So why are PN not bound to the contract they agreed to for the same duration?

Could it be that PN are bound to it too and can't change the contract either?

My point - a company does not have higher rights to amend the contract any more than an individual can change the contract by giving notice. Some people seem to think that only the consumer is bound to the contract terms i.e. we are agreeing to abide by their rules and this couldn't be further from the truth.

I think the fact that you have accepted a contract which allows one party to change the T&C's giving a period of notice and if that is not acceptable for the contract to be ended, means they can do it. there is nothing to say that customers can give notice to change. This may be deemed to be an unfair contract, but it would be decided in court. I do think that there might be mileage in the compensation if the T&C's are changed and are not acceptable to the customer, again it would have to be tested in court.

Just a matter of fact. It was earlier said that if you reject T&C's, then you are not allowed a PAYG account. Strange because I kept one and I left rejecting those T&C's so avoiding certain payments they would have been entitled to receive.

In reply to:

---

I think the fact that you have accepted a contract which allows one party to change the T&C's giving a period of notice and if that is not acceptable for the contract to be ended, means they can do it.

---

I have not said that and nor do I agree with it.

What I do admit is that variation clauses are frequently used and lay down the requirements for this to take place. Insertion of such a clause or any other clause/Term does not automatically make it legal and yet to challenge the validity of it would require either mediation, regulatory body review or in court. This is the variation clause in PN's Ts&Cs:

In reply to:

---

24. How this Agreement can be changed

We may change this Agreement, including our Charges, at any time. We will give you at least 14 days notice of any changes before they take effect. You may not change any term of this Agreement. As explained in clause 23, you can end this Agreement by giving us immediate notice in this 14 day period if we increase our Charges or change the Conditions of this Agreement to your detriment.

---

The reason why they are allowed to do this is because the customer can simply migrate away to another provider and because PN won't hold them to any remainder of the contract term. PN have not given notice of change of contract that should IMO have occurred with the introduction of LLU and nor did they do so when they reduced the limits across the board in April 06. The reason for the latter was claimed on the basis that the SUP and AUP were not part of the Ts&Cs, then it was part of it but not detrimental and finally that the hours for peak time were reduced hence no detriment. It is the PN way.

However and what would be interesting is if someone refused the changes and demanded PN provide the contracted for service for the remainder of the duration.

I assume that is purely to underline your position, because I never suggested that you had said it or that you agreed with it, just top be clear all round.

But if I agree that clauses can be changed as part of teh contract which I either accept or leave the contract, this may be deemed unfair, in which case there is no contract in teh first place. But agreeing to operate like that does not, INHO, mean that the person or company who does change the contract clauses will not be responsible for compensation if the other party leaves the contract and suffers loss thereby.

Thanks.

In reply to:

---

But if I agree that clauses can be changed as part of teh contract which I either accept or leave the contract, this may be deemed unfair, in which case there is no contract in teh first place.

---

That is not totally correct.

If it is established that a contract is in operation and if a Term is deemed unfair then the contract continues albeit with the particular Term having been struck out (as though it never existed), unless the unfair Term goes to the heart of an existing contract in which case the whole contract is considered void. Very simplified because it becomes much more complicated.

I (we) have gone on such a tangent to the subject matter of this thread that I will have to stop posting to it now.

Back on topic for you all.

The PN has always had a clause that they can manage the network in a way they see fit for the benefit of their customers. This clause gives them the right to impose the limits because without them the network would of reached saturation point and virtually all internet activity would of been next to impossible.

Point 1 - Too much discretion in the hands of PN without any defined limits or measures but even if we accept they have this right

Point 2 - They would still need to issue a notice when the SUP/AUP are reduced i.e. detriment to the customer because they are part of the Ts&Cs and the same binds PN to give notice

Point 3 - Just because it is in the contract does not mean it is either enforceable or fair

Is relation to point 1 - we need to ask what it is that is for the benefit of the customer. Can it be that an ISP can cram on more users than their advertised contention ratio for instance and in doing so they impact the service since even a previously normal user becomes a problem? I can understand if 1 person or even 100 people are using too many resources and an ISP dealing with it but you have to bear in mind the points I raise above.