Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Article in Times] How broadband 'inertia' clause traps the unwary

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Ok peckerhead I havent read all the replies but I seriously doubt that they could legally enforce those charges, so many things wrong with it I dont know where to start. Dont have time now but I would personally consider talking to a solicitor.


  • Options
    #33
    Slutmonkey57b
    Registered Users Posts: 5,561 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    There seems to be a difference however between the way the product is sold and the way it is contracted. It is contracted (from what I can tell) as a "We send you the modem, switch on your line (maybe) and after that it's all your problem". Where Esat would have difficulty is that their sales pitch for the product mentions none of these things, instead it is pitched as "see if you like it, if not, it's free!". Having never tried it, and not having been given a set of T&C's, then by the information Esat have given him, he's liable for nothing.

    If esat were being at all competant about it, they would make sure that T&C's protecting them from this sort of late cancellation are more clearly advised to the customer. Eircom were similar with the free ISDN install recently, the only set of T&C docs they sent out to customers contained a 1 page letter with a form attatched for returning the modem. They did at least have the intelligence to advise that late return of the modem = hefty charge. but if you didn't open the box you would have no idea of the T&Cs.

    I deal with "non-present" card transactions a lot, and where a merchant has a contract with the bank to use the system, they have to have an approved method of obtaining the card information. Most online sites use an out-of-thebox approved system like "Verified by Visa", paypal or an SSL server, while "traditional" offline companies usually use proof of address and delivery along with fax copies. Somewhere like a hotel will generally ask for a fax copy of back & front, and in any case will have some contact with the customer (particularly in a htoel where they are trapped) or a signature at the point of delivery. So at some point the merchant will have collected bank-approved documentation to show that service/product X was ordered in good faith and delivered in good faith.

    Esat have kind of left themselves open on this one by simply not taking the time to advertise properly, or talk to their customers properly. In any case, a customer service manager is going to see that fighting this one screams bad publicity all the way. Not that that usually stops them.


  • Options
    #34
    cgarvey
    Registered Users Posts: 3,886 ✭✭✭cgarvey


    SlutMonkey, I don't want to drag thread off-topic .. but I agree that ESat (and all the telco's, ESat aren't the only ones to blame here) should make it alot clearer .. and should have you return the signed copy of the T&Cs before anything happens (or at least a reply to an email with them enclosed).

    However, CNP transactions can be performed (according to any merchant contract I've seen) legitmally without proof of delivery (or use of a 3rd party verification service). As I said originally, the onus is on the merchant to prove delivery, in the event of a chargeback.. and it's that risk that alot of businesses absorb. Also having SSL offers no protection against a chargeback.

    But that's being slightly pedantic..


Advertisement