Early termination charges.

I have been with Plusnet for many years on and off, and re-joined them last in 2012.

In January I downgraded from 40/20 to 40/10 (I think) and asked to upgrade my broadband package to unlimited and my home phone package to anytime calls. I didn't realise that it would (or why it should have to) mean renewing to an 18 month contract. I have also had two occasions now, where a line fault was reported and the ticket got absolutely no response for seven days on either occasion. After that seven days, a reply saying "thank you for your patience arrived." To me, this is the polar opposite of the customer service spectrum in terms of how they have promoted themselves historically. If you can't at least acknowledge receipt of a complaint within seven days, then you shouldn't hang your reputation on customer service.

Anyway, my question being cancellation charges. I got a free rootey tooter in 2012 and I am 8 months into (what I thought to be) my "package change." Plusnet have asked for a £150 odd cancellation fee. From what I've read in the terms, they don't charge such a fee for cancelling services anymore?

Can somebody point me to an authoritative link that explains that I have to pay anything past the date I informed them that I wanted to leave? I know in 2009 they changed their terms to allow free exit from their 18 month contracts. Assuming their are no Sport/TV packages attached nowadays, has this policy since been retracted?

You may be confusing the early termination charge for breaking the 18 month minimum term you are 8 months into, with the broadband Cease charge for cancelling service without migration.

I can give you a link later if you want to the relevant section of the price list. Using my iPad at the moment.

If you weren't made aware of the new minimum term when you downgraded then you have grounds for challenging it. The best route is via the Community Forums, that you can get to from the Plusnet Home Page.

Wait for a price rise - that's a get out of jail free card

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

Wait for a price rise - that's a get out of jail free card

Indeed yep!

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

Wait for a price rise - that's a get out of jail free card

That could be a long wait. It has to be a price rise that affects a service that is being provided and we've just had a round of those.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In January I downgraded from 40/20 to 40/10 (I think) and asked to upgrade my broadband package to unlimited and my home phone package to anytime calls. I didn't realise that it would (or why it should have to) mean renewing to an 18 month contract.

Do you have the email that would have been generated at the time of the product change? That should have stated the contract terms.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

From what I've read in the terms, they don't charge such a fee for cancelling services anymore? ... I know in 2009 they changed their terms to allow free exit from their 18 month contracts.

I have never seen any such thing.

This is from the last time I was with them.

In reference to www.plus.net/support/customer_service/using/terms_update_sept09.sht...:

Plusnet changes - 2009

Ofcom has also issued guidance to broadband providers to simplify additional charges. As a result we are making some changes to our customer notice and commitment periods.

Firstly, we're reducing the notice required to end our service to 10 days for broadband and phone. This is currently 30 days.

Previously we had 18 month contracts on our 'Value' and 'Unlimited' products which meant that if you left before the 18 month contract ended, you would have been liable to pay an early termination charge which was calculated as any outstanding subscription charges until the contract end date

We have now changed our policy so that there are no early termination charges, but if you leave Plusnet in your first 12 months after receiving a free set-up, router or house move, we'll charge you the full price for these. If you remain with Plusnet for 12 months after receiving a free set-up, router or house move these prices will be waived. You can also choose to pay for any of these up front if you want more flexibility.

Back in October last year we introduced a cessation charge which was passed onto us by our suppliers. This charge is only payable if you completely cancel your broadband service - so in most cases this doesn't need to be paid, as people tend to use a migration code (MAC) to migrate to another broadband supplier. Due to supplier price increases in May, we now need to increase this fee, so it's changing from £20 to £25.

I suggest that you check the up to date information
There are long contracts with early termination charges http://www.plus.net/info2/legal/index.html#packaged_...
http://www.plus.net/info2/legal/price_guide.html

Yes I suspected there would be. But I didn't expect changing to unlimited fibre from normal fibre would incur a new 18 month contract. I suspect it was in any email received, but I didn't check it and would have expected them to make it clear over the phone.

Swapping your Sky to HD now apoarently starts a new 18 month contract. They're all at it and it's not really on as far as I'm concerned. It's that "new customers only" malarkey that means they don't offer you the decent deals if you've been a long term customer, but still want to tie you into long contracts.

I'll happily pay the termination charge to get away from them, if they don't think offering me a decent deal is fair. Would just like to know the exact monthly compensation figure?

I do know the difference, but quoting the monthly cancellation charge for me would be useful, thanks.

that is given in the second link in my post

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

that is given in the second link in my post

Ah, I see thank you.

I missed that by skimming on the first attempt!

Sorry, been shut down all day as I'm away on holiday, but I see Oldjim gave you the link. You just need to make sure you get the right dated ones - it can get confusing.

As I said earlier, get on the Community forums on Monday about not being told you would start a new minimum term.

I knew it was an old link from last time I started with them afresh, and I expected it to have changed to be honest, but it's quite a big change implemented quietly. You announce you're going to go the extra mile for your customers and be fairer and more understanding of contract implications, bearing in mind the nature of the changing delivery infrastructure; then all of sudden it's [censored] that, let's go back to penalising people. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, from a company still trumpeting it's good honest service all over the telly. It's nice to have affable people on the other end of the phone on the rare occasion you have a problem, but if the contract terms are no different and packages the same, just costlier, I'm better off voting with my wallet I guess.

I await the inevitable combative replies telling me to read the small print, or that every other company does the same. But because of those old contract terms and all the affable correspondence in between, and all the good honest advertising, I feel a little misled. To me, Plusnet were one of those "fair" companies that you didn't mind paying a little more for their service. Since having so few problems with a fibre connection, having to ring an Indian call centre once in a blue moon isn't a deal breaker for me any more, and to be fair, from my experience with Sky and Barclaycard they seem to be getting better anyway. I used to struggle in understanding the caller back when I was with BT. I don't seem to have that problem with Sky etc. I might have a look at the forums a bit later, but I'm more inclined to just leave Plusnet to it to be honest.

Thanks for the advice Robertos, and for replying whilst on your holiday. Shouldn't you be letting it all hang out or something?!

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

I await the inevitable combative replies telling me to read the small print

?

You no longer have to read the small print

In reference to www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/1190654...:

It's official: you don't have to read the Ts & Cs
Few of us read all the small print anyway, but now lawyers and other authorities say we don't have to

Very interesting link, thank you.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You no longer have to read the small print

In reference to www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/1190654...:

It's official: you don't have to read the Ts & Cs
Few of us read all the small print anyway, but now lawyers and other authorities say we don't have to

My view is that the Telegraph article significantly overstates the rights a consumer has.

It is true that the new Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires terms in consumer contracts to be in plain, intelligible language, but complexity of language merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the meaning is unclear, so any lack of clarity should resolve in the consumer's favour. The lawyer mentioned in the article merely says, truthfully, that terms and conditions for financial products often contain glitches that have arisen as terms are revised over time, which may trigger the presumption that they are unclear and should be construed in the most favourable light to the consumer.

The new Act doesn't allow you to say "that's a long set of terms and conditions, which I will ignore as I am not bound by them". That inference is journalistic licence, which the courts are most unlikely to follow.


It is a long standing principle of contract law, known as contra proferentem, that any vagueness or uncertainty in a contract shall resolve in favour of the parties who are not relying on the clause(s) in question. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which the new Act replaces, laid out a test of fairness that terms in consumer contracts must meet to be valid. As the commentary on Pinsent Masons' web site notes, the requirement for transparency (plain and intelligible language) is carried over from the 1999 Regulations. What is new in the 2015 Act is the requirement for prominence, and it is this requirement that potentially defeats small print. If a reasonable well-informed consumer would not have noticed the term in question before entering into a contract, there is a rebuttable presumption the term is unfair and therefore does not bind the consumer.

The requirement for prominence means companies burying anti-consumer clauses deep within contracts might not be able to rely on those terms. In practice, this may well require service providers to draw clauses about early termination charges to consumers' attention before commencement of the contract.