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.