Speed increase

[#1]

'18.1. We may change the price, or other charges, the service or the terms of our agreement:'

This is clearly an unfair term, as it gives all the power to PN, and none to the customer.

[#2]

That's a clause that would make any back street car dealer proud.

It also makes you wonder what exactly is the service the customer is signing up for.

[#3]

---

@Oldjim wrote:

Surely Clause 18.1 covers it

It doesn't stand alone, Jim. It's conditional upon the following clauses.

(As an aside: if it did stand alone, it would light up the CRA grey list like the facade of Harrods!)

[#4]

Hi Harry

I had another look at my profile and im on market B and that means my line can only download @40mb? Will i still get the upgrade of 53mb when it comes out in august?

 regards

Andy

[#5]

Market B means that several suppliers have broadband equipment in the exchange apart from BT so there is competition and the exchange is a low cost one. This has no connection with the Range A and Range B figures shown in the image; these relate to the quality of your line.

in your case Range A appears to be applicable.

[#6]

So even though it says im on market B you say im on market A?

Sorry if i seem a little confused

[#7]

No I said that there is no connection between the Market your exchange is on, which is B, and the quality of your line, where Range A appears to apply.

Range A lines perform better than Range B lines and your line appears to perform within Range A.

[#8]

Thanks Spraxyt!

[#9]

It does sound like a poor justification for withdrawing a service previously agreed upon. As has been pointed out some clauses could be stretched to cover just about anything, but such clauses are usually not enforceable.

I'm no lawyer, but this has come up in the past in discussions of consumer protection. I can send customers empty boxes and point to my T&Cs that says I don't promise the parcels will contain the product, but just my display of such conditions doesn't make them binding. In fact there used to be a rule that while a company could say 'if the box is empty then tough' they had to put in the small print something like 'these conditions do not affect your consumer rights'.

So they were essentially a bluff.

[#10]

---

@InterZoom wrote:

---

@HarryB wrote:

It is not available to new customers. We're simply moving 40/20 connections to 55/10 as we can't provision on 40/20 on a wholesale level (They're all provisioned on 80/20) so it makes more sense to have the connections provisioned on something we can actually order. 55/10 seems a better option than 40/10 or 40/2.

Ah. Good. So that's clear and unambiguous.

I'm afraid this reason is not covered by PlusNet's terms and conditions.

"It makes more sense" -- all of a sudden -- doesn't cut it by a long way:

• Clause 18.1.1  - doesn't apply (we may change the service if we change the service!)
• Clause 18.1.2  - not relevant as this isn't a product re-structure, it's providing the same product in a way which, newly "makes more sense" to PlusNet, but is, in fact, detrimental to many customers
• Clause 18.1.3 - has been ruled out by the above explanation ie. there has been no cost increase
• Clause 18.1.4 - a 50% speed reduction is not a better service, and the relevant Openreach product hasn't changed
• Clause 18.1.5 - no new law
• Clause 18.1.6 - not applicable
• Clause 18.1.7 - no unpredictable change in circumstances making necessary

https://www.plus.net/help/legal/terms/

So that means that, entirely regardless of whether those terms may or may not be found to be unfair more broadly, there is in any case no contractual basis upon which you can downgrade my service for the express reason given. Sorry.

So please stop right there and do not make any changes to my service on 1st August. I wish to stay on 40/20, as originally provisioned; and it is now evident that I have every legal right to do so, without needing to establish anything further.

Thanks.

---

@HarryB

I would be grateful if you could confirm that, since there is no operative variation clause, my service will not be changed.

If you need to run it past PlusNet's lawyers first, that's fine.

By all means PM me.

Thanks again.

[#11]

I've just spoken to PN, and they freely admit that they are in breach of contract, which is why they are waiving the termination fee for anyone who wants to leave; they just will not budge on this.

Best they can offer me is a measly £2 discount on upgrading to 80/20, but that is with a new 24 month contract! No one else in the ISP world insist on such long contracts any more, the norm is 12 month now.

So long Plusnet after 10 years of great service, but I am not going to stay around to get ripped of by a corporation that no longer cares about it's customers.

[#12]

It's not a breach of contract, it's a detrimental change to the contract which allows customers to leave without early termination charges based on this.

[#13]

Sorry, but it is a very simple breach of contract because no variation clause in fact applies.

Potentially unfair variation clauses may (or may not) be found to be fair because another clause allows for exit without early termination charges, but first of all you have to cross the hurdle of a clause which permits the variation itself.

Please specify precisely which clause you are relying on and give the reason.

You may wish to consult the legal dept. first.

[#14]

To be completely blunt, we're simply not going to get in to a legal debate on the forum. We've made a change to the contract terms which is deemed detrimental, so we allow customers affected to leave without early termination charges.

[#15]

No need for debate.

Which clause?