Are you sure about this?

How can the SoGA apply to non-goods contracts? Broadband isn't a good as it has no physical presence.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Are you sure about this?

How can the SoGA apply to non-goods contracts? Broadband isn't a good as it has no physical presence.

I didn't say the Sale of Goods Act applies to broadband. I used it as an analogy in relation to the question whether the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will apply only to new contracts. The new Act applies to both goods and services.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

people signing up before 13 July they are being misled

Yep, that sums up my stance on it!

You are right Bob, I think because it is clear enough to you that slashing 24/7 support cover would be materially detrimental to those who signed up to pay good money for that level of service and peace of mind.

At first glance, Ofcom's Guidance on General Condition 9.6 seems like it could have nothing to say on the matter as it specifically relates to price rises. However:

It is fact that Plusnet�s contracts were marketed and sold prominently on the inclusive package of services or features provided to the subscriber, especially unlimited downloads and 24 hours a day support cover, for which a core subscription price was agreed. (See Guidance A1.5)

The inclusive package of services or features may vary between different Communication Providers (�CPs�) and contracts for different products and services (A1.6)

Ofcom is likely to treat any price increase to the agreed core subscription price (however constructed and described in the contract terms) as material detriment. This �includes changes to the level of the service provided in the inclusive bundle of services or features and which effectively constitutes a (unit) price increase�. (A1.10 and footnote 5)

So, even if the core subscription price is not increased, if the hours of available support cover are reduced (slashed), this may be said to effectively constitute a (unit) price increase for available support cover and on this basis be material detriment.

If the guidance is not directly applied, any decision may draw on a similar principle. Ofcom have a document on the guidance confirming contract modifications which are not price changes are covered by General Condition 9.6 and so may be considered materially detrimental: "The guidance also does not apply to any non-price variations. Although what we say in the guidance about notifying subscribers under GC9.6 is relevant to all contract modifications."

Also, the repeated presence of 24/7 cover over many years gives those on monthly contracts grounds to claim that that was a relevant part of the service.

Yes, they can get out early, but that's not good enough. Being able to terminate a contract is great, but a supplier being allowed to chop and change T&Cs willy nilly is bad form, as many customers will not:

a) Be aware of the impact of the changes
b) Be reading things in this place


My own reasons for considering a move away from Plusnet are three-fold:

a) QoS - Seem to be waning - if I must change to a 12-month contract, it will be with very reliable supplier.

b) Changing ToS - All the little bells and whistles seem to be getting cropped. Fax to e-mail, 24/7 support. I have had several calls from Plusnet about my existing service. I believe they want all their customers off of monthy / legacy contracts, and are bugging them to do so. I would rather leave.

c) Lack of listening - I never ever really got the impression they listened to their customers. Not in 2005. Not in 2010. Not now. They take on board the feedback, and their strategy eventually ignores it, either at the Plusnet or more likely, at the BT level.

What's stopping PN changing anything in future? Not a lot, and the old "price beats all" argument will be half the reason most of their customers will put up with any changes. I get the impression they will squeeze the service to a minimum to maximise the profits (rather than provide a service worthy of the value of the money each customer spends).

Edited by camieabz (Sat 27-Jun-15 13:42:05)

The final position on it is that anyone who signed up to Plusnet prior to the 13th July 2015 whilst the websites says 24/7 customer support should be given an email or even letter stating the changes and giving all customers 30 days from the 13th July 2015 to contact Plusnet to discuss the future of their accounts.

This will not just give those who require the support after 10PM the option to leave penalty free but also give those who are not dependant on support between 10PM & 7AM to see if it does actually improve the support that for some time now has been below expectations for sure.

The issue at the moment also is that only a select number of sources have got this information and even though Plusnet has confirmed this to be true there hasn't been any official announcement from Plusnet (that I'm aware of) and no communication regarding these changes has yet made it to anyone's inbox and nothing on member centre either,

For all we know Plusnet might send us all emails saying that from the 13th July 2015 support hours are changing and the option to leave Plusnet penalty free will be open for 30 days starting from the 13th July 2015, If you do not contact us within this period we will assume you are happy with the revisions to service/contract and enroll you on the new terms and conditions.

Failing any of this, I have already opened a complaint ticket and hopefully all these issues will be addressed on that shortly,

But failing any communications from Plusnet regarding these changes I will be assuming the terms and conditions null and void therefore "non binding" this will mean I'm within my rights to cease my direct debit and be requesting an alternative provider of my choosing to take over the service currently provided by Plusnet and upon switching I will calculate the costs owed to Plusnet and submit this via a payment method of their choosing.

On a side note though:

In reference to www.plus.net/home-broadband/about/:

Fair and square

We don't keep our customers in the dark, or make things complicated. We talk fairly and clearly in plain English, giving all the details. If we've messed up, we'll be honest and explain what we're doing to fix things, rather than trying to hide stuff.

HEHEHE

Edited by mlmclaren (Sat 27-Jun-15 13:53:02)

How do they get out early though? Plusnet will argue that this is not a detrimental change, so you cannot leave penalty free.

If you escalate it further to arbitration/OFCOM/court, it will take many months.

ok thanks for the answer

ofcom are already doing something, they will be contacting plusnet on the matter.

The question is how did you come to the conclusion this is not a detriment to customers?

how do you know what plusnet are thinking unless maybe as suspected, you are affiliated to them. As far as I am concerned until you prove it I do not see you as a neutral in these discussions, we know you have access to information only very few people have, and because you refuse to say how you have access (it must mean the truth is damaging to you) then I can only assume in all the conversations you pretend to be neutral you are not.

Also, plusnet are pushing this as some kind of service improvement, if so they would have no problem letting customers know they improving the service right, they know full well its a detriment hence the lack of contact as they dont want the complaints and cancellations.

I can tell you whats happened, they currently have the thinking that because its not a price increase it doesnt count as a detriment under ofcom, thats exactly what I asked ofcom to clarify and they confirmed that cutting something like 24.7 support is a material detriment to the contract, but you still refuse to accept this and I bet you have still not even contacted ofcom, you arrogant enough to believe plusnet's stance is right.

Whilst I accept the argument court's can come to "strange" decisions at times because they look at things in a weird way, ofcom is not that complicated, even if ofcom were forced to backdown because maybe the BT group has found some kind of loophole they would work on closing that loophole because the spirit of the current ofcom rules covers this.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 27-Jun-15 16:37:14)