# need out of mobile contract



## johnmck (4 Aug 2011)

I've 6 months left of a mobile contract with Three. I got Eircom phonewatch in but Three have no agreements with them , so no alerts will come to my phone if the alarm goes off.

Three will not let me out of contract to move elsewhere.


----------



## Diziet (4 Aug 2011)

Did you let them know that Eircom phonewatch alerts were a requirement for you. If so, they misinformed you and you might have a chance. if not, then they have no obligation to let you out.


----------



## johnmck (4 Aug 2011)

Ok - I need a way out. Three have no mobile coverage in Fermanagh or very little - could be an excuse


----------



## JoeB (4 Aug 2011)

Telecommunications companies have been breaking the law for years. YES, I will immediately name my authoritative source for that. COMREG.

See COMREG 0749 for more info (a PDF easily downloadable from COMREG website. enter 07 49), but essentially all Irish telecommunications companies have been breaking European law since 2003. I can guarantee that that is still the situation today.

See COMREG 10-34 for compliance tests performed on Vodafone, Meteor, Three (Hutchinson isn't it?) and Eircom among others. Tests carried out in 2010, all of the above companies failed, and are thus breaking European law.. laws which came into effect in 2003.

Our government has done nothing about this, and yes, I have complained to government ministers, who don't care, nor do COMREG, nor do the government department. I have specifically emailed every member of the Green party, and Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael..  you might not believe me but I got absolutely nowhere, despite doing all of that, and COMREG themselves acknowledging that this lawbreaking is ongoing, and has been for years. (That's a fact, not opinion, COMREG do not deny this, see their published reports, 0749, and 1034 among others)

My complaint to the EU was more successful, but still very tricky. I think Ireland is now on the way to becoming compliant. I keep embarrassing the EU by asking for press releases stating that EU law doesn't apply in Ireland, and that the EU don't care if 1.5 million Irish people, (40% of population), are being forced to enter into illegal contracts by the Irish Government. They refuse to issue such a press release, although the situation has been correctly described, and I have been complaining to them since 2009. But I think they are putting pressure on COMREG to observe European law for a change, and COMREG will eventually have to comply, just not quickly enough, I'll have been asking for my rights for nearly five years at that stage.


My point is... tell them this, you're not paying due to their lawbreaking, and cancel your direct debit, .. let them take you to court, if they do, produce the COMREG reports saying that your contract is illegal, and thus null and voided... certainly the contract was not entered into in good faith, as the company knew it was against EU law.

You won't see a courtroom, I have been inviting such prosecutions for years. Like Atheist Ireland deliberately publishing 20 blasphemous quotes, .. to invite prosecution and to show what a scam the law is. The government refuse to prosecute them... so why are we wasting our time with this stuff in the Dail?

This might not be a popular posts with the mods, but the situation is correctly described, no opinion at all.. it's all facts.

Cheers


----------



## salaried (5 Aug 2011)

Very impressive Joe, Does this apply to broadband providers as well.


----------



## JoeB (5 Aug 2011)

Hi

It is broader than just broadband,.. it applies to all telecommunications services.

Some quotes, all from COMREG, and all of which confirm my contention that COMREG have not done (some aspects of) their job, for 9 years. (My emphasis, bolded text)



			
				COMREG 03 129 -- from 2003 said:
			
		

> The European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services)
> (Universal Service and Users’ Rights) Regulations 2003 - S.I. No. 308 of 2003
> *specifies minimum terms that should be included in contracts by undertakings
> providing connection or access to the public telephone network to residential and
> ...






			
				COMREG 03 129 --- from 2003 said:
			
		

> *Under Regulation 32(1) ComReg is charged with monitoring compliance with the
> Regulations including Regulation 17. Section 10 (1)(c) of the Communications
> Regulation Act, 2002 specifies as one of the functions of ComReg “to ensure
> compliance by undertakings* with obligations in relation to the supply of and access
> to electronic communications services …”.



So COMREG clearly state, in 2003, that they do have an obligation to ensure compliance with these compulsory EU laws. These laws apply to all telecommunications services.


Fast Forward to 2007.


			
				COMREG 07 49 --- from 2007 said:
			
		

> ComReg directed *all service providers* of publicly available electronic
> communication services to supply all standard contract documentation. *74 contracts*
> were reviewed to establish the level of compliance with the statutory obligations.
> 
> ...



So, in 2007, four years after the laws came into force, all broadband companies were non-compliant. All 74 of them.

No change today (August 2011).. every single broadband provider, and every provider of telecommunications services, operating in Ireland, is breaking European law, and has been for years. Those are the facts.

If this is the level of respect granted to individuals by Government departments and the government itself, then what's the point? The government clearly hates the public, and would much rather we were all dead... they certainly will not even engage on this issue, as I said I have attempted to contact every TD in the last Dail, and not a single one responded.

So I have lost faith in our government, and our system of government, it simply doesn't work. The government defend this level of non-performance by COMREG, and they clearly think it's ok for Ireland to be in breach of EU law for nine years.. they simply don't care. So why should we?


----------



## JoeB (5 Aug 2011)

I have written Pat Rabbitte a letter on this issue, he's the minister with responsibility..



			
				Joe's letter - first sent 5th August said:
			
		

> Hi Pat
> 
> I'm sure you're aware of this, but I'd like to discuss the failure of COMREG to perform some aspects of their duties, since 2003.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ceist Beag (5 Aug 2011)

Hi Joe, could you clarify what laws are being broken here as it's a bit hard to decipher from the above?


----------



## JoeB (5 Aug 2011)

Yes, it can be complicated.

The law is mentioned in detail in COMREG 03-129.



			
				COMREG 03-129 said:
			
		

> *The European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services)
> (Universal Service and Users’ Rights) Regulations 2003 - S.I. No. 308 of 2003*
> specifies minimum terms that should be included in contracts by undertakings
> providing connection or access to the public telephone network to residential and
> ...



COMREG acknowledge both that they have an obligation to ensure compliance, and that all companies are non-compliant, 8 years after the law was passed. That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## johnmck (9 Aug 2011)

I rang three mobile Ireland and asked for a copy of my contract. The Indian on the other end of the phone didn't understand what I meant by contract. After a lengthily discussion he said I didn't have a contract. To just go read the terms and conditions. So I said "I want to come out of contract", and he said " you want to cancel your contract" He understood then.

What way should I push this?


----------



## JoeB (9 Aug 2011)

Well, my quote directly above your message states that any company that provides access to the public telephone network must do so according to a contract.

That contract can however be very hard to find. It should be on the website, but really they should send it to you if you request it. There are over 50 sets of terms and conditions on the Meteor site, and other operators are similar, so it certainly isn't an easy thing to find your own contract. COMREG offer no help in this regard... in fact COMREG once searched a website for my contract, and couldn't find it.. yet they refuse to do anything about the fact that customers don't have easy access to their own contracts (as per the law).


So insist that the Indian sends you copies or links to all specific contracts that apply to you.. Three might have three or more contracts that apply.. for example, TCs that relate to the use of the website, or TCs that relate to voice calls, and TCs that relate to data. You shouldn't have to find them all, they should send you the documents.



You could specifically ask where the mandatory info is contained within their contract. (As per COMREG 07-49). This will cause them problems, as all telecommunications will know that they are breaking the law, yet they can hardly admit it.

So they will refuse to answer, in varied and imaginative ways. For example, they may not understand you. Or they may fail to reply to written enquiries. Eventually you can make yourself heard.. then you start to receive badly written, non-sensical replies from more senior people. Occasionally you receive emails in error that were supposed to be sent only internally, and relating to you. They can be fun. In my experience you will not receive an explanation as to why the company is ignoring the law. In my experience companies will deny any lawbreaking, despite the COMREG reports. So that fits the dictionary definitation of delusional perfectly.

You can exit your contract early, and pay the cancellation fee. Or you could ask COMREG to rule on whether your contract is legal or not, if you can find your contract. That will likely take a year or longer. Or you could cancel your direct debit, and take the chance of going to court.

I'd suggest complaining to COMREG, making clear that you are complaining due to the issues contained in COMREG 07-49. That you have cancelled your direct debit and that you consider yourself to be scott free and out of contract. Do COMREG disagree?.. in my experience COMREG will accept this, and advise the company not to chase you. Be wary of COMREG delaying tactics, and incompetence (likely feigned.. examples being, 'we've lost your complaint, lets go back to the beginning, which was several months ago'.. or 'person transferred, lets begin again').

If going to court I'd advise giving the impression that you'd be delighted with your chance to go to court, and that you'll be inviting all your journalist friends along, who'll all be very interested in witnessing the telecommunications industry finally having to answer to a judge for their many years of lawbreaking. Of course you'd also have been recording your phone calls to the company, etc etc, so you should also be able to demonstrate their utter incompetence.


Cheers


----------



## johnmck (10 Aug 2011)

Ok, if I try to transfer my number to a different phone provider I'm guessing Three are not going to let the number port off their network!


----------



## johnmck (10 Aug 2011)

as you can see the contact form on their website does not work!

[broken link removed]


----------



## JoeB (10 Aug 2011)

johnmck said:


> Ok, if I try to transfer my number to a different phone provider I'm guessing Three are not going to let the number port off their network!



Why wouldn't they?


A phone company not allowing you to port your number due to outstanding bills is explicitily addressed on the COMREG website, ... companies are not allowed to deny you porting due to bills owed.

However, some operators include that condition in their contract, despite what COMREG say. Such contracts are in breach of COMREG guidelines. But guidelines are worthless, as I informed COMREG of the illegal conditions being applied, and COMREG, quelle surprise, did nothing. I told them over a year ago.


COMREG and the telecommunications companies are your enemy, and they work together to frustrate your complaints, and to deny you your European rights. COMREG is an agency of the Irish Gov, and so it is the Irish Government who is denying you your rights. They aren't just omitting to take certain acts..  they actively prevent you from obtaining your rights, by making false statements and lying. (Yes, I can back that up, with documentary evidence)


I've been begging Europe to issue daily fines of approx 50K per day, backdated to 2003 (when the law came into force), or 2007 at a minimum (when COMREG first determined that all 74 companies operating in Ireland were breaking the law). That's the only thing that will wake our government up. The Irish government has certainly been aware of the 100% level of non-compliance since July, 2007. Not a single company is compliant as of August 2011.


The laws relating to septic tanks came in in the 1970s, still ignored by Ireland today, despite three European court cases which we've lost. So this telecommunications issue may run for another two decades.


----------



## JoeB (15 Aug 2011)

Pat never answered my previous email, so I've sent him a reminder.

[quote="Joes second letter to Pat Rabbitte']
Hi Pat

Can you please confirm receipt of the forwarded email below, and indicate when you'll be in a position to respond. I'm not going away you know. I'm hoping that your government will cease giving 'Get of of Jail free' cards to entire private industries.... that's been the situation for the last nine years... where the Irish Goverment has refused to take a single punitive action against any of the 74 companies acknowledged to be breaking the laws for years on end.


It is actually even more serious than that.. your department, and COMREG, have actively taken actions, specifically designed to prevent me from obtaining my rights, .. so in that sense your government is culpable. Your government is actively assisting private companies in breaking EU law.


An example of the above would be COMREG, who ruled that my specific instance of a contract was legal, despite ruling that the generic contract was illegal, both before and after ruling that my specific instance was legal. So COMREG deliberately made a ruling designed to frustrate me in obtaining my rights. Do you dis-agree with that? 

The only contract ever to have been ruled compliant in this country by COMREG is my specific instance of a generic contact.. but the generic contract has been deemed to be illegally formed by COMREG, both before and after my specific instance was deemed to be compliant. The offending company is still using illegal contracts more than three years later, as acknowledged twice since by COMREG, in 2009, and 2011.


There has never been a credible explanation as to why a specific instance of a contract can be legal, where the generic contract is not legal. COMREG refuse to engage on the issue, and can thus be said to be actively facilitating private companies in breaking EU law. COMREG have never engaged on this issue, not at all. Your department defended COMREGs actions, and rubbished my complaint.



I don't appreciate my government treating me in this deplorable way. it makes no sense, and is indicative of our failing government, and our failing process of ruling ourselves. Everything I've said above is true, and I invite you to demonstrate a single falsehood.



So a response form you would be appropriate at this stage. You can call me if you wish, or I can meet you in person. I would most prefer to meet you in person.

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated.

Regards
Joe
[/quote]


----------



## JoeB (15 Aug 2011)

An assistant of Pat Rabbittes has emailed me confirming receipt of my two emails, and stating that they will be brought to the ministers attention.


----------



## JoeB (29 Aug 2011)

No further reply from Pat, so I have sent him a third email. The previous acknowledgement of receipt from Pat was from his Dept. of Comms. email address,...  his personal assisant type person replied from Pat in his capacity as Minister for Comms. I have also sent Pat the same emails to his Oirechtas address,.. he wears his TD hat in that case. This is a subtle distinction but the Ombudsma, Emily O Reilly, can only investigate claims of people being ignored and mis-informed if its done by a Gov. Dept, .. TDs can ignore or mis-inform you at will, and nothing can be done in the sense of complaining to someone.  

The point is that I am attempting to engage with Pat through both of his titles, speaking directly to each of his hats as it were... this distinction can be important. So a reply on his behalf has come from one hat (the Dept. hat), . the second, TD hat, has ignored me thus far.


So this is my third email to Pat, in the Dept. of Comms, where an assisant has acknowledged my previous emails.
[Quote='Joes third letter, (to Dept. Comms)]
Hi Damian, Pat

Can I ask, has Pat Rabbitte seen my emails yet?, and when can I expect a response? This is a matter of some urgency, and a speedier initial reply from Pat would be appropriate I feel.


My intention is to complain to the Ombudsman, Emily O Reilly, if Pat fails to respond in a reasonable time frame. Three weeks have passed since my initial contact,.. your Customer Charter promises that you 'will endeavour to comprehensively answer' my 'correspondence within 20 working days.'

I would expect and hope that your Dept. can live up to that lofty claim, and provide me with an initial response at least within the next five working days, and also that that response should contain a timetable for the full resolution of this ongoing issue.


Many thanks for your help in this regard, it's much appreciated.


Regards
Joe

[/quote]


The Dept. of Comms. must acknowledge that all telecommunications companies in Ireland, 74 of them, have been breaking the law for nine years, as per COMREG reports. Alternatively they must state clearly that COMREG are wrong, and then they should justify COMREGs continued existence. I feel that the Dept. of Comms will not do either of these things, and so a complaint to the Ombudsman, Emily O Reilly will probably be necessary.


I will also continue to try to contact Pat while he has this TD hat on.

Cheers


----------



## JoeB (30 Aug 2011)

I have sent Pat a third email.. he hasn't responded from his TD address yet. First email 5th August, follow up 15th august, all ignored so far. 3rd email today on the 30th August.



			
				Joe's third letter to Pat - no confirmation of receipt forthcoming so far said:
			
		

> Hi Pat
> 
> Can I please ask for an acknowledgement of the forwarded email below?
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB (21 Sep 2011)

No reply as of 21st Sept, 2011 from Pat Rabbitte.

He is certainly a coward who is ignoring this issue. I have rang his constituency office asking for confirmation of receipt of my emails on several occasions... on the last of these calls they politely said 'thank you' and hung up. So it seems I may be 'barred' from contacting them again.

Pat Rabbitte would like to allow 74 private companies to continue to break both Irish and EU law... which has been going on for nine years now.

I have asked to attend his constituency office,.. his office have refused due to me not being a constituent of his. His office have refused to give me his clinic times... perhaps in a vain hope that I won't be able to find out by another means.


As Pat refuses to engage there is little I can do. Does the general public have any right of access at all to TDs?

My next approach would be to picket his constituency office, and invite journalists along if possible. I would also attempt to door step Pat in various locations. Perhaps I should have a funny suit made up,.. that'd get me, and my issue, into the papers.

It's certain that simply enquiring about this issue doesn't work... there are over six million current breaches of these laws, and yet nothing happens.


I have written to the likes of Pat Kenny, and Joe Duffy,.. nothing seems to happen. I'm surprised at Joe Duffy, as the failure of companies to provide legal contracts is dis-advantaging many many Irish people. The fact that all Irish telecommunications companies break the law (74 of them), and have done so for nine years, with the connivance of the Irish State is shocking to me.


----------



## JoeB (6 Oct 2011)

I have complained about Pat Rabbitte's lack of response to the Ombudsman, Emily O Reilly. An investigation is ongoing.


In the meantime I have made some enquiries of the Dept. itself (DCENR), by initially asking for direction as to whom within the Dept. I should direct certain enquiries, and then by sending the following email in response to a response from the Dept. asking what type of enquiries I wished to enquire about.



			
				Joe's second letter to Customer Service said:
			
		

> Hi (name removed)
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB74 (6 Oct 2011)

Fair play to you Joe


----------



## JoeB (11 Oct 2011)

update:

Pat Rabbitte refuses to engage, or answer any questions, or offer any opinions. (as of 11-Oct-2011)

Neither Pat, nor the DCENR, contradict or state that I am wrong on any issue that I have raised, and no-one denies that I have correctly described all the situations I have described.


The Ombudsman has rubbished my complaint of Pat Rabbitte not responding, .. as Pat has belatedly issued a response,.. which stated in a single cryptic sentence that he will not engage or answer any questions. That satisfied the Ombudsman... although the form of words the Ombudsman wants to use is 'close the file' rather than 'complaint upheld', or 'complaint not upheld'. I am pressing the Ombudsman to be more precise and to give a ruling,..  either 'complaint upheld', or 'complaint not upheld'.

I am of the opinion that the Ombudsman is biased, and appears unwilling to uphold my complaint, .. despite it being very cut and dried,.. Pat Rabbitte either did or didn't respond as a point of fact,.. he didn't respond as a fact, .. and yet the Ombudsman seems reluctant to uphold my complaint. My complaint was entirely about Pat Rabbittes failure to respond and so I feel my complaint should either have been stated to be outside the Ombudsmans remit at the start, or else it should be upheld by the Ombudsman. My actual belief is not that the Ombudsman is biased,.. more that pressure is being put on the Ombudsman not to provide me with any weaponry,.. by not giving precise rulings, and by refusing to state that the government is ignoring this issue. They expect me to write to newspapers and to set up websites.



Pat Rabbitte in his role as TD has also ignored all enquiries I've made. There is no avenue of complaint about TDs ignoring you, or lying to you.

I have exhausted all avenues open to me, short of the courts, and also short of physical protest.

Next step, .. physical protest of some sort. I will also write to the Taoseach and ask him for comment on the refusal of his Ministers to answers questions of the sort that I have raised. 

*I am basically alleging corruption and no-one in government has yet denied it.*


I am aware that the septic tank legislation was ignored for decades, and I can only sympathise with environmental activists who may have been pulling their hair out for 30 years over that issue., and were probably ignored by successive governments. I myself have been asking these same questions about our telecommunications industry since 2008.


----------



## JoeB (11 Oct 2011)

My final letter to the Dept (DCENR).. I sent this after having received a reply from them refusing to answer any questions or to provide any opinions. They consider the matter closed, which is handy for them, as they have never explained either the diametrically opposed rulings by COMREG in relation to identical text, nor have they explained away nine years of a 100% level of non compliance with both Irish and EU law.



			
				Joe's letter to the DCENR said:
			
		

> Hi (name removed)
> 
> I will just state the fact that Minister Pat Rabbitte has never answered any of my queries, nor has he expressed any opinions on the many and varied issues I've raised, detailing the corruption occurring today in our little State. Comreg issuing diametrically opposed rulings in relation to identical text does require an explanation, and if none is forthcoming then corruption has effectively been proven.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB (19 Nov 2011)

As can be seen from the above the government will happily ignore you and they will also give 'get out of jail free' cards to entire private industries,.. who will then abuse and bully the Irish population.

As successive Ministers and governments have refused to engage with me I have to go further with this.


I have two approaches which will get Pats attention. The first is to take out newspaper ads in the local Tallaght newspapers, .. making my points. I feel the newspaper will refuse to run an ad which is critical of their local TD. Can anyone comment on this?, .. would a newspaper run an advertisement which is critical of the government?

The second approach would be to picket Pat Rabbittes constituency office itself. This would take the form of me walking up and down outside his office, with a large placard saying something like



			
				Joe's placard said:
			
		

> 'Are you having problems with your phone or broadband service?
> 
> YOUR PHONE COMPANY IS BREAKING IRISH AND EU LAW, and PAT RABBITTE knows this and ignores it!
> 
> ...



Does this second approach break any laws? I'd consider it quite likely that I'd be arrested for 'breach of the peace' .. or 'likely to cause  a breach of the peace'.. even if that was untrue, but I'm uncertain about the likelihood of arrest, and in any event I wouldn't really care.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Nov 2011)

To be honest Joe, lines 3 and 4 in your placard sound a bit too personal imho. I think your best bet here is to contact journalists or groups interested in customer rights to get this taken further. I do think you need to spell out exactly what laws are being broken in simple laymans terms if you want the message to get out there. But avoid personalising the issue - I don't think this will do anything for your message and will make you look like you have a personal issue with Pat Rabbitte.


----------



## tomred1 (16 Jan 2012)

Fair Play to you Joe, oboiously the press don't want to hear of this as they get too much money from adverts from these companies. It's a pity really as this seems like a good story. Have you contacted your local MEP?


----------



## uptomyeyesin (16 Jan 2012)

johnmck said:


> Ok, if I try to transfer my number to a different phone provider I'm guessing Three are not going to let the number port off their network!



Its the new mobile provider who "ports" your number, three cannot do anything to stop you or block you. 
You just go to the new operator, give them your number and they do it all. Nothing that Three can do about it.


----------



## JoeB (16 Jan 2012)

Hi TomRed.

NO, I haven't contacted any MEP. I think Lucinda Creiton (sp?) might be my local one.

I've complained to the EU and asked them to intervene and to ensure that the Irish can obtain our European rights too,... perhaps they're working on it. I first complained to them in 2009.

On the porting number issue... make sure you give your new operator the correct number, otherwise the wrong person will get ported. That practice even has a name,.. where operators port people without asking them.

So you should be asked to prove that you are in fact the registered owner of the number.


----------

