Speed increase

[#1]

The early termination get-out is rather moot, when Plusnet are very well aware that the grass is no greener anywhere else. We're currently paying under a tenner for our 40/20, and there's no way anyone can match that. Plusnet know very well they have us over a barrel with this change, and weasel words do nothing to soothe as they rub their hands with glee. I've made (and had a dismissive boilerplate response to) a formal complaint over this, but realise that ultimately loyal (10+ years) customers aren't really valued, when they would rather have naive ones who compliantly believe the current 40/2 offering is a great service. I've seen plenty of cases in the past with other companies where demanding (and usually bandwidth-abusive) customers have been brushed aside as uneconomical to sustain, but never thought that modest use such as ours would ever come under the same scrutiny.

[#2]

InterZoom - Please see my previous response.

[#3]

Chris, which clause are you relying on?

It's a simple question. I'd appreciate a straight answer.

[#4]

It's a detrimental change to our T&C's, I'm relying on no clause here and being pretty open. As it's a detrimental change, we allow customers to leave with no early termination charges. I fail to see why this requires any further debate and will not be responding any further to this point.

18. Changing these terms or our services

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

18.1.1. if we materially change the service, or introduce new services, features or benefits (for example if we increase the maximum upload speed for your broadband service or add new TV channels);

18.1.2. if we change the way we structure our services and the price we charge for those services;

18.1.3. if the cost to us of providing your services, or running our business increases (for example if the businesses we buy services or products from increase their prices);

18.1.4. to reflect changes in technology (for example if we develop new systems which provide you with a better service);

18.1.5. if there is a change in the law, regulation or regulatory guidance applicable to us (for example if there is a VAT increase);

18.1.6. to make the terms of our agreement clearer or easier to understand; or

18.1.7. due to any other change in circumstances in the future, that we can't predict, which means a change is necessary.

18.2. If we make changes we'll tell you at least 30 days in advance by email or post of the changes happening, except where:

18.2.1. the change is for legal or regulatory reasons as set out in paragraph 18.1.5; or

18.2.2. it's a change that does not cause you any material disadvantage,

[#5]

You're not getting it.

It doesn't require debate.

You can't do whatever you like.

If PlusNet can't rely on a specific variation clause then it is a breach of contract regardless and it isn't a change you can legally make.

Termination charges are not relevant. And there has been no change to the T&Cs: the change is to the service.

The provision you've highlighted reads, in aggregate:

"We may change ... the service ... if we materially change the service"

That doesn't make sense and cannot be relied upon to make this change.

You are indeed being pretty open. You are confirming that PlusNet has no legal right to make this change.

I fail to see that there is any room for debate, I'm afraid.

[#6]

At least they have dropped "We'll do you proud", because that is clearly a lie.

However they have now adopted "Broadband that loves you back". What does that even mean?

[#7]

They have not dropped "We'll do you proud".

Look at the top left of page , it's under the PN logo.

Mike

[#8]

Hadn't noticed that; I was referring to the TV ads and the Facebook page banner.

[#9]

I don't think the slogan matters too much, but I think knowingly forcing an illegal change on thousands of customers simply because you think you can get away with it kind of does. I mean, we do have laws for a reason.

[#10]

@InterZoom most ISPs have similar terms and conditions. If you think what PN is doing, is "illegal" as you put it, are you going to take action ?

[#11]

The bottom line is that PN don't have any legal requirement to supply broadband to anyone. They have covered their part of breaking the contract by allowing anyone to leave without penalty.

The only recourse is to sue for damages, if you can prove that you had losses as a result (over and above the early termination fee, which PN are waiving). As you can easily move to another provider (probably with a reduction in overall cost as most ISPs have some great introductory deals), it is going to be very difficult to prove, and it will cost a fortune in legal fees.

There is clearly something wrong in the law, as almost any contract can be amended at any time, as long as they give you the option to end the contract without penalty if it is a detrimental change. This is clearly unfair, but hey, we live in a capitalist society so the underdog (consumer) is always going to be at a disadvantage.

[#12]

@ITWorks

Yes, it's true that (in common with other large service providers in various sectors) all ISPs have variation clauses in their standard contracts and those clauses are drafted to be as wide and as one-sided as possible without falling foul of legislation regarding unfair terms.

In PlusNet's case, they hope that the term which allows consumers to leave without paying early termination charges will have that effect ie. make sure their variation clauses are not found to be unfair.

But with this particular service change, fairness has turned out to be a complete red herring. It just isn't relevant.

It doesn't matter whether the variation clauses themselves are either fair or unfair, because this service change isn't covered by any of them. Full stop. Bit of a snafu. They either didn't check or didn't think anyone else would.

If there is no provision in the contract to make this specific service change for this specific reason, then going ahead anyway is a straightforward breach of contract.

I'm not concerned with early termination charges in any event because I'm already beyond the minimum period I agreed to. But I also don't want the hassle of changing provider, nor a new long tie-in period. And I do want to keep my 20Mbps upload speed. Because that's what we agreed.

So the remedies available are those for breach of contract: damages and specific performance.

But you can see the problem: the cost to an individual of enforcing the contract.

That's what PlusNet are relying upon in order to force this through: a blatant abuse of their commercial power, not lawful contractual provisions which they themselves have drafted (and managed to mess up).

So,

---

@ITWorks wrote:

are you going to take action ?

What are my options?

If PlusNet press ahead with their plan, knowing it to be a breach, I can switch to 80/20 without entering a new fixed term agreement. That will cost me an extra fiver a month. I may then be able to reclaim that through the small claims court quite cheaply once the amount is worth claiming (and obviously apply for costs). Specific performance is probably a non-starter on cost and hassle grounds, unfortunately.

To be frank, though, this isn't the behaviour one would expect from a reputable company - flouting the law just because it's too difficult and expensive for consumers to enforce their rights - and it really shouldn't be necessary to take any legal action if reputation means anything and we all expect decency and respect for our agreements. There is no customer "relationship" if it is based purely on what the more powerful side can get away with.

We live in a topsy turvy world at the moment, though; so I guess we'll see.

[#13]

---

@PeteW1959 wrote:

There is clearly something wrong in the law, as almost any contract can be amended at any time, as long as they give you the option to end the contract without penalty if it is a detrimental change. This is clearly unfair, but hey, we live in a capitalist society so the underdog (consumer) is always going to be at a disadvantage.

---

No, it's entirely sensible. Service providers by their nature cannot guarantee anything.The law would be stupid to try and enforce specific behaviours or characteristics the way it does with goods. If the law did make such demands service providers would be unable to operate. The law doesn't even require services to be fit for the purpose. If it did lawyers would be sued every time they lost a court case. Surgeons would be sued every time an operation failed to significantly improve a patient's life. If you hire a private investigator to find your long lost brother and they are unable to you will still have to pay. As long as the gum shoe can prove that they put in the hours and spent money on reasonable expenses you have to cough up.

The law is not that stupid. It realises that providing a service is often a complex undertaking subject to many outside influences that the provider may have little or no control over.

So all the law basically says is: Service providers should not overcharge, should make a reasonable attempt to provide the service and be upfront and honest about costs and limitations. The law also says that if a service provider cannot do what they said they could the customer ought to be able to cancel without penalty.

PN have done nothing legally wrong here. They are amending the way their service operates as they are entirely free to do and they are offering affected customers the opportunity to leave without penalty.

[#14]

This isn't accurate.

However, variation clauses are perfectly legal, certainly.

[#15]

There is legal, and what is reasonable. Just because something is legal to the 'letter of the law', doesn't mean it is within 'the spirit of the law', and courts have found in favour in the past.

However short of a 'class action' being taken on by someone, I doubt if this can go anywhere. Many people will moan and put up with it, a fair number will moan, pay the extra fiver and put up with it, but my guess is that the overwhelming majority won't even notice.Very few will actually leave, and I may end up in that category; I have found other ISPs less than open about speeds and charges, and questions are met with 'politicians' answers.