Bob2002
ULTIMATE Member
At the end of last year I signed up with BT and I was sent an order confirmation listing my financial contractual obligations -
Indeed, to use BT's own words, "Money matters" ...
So it's quite clear that I owe BT £29.49/month or £353.88/year and that if I terminated my contract immediately I'd have to pay £353.88 in early termination charges. Or rather it isn't, in fact that contract summary is missing an extra figure of £164 in deferred equipment liability(in my case for the "free" HomeHub router at £65, and the "free" YouView box at £99). Liabilities appear to be £353.88 but in fact they are £517.88, or 146% more - that's quite a difference.
Many people complete their contracts in full and never incur a deferred equipment charge, but other people do not for various reasons including dissatisfaction with the company or technical issues - it is important that when a member of the public signs a contract all financial obligations and liabilities are listed so that they know exactly where they stand. BT know exactly what the deferred equipment charge is when the contract is made but they do not list the liability in the e-mail document they send to the customer, it would seem to be common courtesy to mention the odd £164.
To get to the point of this post, I'm not complaining about the right of an ISP to have a deferred equipment charge, but I am complaining that the full liability is not listed in the sign-up documents. There really is no good reason not to list them so that the customer can see the complete financial position they are in when they purchase an ISP's product.
This is a fundamental issue of consumer transparency that ISPs like BT(and no doubt many others) seem to be deliberately avoiding and I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up by the press. :hrmph:
Indeed, to use BT's own words, "Money matters" ...
So it's quite clear that I owe BT £29.49/month or £353.88/year and that if I terminated my contract immediately I'd have to pay £353.88 in early termination charges. Or rather it isn't, in fact that contract summary is missing an extra figure of £164 in deferred equipment liability(in my case for the "free" HomeHub router at £65, and the "free" YouView box at £99). Liabilities appear to be £353.88 but in fact they are £517.88, or 146% more - that's quite a difference.
Many people complete their contracts in full and never incur a deferred equipment charge, but other people do not for various reasons including dissatisfaction with the company or technical issues - it is important that when a member of the public signs a contract all financial obligations and liabilities are listed so that they know exactly where they stand. BT know exactly what the deferred equipment charge is when the contract is made but they do not list the liability in the e-mail document they send to the customer, it would seem to be common courtesy to mention the odd £164.
To get to the point of this post, I'm not complaining about the right of an ISP to have a deferred equipment charge, but I am complaining that the full liability is not listed in the sign-up documents. There really is no good reason not to list them so that the customer can see the complete financial position they are in when they purchase an ISP's product.
This is a fundamental issue of consumer transparency that ISPs like BT(and no doubt many others) seem to be deliberately avoiding and I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up by the press. :hrmph: