Insane charges for cancellation of a broadband contract

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

See my post above (or continue to selectively read what you want which appears to be what you are doing). Aggrieved - yes. Trying to weasel out of a contract - absolutely not. As regards the 'me feiner' attitude, it's you and those that agree with you that are the real me feiners here. If you were not selfish, you would be looking for the regulator to regulate for the benefit of all consumers....not being a smart arse instead.

Quality stuff this is from someone who was more than happy to get the benefit of a cut price rate for the extended nature of a contract.


Couldn't make this up .


Excellent

listermint

beauf wrote: »

... it's because accept being shafted with a whimper.

You should write a book on this . the Irish and their acceptance of cut price deals taking it lying down ..

antodeco

Ok OP fair enough. Your point was on the charge of the cancellation. Can you just explain what the termination details are of the contract that you agreed to? If it is not defined than I 100% agree with you and retract my previous comments. However if it does explain what it is, I would assume you would do the same.

Just as a side note, should the termination fee not be €480 as you have the guts of 12 months left @ €40?

makeorbrake

listermint wrote: »

Quality stuff this is from someone who was more than happy to get the benefit of a cut price rate for the extended nature of a contract.

Eh, you're talking about the measily €4 euro saving that I was pitched via an unsolicited sales call that broke direct marketing rules - in the middle of my working day when it didn't have my full attention? The flip side of this 'saving' being a 240 euro penalty?

You're plain selfish - you focus on me - but not a whimper as regards protecting consumers in general and calling for the regulator to actually regulate and challenge these fixed minimum term contracts (amongst other things).

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, you're talking about the measily €4 euro saving that I was pitched via an unsolicited sales call that broke direct marketing rules - in the middle of my working day when it didn't have my full attention? The flip side of this 'saving' being a 240 euro penalty?

You're plain selfish - you focus on me - but not a whimper as regards protecting consumers in general and calling for the regulator to actually regulate and challenge these fixed minimum term contracts (amongst other things).

Ha ha ha , your going with marketing to blame ? And not the fact it was renewals team calling you customer retention is their job no different than you being sent your insurance renewal.

The levels of squirm an adult will go to to get out of their obligations is amazing.

So is it your assertion you were lied to about the details of the price and the length of the contract is that it . Or just that their retention team phoned you.... Something which you no doubt agreed to at the beginning.

makeorbrake

antodeco wrote: »

Ok OP fair enough. Your point was on the charge of the cancellation. Can you just explain what the termination details are of the contract that you agreed to? If it is not defined than I 100% agree with you and retract my previous comments. However if it does explain what it is, I would assume you would do the same. Just as a side note, should the termination fee not be €480 as you have the guts of 12 months left @ €40?

Contract details are in Ireland. I never poured over them to do what a number of people here have suggested i.e. look for a way to 'weasil out'. As regards whether it's defined or not, again I never suggested for a second that it wouldn't be nailed down - so following my last clarification, I can't imagine why you're asking that. As regards the amount, perhaps they have the legal right to take more - I've no idea...but I don't agree with the initial amount let alone the amount you suggest. It's draconian and unreasonable.

listermint wrote: »

Ha ha ha , your going with marketing to blame ?

I have always stated that the contract stands. However, yes it sticks in my craw the nature of how that went down. But of course, you'll have a go at me all day long but not once will you acknowledge that it's simply wrong for a company to blatantly break direct marketing rules time and time again.

listermint wrote: »

And not the fact it was renewals team calling you customer retention is their job no different than you being sent your insurance renewal.

Nonsense - it's nothing like that. A broadband contract outlines a minimum contract duration - it doesn't indicate a closing or contract expiry date. That end of it is open ended - so its NOTHING like an insurance renewal.
Two years previous, I had several run ins with vodafone over the course of a 6 month period. It started with these cold calls looking to get me signed up for additional this and additional that. I expressly directed them to kindly stop calling me - that I objected to these calls and they said that they would update my personal details on the system to reflect that I had opted out. Yet, the calls continued and continued.
That last call I received 2 years on - I told the guy straight up that he shouldnt be calling me. However, I made the mistake of hearing him out.

listermint wrote: »

The levels of squirm an adult will go to to get out of their obligations is amazing.

You obviously have basic comprehension difficulties. At no point did I state I was challenging the validity of the contract. That doesn't mean that industry practice in this regard is ethical. It doesn't mean that I have to be happy about it.

beauf

listermint wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

... it's because accept being shafted with a whimper.

You should write a book on this . the Irish and their acceptance of cut price deals taking it lying down ..

Only in Ireland is a tiny discount called cut price, or increased price called a sale. Those terms have lost all meaning here.

Loyal customers get shafted. Switching provider gets the best deal. So anything that locks you into longer term for tiny discount is more expensive in the long run. If it was a good deal they wouldn't have to sell it using call calling techniques.

The OP situation is one thing. How companies can operate in Ireland vs other counties is another.

Look how mortgages are in other countries vs in Ireland. Mobile phone contacts. Car warranties and recalls. Freeview vs Saorview. Apple warranties. The list is endless.

Global economy for companies and tax. It's only a local and uneconomic scale when it comes to consumers.

degsie

makeorbrake wrote: »

They cold called me last September even though I had blazing arguments with them in the past about receiving such calls.

Whatever mood I was in that day - I listened to the pitch - the deal seemed to add up ...although it was just saving me a few euro a month. What I forgot about was that it was locking me in to a new 18 month contract.

makeorbrake wrote: »

they cold called me whilst I was at work, having had all manner of arguments with them 2 years previous that they were not to contact me with cold calls (they continued to do so despite me going to great lengths to make sure that it wouldn't happen again). Now you'll say I took the call - well, yes - my guard was down. .

makeorbrake wrote: »

I also believe that I didn't make an informed decision due to the nature of the 'sale' - without notice over the phone. .

makeorbrake wrote: »

I told the guy straight up that he shouldnt be calling me. However, I made the mistake of hearing him out.

OP, you are the reason why 'cold calling' even exists.

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

OP, you are the reason why 'cold calling' even exists.

No problem - then let's get rid of it. It benefits nobody.

Other than that, sure I dropped my guard. However, by the very same token given my previous actions, I shouldn't be the reason why cold calling exists. IE. If the likes of Vodafone were properly regulated and didn't feel they could break direct marketing rules with impunity..

However, for that to be corrected, we'd need effective regulation.

triple nipple

makeorbrake wrote:

I won't be paying any bloody fee thankfully as it looks like my tenant is covering the subscription. I already acknowledged that I agreed to the contract. However, there's plenty here that a good regulator would deal with; 1. no more cold calling - period. 2. 6 month max. fixed contract period. 3. the consumer to be told precisely what the penalty fee will be at the time of signing up - this information to be right up front and not buried in the small print.

Why didn't you ask them what the cease fee would be at point of sale?

Why did you talk to them and agree to a deal if you don't want them calling you?

uck51js9zml2yt

makeorbrake wrote: »

I can't say that I won't run into the very same problem as if I look to take out a broadband contract tomorrow, the shortest duration available is 12 months.
Secondly, I never looked for special treatment. What I'm calling for is for the regulator to step in - and change this industry imposed nonsense of insisting on fixed term contracts beyond.

Yes you where!

You were moaning about being asked to fulfill the terms of the contract which you willingly signed up to and felt you shouldn't have to.

Yes we know VF forced you into singing a contract which you obviously didn't read and you feel aggrieved.
Of course it's VF's fault that you signed it and not yours.

Did I sum that up correctly?

antodeco

This thread is going around in circles.

OP, what exactly is your grievance?

If it's on the cost of the termination, can you explain what you think the termination SHOULD be, based on facts.

degsie

OP, run these sign-up decisions via an adult next time. You'd be better off in the long run.

makeorbrake

triple nipple wrote: »

Why didn't you ask them what the cease fee would be at point of sale?
Why did you talk to them and agree to a deal if you don't want them calling you?

Already answered.

mightybashful

OP just hold your piss for a couple of weeks. Vodafone constantly increase charges allowing people to escape their contracts.

listermint

degsie wrote: »

OP, run these sign-up decisions via an adult next time. You'd be better off in the long run.

In a nut shell.

makeorbrake

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

Yes you where!

No I wasn't. Show me where I looked for special treatment with regard to my contractual obligations? You confuse this with the grievances I present with although of course you put your own inaccurate slant on this.

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

Yes we know VF forced you into singing a contract which you obviously didn't read and you feel aggrieved.

More inaccuracies...been on a fiction writing course recently have we?

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

Of course it's VF's fault that you signed it and not yours.

More of the same. Of course cold calling is all good? Breaking the direct marketing rules is all good? Not having full transparency at the outset with regard to the implications of cancelling a contract is all good? This falllacy that there must be minimum fixed contracts beyond 6 months is all good?

Avery Faint Cemetery wrote: »

Did I sum that up correctly?

You're such a bloody genius - you work it out.

makeorbrake

antodeco wrote: »

This thread is going around in circles.

OP, what exactly is your grievance?

If it's on the cost of the termination, can you explain what you think the termination SHOULD be, based on facts.

Go back and read the thread. I'm not going to restate an infinite number of times

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

OP, run these sign-up decisions via an adult next time. You'd be better off in the long run.

Now we're getting to the heart of it. You're such a genius that you wouldn't ever make an error of judgement in the face of unethical behaviour.

With your arrogant egotistical behaviour, you won't for a moment consider what is best for consumers generally with these nonsense fixed term contracts and the inequitable penalties that go with them.

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now we're getting to the heart of it. You're such a genius that you wouldn't ever make an error of judgement in the face of unethical behaviour.

With your arrogant egotistical behaviour, you won't for a moment consider what is best for consumers generally with these nonsense fixed term contracts and the inequitable penalties that go with them.

Unethical behaviour.

Waffle you mean.

Using terms like caught you off guard .

More waffle.

So snagged a good deal you were happy until you weren't.

There's unethical behaviour here alright...

degsie

I'll go with my standard....

makeorbrake

listermint wrote: »

Using terms like caught you off guard .
More waffle.

Firstly you quoted the right piece of text because it certainly applies to you...genius.
As regards cold calling at the door or over the phone, it's widely accepted that consumers don't make as considered a buying decision in those circumstances than if they approached the purchase themselves...but hey, why let facts get in the way.
You're far too smart to make such a mistake which is what is driving this bile from you and a couple of others.

makeorbrake

@degsie : Perfect..you prove my point for me. The arrogance.

listermint

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly you quoted the right piece of text because it certainly applies to you...genius.
As regards cold calling at the door or over the phone, it's widely accepted that consumers don't make as considered a buying decision in those circumstances than if they approached the purchase themselves...but hey, why let facts get in the way.
You're far to smart to make such a mistake which is what is driving this bike from you and a couple of others.

Your right I am too smart. I make adult decisions and tell the caller I will contact them as I need to do some research on my options.i something I do regularly.


Not all too difficult actually.

NinetyTwoTeam

If Carlsberg did broadband...

Broadband so good the Danes hate to see it unregulated in a way that doesn't need suit makeorbreak

Sleeper12

You agreed to pay them X amount for 18 months. They are charging you the money that you agreed to pay them. I know it's a tough pill to swallow but they are perfectly in the right.

degsie

makeorbrake wrote: »

@degsie : Perfect..you prove my point for me. The arrogance.

Woooosh!

makeorbrake

listermint wrote: »

Your right I am too smart. I make adult decisions and tell the caller I will contact them as I need to do some research on my options.i something I do regularly.
Not all too difficult actually.

You're a smart arse - I get it. As regards adult, I'm not so sure.
I have the humility to state that I made a mistake. You on the other hand have never made a mistake. I guess I can appreciate the selfish and arrogant viewpoint given you have such a burden to bear.
That said, could I appeal to you to put aside that selfishness and arrogance for a moment and in the interests of us lesser mortals that do err - that you agree that cold calling should be banned?
If you could do that, it would impress me BIGGLY.

I won't hold my breath though. After all, to err is human...

NinetyTwoTeam

makeorbrake wrote: »

Go back and read the thread. I'm not going to restate an infinite number of times

yeah we get it, finishing what you start doesn't really suit you

makeorbrake

@sleeper12: Thanks but I found a solution. I'd like to see a more holistic resolution of such problems for the general public but a few here won't engage at that level.

makeorbrake

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

yeah we get it, finishing what you start doesn't really suit you

Bravo for such a nonsensical contribution to the discussion. The same goes for your penultimate comment.

beauf

makeorbrake wrote: »

....

Yes, I consented to the contract...I didn't realise the implications but I have to take responsibility for that.

However, ....

Your problem is 99% of people won't read as far as the however, and just post straw men based on that. Or just go... ahh ha...

Everyone thinks they are in after hours...

makeorbrake

mightybashful wrote: »

OP just hold your piss for a couple of weeks. Vodafone constantly increase charges allowing people to escape their contracts.

Thanks mightybashful - but I found a solution to the problem (tenant going to pay the sub going forward).

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

You're problem is 99% of people won't read as far as the however, and just post straw men based on that. Or just go... ahh ha...

Everyone thinks they are in after hours...

I'd go further... that they only made it through half way of the first sentence you quoted going on the commentary.

degsie

@makeorbrake, well played! You are a wind-up merchant and deserve some recognition

I applaud you sir.

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

@makeorbrake, well played! You are a wind-up merchant and deserve some recognition

I applaud you sir.

Applaud away but you lot are just indulging your own egos and perhaps in the process winding yourselves up.

The irony is that we couldn't have an adult conversation (the irony given your wayward commentary) about how such services could be better regulated. beauf is right...your fellow disciples would have been better engaging over in after hours despite their uber-intelligence.

degsie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Applaud away but you lot are just indulging your own eccentricities and perhaps in the process winding yourselves up.

The irony is that we couldn't have an adult conversation (the irony given your wayward commentary) about how such services could be better regulated. beauf is right...your fellow disciples would have been better engaging over in after hours despite their uber-intelligence.

Any chance we could have that in English?

SteM

OP, you keep on taking about regulation in this thread. Are you actually going to contact the regulator to push for change or are you going to drop it once this thread dies just because your tenant bailed you out?

makeorbrake

degsie wrote: »

Any chance we could have that in English?

You and your fellow travellers have said that you're far too intelligent to make mistakes, how you're more adult in your musings and actions....arrogance abounds... yet much of it wouldn't even be acceptable over in 'after hours'.

SteM wrote: »

OP, you keep on taking about regulation in this thread. Are you actually going to contact the regulator to push for change or are you going to drop it once this thread dies just because your tenant bailed you out?

Asked and answered. You think I'll give you a different answer the second time..:rolleyes:

Marlow

It's amazing how people are more interested in giving out to people, badmouthing people, talking ****e and mounting personal attacks ....

Instead of actually participating in a constructive discussion about a consumer issue. And maybe what is needed to fix this or change this in the future. (disregardless of the OPs situation). Because that's where this discussion was heading until a bunch of ye just started to throw mud.

No wonder, nothing ever changes in this country.

Just my 2c.

/M

SteM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Asked and answered. You think I'll give you a different answer the second time..:rolleyes:

The reply where you said I had a hell of a lot to say for myself because I'd posted 4000 times in 16 years despite the fact that you've posted 2600 times in 8 years? If found that one hard to take seriously to be honest.

makeorbrake

SteM wrote: »

The reply where you said I had a hell of a lot to say for myself because I'd posted 4000 times in 16 years despite the fact that you've posted 2600 times in 8 years? If found that one hard to take seriously to be honest.

Isn't it amazing how you will cut out selective snippets of text to try and remove overall context;

QUESTION:

SteM wrote:

OP, are you going to contact the regulator about this or limit your crusade to this thread?

ANSWER:

makeorbrake wrote:

Firstly, I posted a query. What follows is a discussion. I've provided my opinion and others theres. What's the 'crusade'? Having said that, have you ever challenged anything yourself given that statement? You've a hell of a lot to say yourself on social media with your 4000+ posts. Other than that, you are making assumptions about me that you have no earthly rationale to base that on. You don't know me - or what I am or am not capable of.

I answered your question. You must have Alzheimers given that you're asking it again. I raised the point about your 4000+ posts because you seem to be inferring that I raise stuff here but wouldn't be capable of raising it beyond social media (which is untrue). Aside from being wrong, pot - kettle - black.

Aside from that, all that's going on here is 'attacking the poster'. What is the point of your question in the context of the discussion that's supposed to be in place here? This is supposed to be a 'discussion forum' - where subjects are discussed. Most of you don't even seem to know what the discussion is. Let me help you..

Topic: Actual regulation can lead to a situation whereby the inequitable penalties for cancellation of broadband contracts are no longer imposed on consumers; Actual regulation would lead to a scenario whereby this nonsensical industry-imposed minimum term contract scenario can be reigned in for the benefit of consumers.

SteM wrote:

If found that one hard to take seriously to be honest.

And I find it a tad difficult to take posts that would be better suited to 'after hours' seriously.

Shyboy

makeorbrake wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how you will cut out selective snippets of text to try and remove overall context;

QUESTION:

ANSWER:

I answered your question. You must have Alzheimers given that you're asking it again. I raised the point about your 4000+ posts because you seem to be inferring that I raise stuff here but wouldn't be capable of raising it beyond social media (which is untrue). Aside from being wrong, pot - kettle - black.

Aside from that, all that's going on here is 'attacking the poster'. What is the point of your question in the context of the discussion that's supposed to be in place here? This is supposed to be a 'discussion forum' - where subjects are discussed. Most of you don't even seem to know what the discussion is. Let me help you..

Topic: Actual regulation can lead to a situation whereby the inequitable penalties for cancellation of broadband contracts are no longer imposed on consumers; Actual regulation would lead to a scenario whereby this nonsensical industry-imposed minimum term contract scenario can be reigned in for the benefit of consumers.


And I find it a tad difficult to take posts that would be better suited to 'after hours' seriously.

Not funny...and deeply disrespectful to people who have had a family member with Alzheimers...this thread has gone far enough and should be locked...

makeorbrake

Shyboy wrote: »

Not funny...and deeply disrespectful to people who have had a family member with Alzheimers...this thread has gone far enough and should be locked...

Another one who doesn't know where the 'after hours' forum is.
Troll away all you like with your faux-outrage.
In order for the comment to be 'deeply disrespectful', the intention would have to be to be deeply disrespectful which it wasn't and isn't. It's you who is being disrespectful in suggesting that those that have relatives with the condition don't have a sense of humour. If we are to believe you, then you are a precious snowflake.

beauf

Mobile operators used to do this cold calling to get people into new contracts for a minor discount and miss the window for getting a mobile phone upgrade. I don't know if they still do that.

This topic isn't really a technology topic more of a consumer issue.

The only way to post on boards is to ask generic question. Putting in details of a personal experience always encourages those who wish to make personal comments.

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

Putting in details of a personal experience always encourages those who wish to make personal comments.

I take your point completely although the 'encouragement' is self-propelled. I opened the conversation by way of a personal experience to get peoples thoughts on the subject..and to open the conversation for discussion of the issue in a general sense.
I've never asked anyone 'how do I get out of this' or 'what do I do' - as (other than finding the solution of having my tenant pay the sub.) I was always going to honour the terms of the contract that I had agreed to.

beauf

It doesn't work on boards. Some people will always attack the poster. That is why they are here.

Marlow

beauf wrote: »

Mobile operators used to do this cold calling to get people into new contracts for a minor discount and miss the window for getting a mobile phone upgrade. I don't know if they still do that.

Yes, they still do. Because they can't compete on quality or good service.

/M

degsie

In the interest of boards.ie community spirit, I offer the OP thus:
https://www.comreg.ie/queries-complaints/internet/how-to-make-a-complaint/

beauf

I think you'd have more impact going to a local politician than comreg.