|
|
|
Cannot supply at new address - Early Redmemption Penalty!
My elderly mother has broadband with them and due to health issues is having to move to a more suitable property in the same Town.
She phoned up today and asked for her broadband to be transferred to the new property. She gave them the address details and was informed that their services were not available at the new address yet.
They are charging her £340 early termination fees!
She pointed out that she wanted the services transferred, but through no fault of her own this isn't possible.
Any other broadband provider who cannot transfer the services do not charge early termination fees as this is outwith the customer's control. I can testify to this happening to me personally.
So is my mother expected to only consider moving to another property if it has Gofibre availability is this even legal?
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this is the way of the modern world. If mother's move was in any way predictable, she should not have signed for renewal. We saw OR here preparing for fibre over a summer. Our wireless broadband contract reached 2 years in October, I could see fttp was coming and I declined to renew, just staying on month by month.
As an aside, I tend to think that while a fixed contract period initially is justified, continued contract lock in after that is predatory.
|
|
|
|
Just found it in the their T&Cs
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
|
You could speak with them and explain the situation and see if they can meet you in the middle. Someone moving house during the minimum contract period may not be within the control of the customer, but it's not the providers' fault either. They will have spent money to acquire the customer, may have applied an introductory offer, performed a physical installation and supplied equipment, and they recoup those costs over the term of the initial agreement.
Personally I'd rather the standard was no contracts, no supplied routers, and you pay for the costs of the installation, but "the market" has decided otherwise.
|
|
|
|
I feel for you and your mother but companies have costs in putting in services and so they have these clauses to help them recover costs if people terminate early.
Whilst your mother may not have been able to foresee a move neither could the company - the alternative is maybe the company should have refused service to someone that they considered may be a risk of moving but then I am not sure how they would determine that.
A lot of broadband networks are running at a loss at present so may not be able to absorb this like a large long term player like BT would.
|
|
|
I feel for you and your mother but companies have costs in putting in services and so they have these clauses to help them recover costs if people terminate early.
That is valid in the initial minimum term. But not for follow on terms
|
|
|
The follow on terms often are discounted in which case the profit levels will be much lower. I am sure it is in the contract they signed up to.
I also understand that they should only be recovering their costs according to the code of practice so shouldn't just be charging the full amount to end of contract - but not sure if that is the case here (ie whether there has been any discount to the total amount owed to the end of the contract).
EDIT: Can't see anything here that says whether it was the initial contract or a follow on anyway so we don't know if that makes any difference here - contractually it doesn't, morally is down to individual judgement.
Edited by ian72 (Tue 27-Jan-26 10:52:22)
|
|
|
|
Is her intial contract. She will just have to pay it.
Have set her up with a new deal through TCB Compare Broadband. Vodafone 500 with cashback and a voucher
|
|
|
|
Personally think that, while they are entitled to charge the termination fee, it's a bit hard considering the situation.
When my wife's aunt's health took a turn for the worse we moved her from phone only BT, for which she was paying an exorbitant amount, to Vodafone Broadband, which we added to my existing account. The intention being that we could provide her with devices to help her continue to live independently, she being all but blind.
Unfortunately after a stay in hospital and what was intended to be a short recuperation in a care home she died.
I expected an argument with VF over terminating the contract but it turned out to be the shortest and easiest contact that I have had with them - all on the phone speaking to a person; not a bot. No discussion and didn't ask for the hardware back. They even refunded the unused portion of the monthly payment.
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
Its nice to see a BB Provider doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Its nice to see a BB Provider doing the right thing. I had an issue when my Dad went into nursing care and although he had previously spoken to EE and given permission for my wife to manage his account they wouldn't allow her to cancel his mobile phone monthly payment (he was out of contract). I had to step in with a LPA to get it done but not everyone has a LPA for their parent. We didn't have any issue with his Sky broadband account they were more than happy to help and he was only 6 months into a 18 month contract.
Edited by PCJM40 (Wed 28-Jan-26 11:06:54)
|
|
|
|
I made a complaint on her behalf and this morning she received the following:
Our Complaints Team have reviewed your case and I'm pleased to confirm that we have waived your Early Termination Fee of £340.
|
|
|
I made a complaint on her behalf and this morning she received the following:
Our Complaints Team have reviewed your case and I'm pleased to confirm that we have waived your Early Termination Fee of £340. Well done for persisting with this on her behalf.
|
|
|
I made a complaint on her behalf and this morning she received the following:
Our Complaints Team have reviewed your case and I'm pleased to confirm that we have waived your Early Termination Fee of £340.
This is great news.
seb
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Mind you they generated an invoice to the contrary on the 1st Feb.(£366!) They said they will only take what is due (£23.22) However, I will monitor her direct debit with her and if they try to take the wrong amount I will get her to contact her bank and pull the payment back. I even (on her behalf) said that she would make payment of the balance by card and they said that wasn't necessary. No sign of an amended invoice yet though.
|
|
|
Mind you they generated an invoice to the contrary on the 1st Feb.(£366!) They said they will only take what is due (£23.22) However, I will monitor her direct debit with her and if they try to take the wrong amount I will get her to contact her bank and pull the payment back. I even (on her behalf) said that she would make payment of the balance by card and they said that wasn't necessary. No sign of an amended invoice yet though.
Talk to provider before using DD guarantee.
seb
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Will have something up on news about this in the morning. I think it's worth re-iterating for wider audience.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
She forwarded an email to me last night with a reissued invoice for the correct amount of £23.22 she received at some point yesterday. (her moving day).
So hopefully all will go correctly
|
|
|
|
This is the main reason - 24 months contract should be B A N N E D but I really hate bloody useless ofcom are.
All broadband should be standard 12 months END OF!
|
|
|
I made a complaint on her behalf and this morning she received the following:
Our Complaints Team have reviewed your case and I'm pleased to confirm that we have waived your Early Termination Fee of £340.
Well done 
|
|
|
This is the main reason - 24 months contract should be B A N N E D but I really hate bloody useless ofcom are.
All broadband should be standard 12 months END OF! The problem is, if all contracts were 12 months broadband starting prices would go up, the ISPs currently load the second half of the contracts which on a 12 month contract would be harder to do so the starting price would be higher. That may suit some people but not everyone.
I know you are on a 12 month contract with your ISP and new customers get 3 months at half price but over a 24 months period you still pay a lot more than someone on a 24 month contract with other ISPs. Do people really want to keep switching ISP every 12 months as thats what you need to do with most 12 month contracts unless your happy to throw money away.
|
|
|
|
I stand by my own view on 12 months contract because the 24 months contract always getting twice price increasing eg: £8 increased especially those on EE, BT and PN. If you sign up 12 months with 3 months half price that's good. When the contract expired after 12 months you can switch to better deal. I never wanted to sign up for 24 months contract with twice price increasing.
|
|
|
I stand by my own view on 12 months contract because the 24 months contract always getting twice price increasing eg: £8 increased especially those on EE, BT and PN. If you sign up 12 months with 3 months half price that's good. When the contract expired after 12 months you can switch to better deal. I never wanted to sign up for 24 months contract with twice price increasing. If all ISPs are forced to 12 month contracts there won't be better deals  as all prices will be higher as these ISPs are not simply going to charge the same starting price as they do for a 24 month contract. Its simple maths, ISPs won't lose out they never do.
|
|
|
|
IIRC ISP's used to offer various contract lengths, commonly 12m, 18m, and 24m, and the prices varied accordingly. IMO no need to ban 24m contracts, just ensure ISP's offer the 12m contract and allow them to offer longer contracts if they want.
|
|
|
IIRC ISP's used to offer various contract lengths, commonly 12m, 18m, and 24m, and the prices varied accordingly. IMO no need to ban 24m contracts, just ensure ISP's offer the 12m contract and allow them to offer longer contracts if they want. Totally agree, BT offers both 12 and 24 month contracts at different prices so would be interested to know how their sales break down between the two options.
|
|
|
This is the main reason - 24 months contract should be B A N N E D but I really hate bloody useless ofcom are.
All broadband should be standard 12 months END OF!
END OF? I disagree. I would go further than you. I would allow an initial 12 month contract and require that contracts go rolling after that. After the initial 12 months, the ISP should have recovered their up-front costs. Doing it this way would end ISPs having 2 bites at a price rise - once in term and again at renewal.
|
|
|
|
Most ISPs I have used do go rolling after the initial term - but usually at a higher price. You can then sign up again to a new term to get a discount.
|
|
|
Necessary evil if it happens.
The cheap for 3 months, expensive for 21 months is nonsensical anyway.
Really mid contract rises should be flat out banned, even if it means higher starting rates, so ISP has choice of lock in with no inflation or convenience for customer with inflation.
There perhaps should be relegation preventing extortion on monthly terms similar to OR price controls, ISP's act like they have double costs just because someone isnt on a long term commit.
I would also support max's suggestion of a cap on contract length. The telecoms market is very unstable, customers can be sold in buyout's, mid term increases, network changes that affect stability and performance, switch from non CGNAT to CGNAT, these things happen enough that they not rare.
|
|
|
I would also support max's suggestion of a cap on contract length.
There is (for residential rather than business customers). It is 24 months.
|
|
|
The telecoms market is very unstable, customers can be sold in buyout's, mid term increases, network changes that affect stability and performance, switch from non CGNAT to CGNAT, these things happen enough that they not rare. Material changes to your service result in you being able to terminate the agreement regardless of how long it lasts for. A company buying another, or an annual price increase that you were made aware of when taking out the service are not grounds for being able to do this.
|
|
|
Being able to terminate your contract within 30 days, is not a substitute for requiring the ISP to uphold the contract, its bonkers to think it is a substitute.
A customer has to pay a penalty if they leave early, why dont ISPs have to do the same when they change the terms?
These contracts are very one sided, its basically a commit only on the customer side.
|
|
|
24 months is too big of a cap. It should be 12 months.
|
|
|
24 months is too big of a cap. It should be 12 months.
Totally agree, I for one will be looking for ISPs that allow 12 month contracts. It was bad enough with VMs 18 month contracts, but they have now gone to 24 months. I will not be renewing when my present 18 month contract ends with VM.
It's hard enough to plan for 12 months, never mind 24 ...
|
|
|
24 months is too big of a cap. It should be 12 months.
The ISPs have substantial costs to recover during the initial contract time. In particular there's the cost of supplying the router; the Openreach connection fee of £122.84 (+VAT) when not migrating an existing service; and the cost of sales and marketing kickbacks, such as paying middlemen like uSwitch.
If the maximum contract length were 12 months, you could expect charges to go up by £10 per month or more to compensate.
However, when rolling on after the end of the contract, or upon renewal, there are no such costs to recover. There's no reason that prices should *increase* at the end of a contract - in the case of some providers like Plusnet they double - indeed, they should fall. Forcing people to take another 24 month contract simply to avoid these hikes is ludicrous. And if they switch at that point (because why not?) that generates more e-waste in discarded routers.
The market is supposed to sort these things out. The provider I've chosen doesn't do this.
But with the big providers it's a race to the bottom. They're also the ones with the big advertising budgets, so many people either are unaware that there are alternatives, or don't trust a name they haven't heard of, or see a lower headline price that sounds attractive but hides the true cost when the annual rises are taken into account.
|
|
|
There should be a choice of contract lengths and also a choice if people want a fixed term price or the typical £4 per year increase and let the customer decide what they go for. My keyword is choice.
Edited by PCJM40 (Mon 09-Feb-26 11:42:41)
|
|
|
Indeed! I completely agree with you PCJM40.
i.e Real choice, at a fair and sustainable market price.
No sensible person wants an ISP to go bust, for under charging, since that just reduces choice too.
But the current system is regressive; these flat rate (e.g. £4) increases, irrespective of which speed tier a customer chooses, disproportionately "screw" the customers with the least disposable income.
Off-Toss, sorry OFCOM, should require all ISPs to offer "1 month rolling" and "12 month" contracts, in addition to whatever other longer term lengths they desire.
Obviously 1-month-rolling contracts would attract a one-off fee for the cost of any hardware (and network migrate/provide as appropriate).
The problem I would imagine is how to prevent unrealistic pricing.
i.e. Deliberately setting "silly" high pricing, such that nobody, in their right mind, would ever choose such a tariff.
Any suggestions?
All the best,
Lizzie
|
|
|
The costs are not as high as they claim them to be.
Also there is nothing stopping an ISP front loading charges, and then refunding them later if the customer stays for XX months. Instead of just adding a massive premium (typically well in excess of £10) for short commit.
So e.g. charge a setup fee, that is refunded after 18 months.
In terms of supplying a router, thats on the ISP if they want to shove one down the customer's throat, cheaper to make it optional so customer can supply own equipment, but even then they not necessarily sending out brand new kit, as customers who leave return old equipment.
This is one of those situations where competition hasnt fixed it, and needs the regulator to force better terms. Including an outright ban on mid contract rises.
These premiums also typically exist on migrations as well. (when the OR fee isnt applicable).
Also my maths puts the increase at £5 not £10 for 24 to 12 month conversion for OR fee, as its a £5 month cost increased to £10 month cost.
I agree with PCJM, enforce a choice, but also enforce that the cost differential is reasonable.
Something like £20 month for 24 months and then £50 month for monthly is taking the mickey.
Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 10-Feb-26 10:56:56)
|
|
|
<snip> Something like £20 month for 24 months and then £50 month for monthly is taking the mickey.
This is so VM, I know when my current 18 month deal is up, the price will more than double. At this point it's either do the dance with retentions for a deal or leave. I'll be doing the latter as I've done twice before. I've also returned on "new" customer deals, e.g. Black Friday etc.
I'm fortunate in that I only have broadband, so no phone, TV or email to tie me in, so moving ISP is fairly easy. The whole system is broken at present IMHO
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
AlistairS
