The key word there, in legal terms is "Should" - it is not "MUST". If it said "must" then contacts would be limited to 24 months, but with "should" it is advisory and Ofcom could not enforce it.

This approach is wrong. That document does not provide the valid definition of the minimum part of the contract. It is the General Conditions of Entitlement (to operate) issued by Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003.

These state that the Fixed Commitment Period "shall not" be more than 24 months. (This is for consumer protection, to ensure that users aren't prevented from switching to another provider for too long.)

The General Conditions also contain a definition of the Fixed Commitment Period.

Leaving aside the legalities, I think it is fair for the company to expect 24 months of payment. That is presumably what they want to cover the cost of the installation. The free period is generously provided before the contract would otherwise begin, to save the user from early termination fees.

Leaving aside the legalities, I think it is fair for the company to expect 24 months of payment.

That’s far enough in itself, which is why the vast majority of companies build the promotional period into their 2 year contract.

This however is not a 2 year contract, it’s a 2.5 year contract. The question then is it fair to tie the consumer into a 2.5 year contract and is it fair to promote it as a 2 year contract but the actual reality is it’s 2.5 years.

Isn’t that a slightly dubious way of doing business in your view? Why not just say 2.5 year (30 month) contract from the outset and be done with it…

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Leaving aside the legalities, I think it is fair for the company to expect 24 months of payment.

That’s far enough in itself, which is why the vast majority of companies build the promotional period into their 2 year contract.

This however is not a 2 year contract, it’s a 2.5 year contract. The question then is it fair to tie the consumer into a 2.5 year contract and is it fair to promote it as a 2 year contract but the actual reality is it’s 2.5 years.

Isn’t that a slightly dubious way of doing business in your view? Why not just say 2.5 year (30 month) contract from the outset and be done with it…

Because its not a fixed 30 month contract, the 6 months is up to 6 months and requires you to prove your still in contract. If you only had 1 month contract remaining it'd be a 25 month contract.

If it was just a case of them advertising and giving 6 months free to everyone I'd agree its dubious

To be fair I hadn’t read Lee’s update post with Be terms above. Sure it’s not a fixed contract but it’s not exactly a 24 month contract in the strict sense either.

It’s a 24 month plus deferral contract. Where the deferral could be zero - but with no discounts

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

These state that the Fixed Commitment Period "shall not" be more than 24 months. (This is for consumer protection, to ensure that users aren't prevented from switching to another provider for too long.)

Even "shall not" does not preclude them from making it longer if they wish, only words such as "must not" or "can not" indicate a compulsory requirement.

I'm not defending them in any way, just pointing out that they are not compelled to offer a 24 month maximum. I do agree though that it is reasonable for them to expect a specifc amount of revenue, in this case 24 months, to cover their costs.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Even "shall not" does not preclude them from making it longer if they wish, only words such as "must not" or "can not" indicate a compulsory requirement.

I disagree. "Shall not" = "will not".

As I understand it, if the OP wants to exit the contract right now they can, because they haven't signed it and the service hasn't started.

If they want to get Ofcom involved, then it's on the basis that "this retail ISP offered me a 30 month contract, and they're only supposed to offer me 24 months". What resolution are they looking for? That the ISP will offer them a 6+18 month contract instead? Maybe they'll get it, but is it really worth the hassle?

The service provider will say that they tied the customer to a 2 year contract, and just offers them an additional period of free service for the overlap period with their previous ISP. (Although it sounds like the wording of the contract explicitly says 30 months total contract period).

If Ofcom says they can't do that, then they could just withdraw the overlap free period, so the OP has to pay for all 24 months - even those which overlap with the existing ISP service. That doesn't sound like a good outcome to me.

Hi all, thanks for all the replies.
To further add to the issue one other Alt ISP responded and their offer is 3 months free, so 3 months free and pay for 9 months for the 12 month contract.
It seems OP Alt ISP use the word " defferal" to get around this.
Whilst I understand costs for the Isp's, why not be straight with people, I can imagine alot of people will sign up then try to leave after 2 years then puzzled why they are still under contract for another 6 months lol yes Isp's need to recoup money for installation and routers etc but the free 6 months is therefore not free if you need to add 6 months to a 24 month contract???
Lee

So by having this "deferral" period of up to 6 months they are effectively locking you into a contract ready for when your existing contract comes to an end, this is different from 6 months free as you will be still paying your other provider during that deferral period. For me there would be no real incentive to do this unless the 6 months deferral was part of the 24 month contract and not added on.

The intention is that if you're in contract with an ADSL provider you can sign up with these guys and start enjoying a usable internet service without paying two bills at the same time. It gives their sales team an answer for "sorry I'd love to sign up but I have four months left with my current provider".

B4rn do a similar thing - see https://b4rn.org.uk/connectplus/

I see it as a good thing, it's completely optional and you don't have to take it. If you've seen some advertising that claims it's "24 month contract and six months free" then that might be one for the ASA rather than Ofcom, but their website is clear about what the deferral is and how it works.

In reply to a post by highlander317:

Whilst I understand costs for the Isp's, why not be straight with people, I can imagine alot of people will sign up then try to leave after 2 years then puzzled why they are still under contract for another 6 months lol yes Isp's need to recoup money for installation and routers etc but the free 6 months is therefore not free if you need to add 6 months to a 24 month contract???
Lee

It is free - you receive (up to) 30 months of service and are billed for 24 of them.

Edited by jpm (Fri 27-May-22 15:22:06)