As a neutral observer also, my view is

i) if A is a feature of X
and B is a feature of X
where B is also a feature of A.

B being a feature of A does not stop it being a feature of X other than A.

Helpdesk services are a feature of the package.
The hours of helpdesk services are a feature of the package.
The hours of helpdesk services are also a feature of helpdesk services.

Just because the hours of helpdesk services are also a feature of the helpdesk services, does not stop them being a feature of the package other than helpdesk services.

ii) Is 24/7 customer support a feature mentioned on the webpage? Yes. Is 24/7 customer support a feature mentioned in 1 and 2? No. Therefore it counts as �any other feature� mentioned in 3.

iii) I find it impossible to recognise 1 and 2 as applications, so it makes no sense to refer to �any other applications�. I am entitled to presume the true meaning intended was �any applications (and features)�.

iv) The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

7.�(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail

I was going to, but forgot, to mention to David a point you bring up there.

That is the relevance of the "what a reasonable person would expect" application of Consumer law, as opposed to B2B contract law.

You sign up for a package with a well-publicised feature, that is stated to be available to you 24/7 if you have a problem, then you can reasonably expect it to be available throughout your minimum term, and if it ceases to be so you should be able to leave without paying any early termination fees.

For all customers no longer in a minimum term they simply have to decide whether any change to anything in their package matters to them, and vote accordingly with their wallet/purse.

This has echoes of BT Retail, whereby they are removing free BT Sport even for customers within a minimum term. It seems to be a "thing" at BT at the moment, moving the goalposts (probably to pay for Premier League goalposts).

Meanwhile, 24/7 remains a headline part on several of their advertising pages, despite the fact that anyone signing up now is unlikely to get even one day of such service.

The ASA would be interested in the current situation of 24/7 still being publicised, but I'm not in the mood to let them know.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 26-Jun-15 17:51:32)

pointless with the ASA, all they would do is after a month or two tell plusnet to not advertise it which by july 13 they wont be anyway.

I don't know. Unlike the contractual position, there is no room for doubt that the current website is misleading and needs immediate change.

well I guess someone could use the ASA decision as weight behind legal proceedings so you right it isnt pointless.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

As a neutral observer also, my view is

i) if A is a feature of X
and B is a feature of X
where B is also a feature of A.

B being a feature of A does not stop it being a feature of X other than A.

Helpdesk services are a feature of the package.
The hours of helpdesk services are a feature of the package.
The hours of helpdesk services are also a feature of helpdesk services.

Just because the hours of helpdesk services are also a feature of the helpdesk services, does not stop them being a feature of the package other than helpdesk services.

ii) Is 24/7 customer support a feature mentioned on the webpage? Yes. Is 24/7 customer support a feature mentioned in 1 and 2? No. Therefore it counts as �any other feature� mentioned in 3.

iii) I find it impossible to recognise 1 and 2 as applications, so it makes no sense to refer to �any other applications�. I am entitled to presume the true meaning intended was �any applications (and features)�.

That's one way of looking at it - but it might not be a legal way.

The law bases itself on what the contract says, not what the contract should say from a logical standpoint. Natural reasoning and law can diverge quite rapidly. Sir Edward Coke, delivering judgment against the then King in 1607, came out with the famous statement (Case of Prohibitions [1607] EWHC KB J23): "[cases] are not to be decided by natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgment of law, which law is an act which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it".


You are astute to spot that 'applications' is not defined elsewhere in the contract, so the starting place is that it takes its normal English meaning. The lack of clarity over what are 'applications' is another problem with determining the true construction of clause 1, creating further doubt over exactly what of the product web page is incorporated into the contract by reference.

If the parties agree to something absurd, the starting place is that the law will uphold that absurdity. However, the weakness of a consumer dealing with a business on the business's standard terms is acknowledged in the requirement for fairness imposed by regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) (which is the transposition of (EU) Directive 93/13/EEC into domestic law).

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

iv) The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

7.�(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail

Your reminder of reg. 7(2) UTCCR 1999 is important. This regulation embodies the interpretative principle contra proferentem into legislation for consumer contracts. It's a last resort way of deciding how to resolve a 'tie' - if all else fails and the meaning remains in doubt, the scale tips against the party relying on the clause (which is taken as the company for consumer contracts).

As I said, exactly what of the web page is incorporated into the contract is unclear. It may well be that a court felt able to resolve the situation without getting as far as reg. 7(2) UTCCR 1999, but, if not, you know which way the tiebreaker will go!


By the way, much of consumer law, including the consumer rights in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and UTCCR 1999, ill all be replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2015 from some time later this year - likely 1 October. The old law will apply for problems arising before that commencement date. This is just a 'heads up' that things are changing. It should be a great help having so much important consumer law in one place.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Bear in mind my view just isnt my own I have already been advised from legal professionals on this.

Any legal advice is just an opinion. Until tested in court, it cannot be said to be the correct answer. I'm a legal neophyte, really, and am more than willing to accept I am wrong, but I am trying to give reasons for my conclusions.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

plusnet t&c's state plusnet will provide what is on their sales page.

I believe there is some doubt as to how much of the product web page is incorporated into the contract, as I have explained.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

the sales contract also states 24/7 uk support/

Not necessarily - if the web page statement on 24/7 support is not incorporated into the contract, it does not bind Plusnet.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Both of these mean that if the product spec changes the service contract is void unless the customer agrees to the change. 24/7 uk support is part of the product spec.

Again, not necessarily. As I have explained earlier in the thread, only a breach of condition or a breach of an innominate term depriving the innocent party of "substantially the whole benefit" of the contract gives rise to the right of repudiation as well as the right to redress (typically damages). Other breaches of contract do not give rise to the right of repudiation, just the right to redress.

If the right of repudiation exists, the innocent party must exercise that right - the contract doesn't become void simply because it is voidable.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

What plusnet can do is this.

They can remove 24/7 uk support from new customers only.
They can remove 24/7 uk support from existing customers providing they are informed and agree to the change of terms.

If the web page statement on 24/7 support is incorporated into the contract, Plusnet have a right to change the contractual rights of existing customers using the process in clauses 50-53 of their Residential Standard Terms. This right is subject to two safeguards - the obligation to allow penalty free termination if the change imposes material detriment on the customer, and the requirement for fairness imposed by regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.