't just to be released from the remaining term of your contract.

I can't see them being too bothered about losing one or two customers over this, considering they are gaining thousands of new ones every month.

Anan1

jor el wrote: »

So what now? You move to another (more expensive and slower) provider, with a new full 12 month contract, just out of some sort of principle? If you are happy to continue paying, and using the service, then you do accept the term changes. If you do accept it, then you can't claim that you don't just to be released from the remaining term of your contract.

I can't see them being too bothered about losing one or two customers over this, considering they are gaining thousands of new ones every month.

With respect, did you read my last post? Rather than allowing me to stay on out of contract, UPC offered me a further monthly discount (which I accepted) to see out my current contract. Given that I was in all probability going to stay anyway, this is worse for UPC and better for me than my initial proposal. Like I said, strange.

cookie1977

Sounds like thretening them with leaving did some good. While comreg might like companies to give individual notices they don't enforce it often other then the upc issue listed above. I've gotten out of contract on 3 separate occassions (2 with O2 and 1 with Vodafone @ home), that did not involve personal notice but just by watching the notification pages of these companies. The thing is that the regulation 17 does put the power into the hands of the customer and some use it and others don't. It's up to the individual. Fair play anan.

cookie1977

Hey Anan, like you I threatened to leave UPC due to the change in T&C's and they knocked the 7.75 off my plan. Now only paying 25euro for the broadband plan instead of 32.75. Happy all round so