cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Well, that was short & sweet....

Calorgas
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎17-06-2014

Well, that was short & sweet....

In June I posted my praise of the Plusnet service I received after migrating.
Now, Plusnet have reneged on our contract, and want to charge me an additional £1.45 per month line rental - doubtless an initiative of their endlessly greedy, endlessly inept parent company, BT.
I know Plusnet will say, "It's in the terms and condition' - and doubtless it is.
It is also my right to reject the increase and terminate my Plusnet service - which is precisely what I'll do.
What a shame! - the speed is excellent, the service works perfectly, and I don't have a single thing to complain about - but I won't be held to ransom by a company like BT, and would rather leave Plusnet as a matter of principle.
Anyone else going to make a stand against this blatant BT greed?
13 REPLIES
anthgood
Grafter
Posts: 39
Thanks: 15
Registered: ‎09-07-2014

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Quote from: Calorgas
It is also my right to reject the increase and terminate my Plusnet service - which is precisely what I'll do.

I bet you if you ask to terminate the service their retentions team will offer you the line rental back at the price it was just to keep you. 
Highlighted
Plusnet Alumni (retired) chrispurvey
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 5,369
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎13-07-2012

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Hi Calorgas,
It's not nice for anyone when we have to have a price increase, this has happened so we can continue to provide a high level service and continue to invest in our products.
It would be worth as anthgood has mentioned speaking with our Customer Options Team to see if they can do anything for you.
atbs1
Grafter
Posts: 307
Registered: ‎14-04-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Can someone inform me when this price rise was to take effect and on what product please?
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,460
Thanks: 1,031
Fixes: 62
Registered: ‎15-06-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Calorgas
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎17-06-2014

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Quote from: Chris
Hi Calorgas,
It's not nice for anyone when we have to have a price increase, this has happened so we can continue to provide a high level service and continue to invest in our products.
It would be worth as anthgood has mentioned speaking with our Customer Options Team to see if they can do anything for you.


No, Chris - this has happened because BT want bigger profits to fund bigger salaries, bigger bonuses, and and bigger shareholder dividends.
Our phone line hasn't even been live for a month, and already the agreed line rental has increased! - what what Plusnet say If, a couple of weeks after signing up, I told them that I didn't want to pay what we'd agreed, and that I'd decided to deduct £1.45 from the bill?
It's not the £1.45 - it's the fact that Plusnet agree a  price, and then immediately alter it.
As for contacting Customer Options - their preferred option was to send me a MAC
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 6,346
Thanks: 31
Fixes: 5
Registered: ‎26-11-2011

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

I'm sorry that the price increase has happened at a time, just after you have signed up.
I can see that you've requested your MAC - please let us know if we can be of any further help.
Chris Pettitt
Cloud Environments Engineer
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,947
Thanks: 4,246
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

This is a break in "faith" and is deeply disappointing and morally wrong.
Previously when a user has contracted for a service at price £x for Y months, and a few weeks later PN changed (reduced) the price for that service, did PN say to all the existing customers "you can now have the same service for the new lower price for the remainder of your contract"?  No, they did not, customers were told "you are in a fixed term contract at the price you signed up to".
If a contract binds a customer to pay the agreed price for the service, for the whole of the contracted duration (or pay early termination fees), it should equally bind the supplier to supply the service at the agreed price for the whole of the contracted duration.  If the obligations for each party to a contract are not equally applicable then the contract is unfair and potentially unenforceable at law.  I have recently taken a 24 month deal, when I get back from holiday, I'll be checking the T&Cs to verify that there is actually a unilateral provision permitting price increases within the contracted period - I do not recall one.  If there is not, I'll be holding PN to the agreed price for the whole duration of my 24 month contract.  The LRS staying at the same existing price for the duration of the contract was an explicit part of the contract agreement discussion with COTS.  I'm really pleased that PN record such calls and that I confirmed the call would be recorded.  A verbal agreement is a binding contract.
Hopefully, my 3 month LRS renewal reminder (paid 2nd August last year so should be due anytime now, but dammed if I can find a link in the portal) will be issued soon and I can pay for the renewal before the price hike.
This is not honest, it is not good Yorkshire practice, Andy Baker needs to think again.
Kevin
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,460
Thanks: 1,031
Fixes: 62
Registered: ‎15-06-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

here is the link to the LRS (I have it bookmarked) http://www.plus.net/rentalsaver
Community Veteran
Posts: 4,894
Thanks: 130
Fixes: 24
Registered: ‎14-07-2009

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Quote from: Townman
If the obligations for each party to a contract are not equally applicable then the contract is unfair and potentially unenforceable at law.

That's an interesting legal concept, Townman.  But can you cite precedent where a contract has been judged to be unenforceable on such grounds?  I'm not trying to be a smart alec (although so it may seem), just genuinely curious.
   
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,947
Thanks: 4,246
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Jim,
Thanks - now this is quite revealing.  I am (as I thought) within 3 months of my LRS anniversary, yet no reminder has been issued to tell me that it needs renewing.  In checking my facts, it seems that the renewal reminder is issued 2 months before the LRS expires, not at the commencement of the three months during which it can be renewed.
Further, the amount is greater than last year's payment £137.88 vs £125.88 - I rather recall being advised last year the pre-existing LRS scheme members would remain on the same price and not be subject to a price increase.  Will need to look up the 2013 history on this next week.
Kevin
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,460
Thanks: 1,031
Fixes: 62
Registered: ‎15-06-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Mine was £125.88 as well but I got in before the price rise and I suspect that you did as well
This explains the increase http://www.plus.net/support/october-changes-guide.shtml
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,102
Thanks: 443
Fixes: 21
Registered: ‎31-08-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

I tend to agree with you Calorgas, but to be clear I think it's greed by BT Group, not just BT Retail. You may care to read what I said here especially my remarks about the "Cartel" and OFCOM. At least you do get the service here (generally) so it would be worth you carefully weighing up all the options before jumping ship (you aren't forced to use the MAC you've got) as I doubt you'll find other Service Providers will act any differently unfortunately, so to some extent, the point of principal goes out the window.
The only thing to remember is
Quote from: Plusnet
We hope you’re happy with your Plusnet service, but if you decide to leave because of these changes, we won’t apply any Early Termination Charges. You have to tell us within 30 days of receiving your email and give us 14 days notice.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,947
Thanks: 4,246
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Well, that was short & sweet....

Hi RR,
No not smart, rather a reasonable request to back up the suggestion...
Quote from: http
In deciding if a contract is unfair the court has to look at whether it is unfairly weighted against you, whether there was unequal bargaining strength and whether the company / business behaved properly in getting you to agree to the terms of the contract.
If part of a contract is found to be unfair the court will not allow the company / business to enforce that part of the contract. The law also says that if a company or business tries to exclude liability or responsibility under the contract this may be unfair and in some cases could make the whole contract "null and void". This means the contract is treated as if it never existed. (Examples of this is an attempt to exclude liability for death or injury or limiting or excluding the legal rights of consumers.)

From: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Quote from: https
The Regulations apply a test of fairness to all standard terms (terms that have not been individually negotiated) in contracts used by businesses with consumers, subject to certain exceptions. The main exemption is for terms that set the price or describe the main subject matter of the contract (usually known as 'core terms') provided they are in plain and intelligible language – see Part IV. The Regulations thus apply to what is commonly called 'the small print' of standard form consumer contracts.
A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and open dealing'.1 It means that terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly and that terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence – see below. However transparency is not enough on its own, as good faith relates to the substance of terms as well as the way they are expressed and used. It requires a supplier not to take advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience, in deciding what their rights and obligations shall be. Contracts should be drawn up in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests.

Though prices are excluded, the fact that the consumer is bound to pay the agreed price for the duration of the contract or accept the loss of contracted for benefit if unwilling to accept a mid-term price increase might be construed to be unequal and thus unfair terms.
As ever with such matters, the final decision on whether a term is unfair rests with the courts.