Possible Reneging on Contract by Provider

SparkRite said:
Historically the price increase with the provider in question has been a lot higher than the rate of inflation.
Click to expand...

Is this an impression or have you data on it?

I think it would be hard to get data as the product has changed so much.

A TV and broadband package might be twice as high today as it was 10 yeas ago ( i.e. 7% inflation a year) but it's a completely different product from what you had ten years ago.

That is why I would say to you that if they offer a half decent deal, then take it.

If they refuse, then you can take them to the Small Claims Court and claim up to €2,000

Or you could go to the District Court and claim up to €15,000.

Or the Circuit Court for up to €75k.

If you think it's worth more than this, you could go to the High Court.

Brendan
 
Comreg are the regulator for broadband providers and I think should be your next step if you are unhappy with the response from your provider. I made a complaint to them over a similar issue when a price was agreed over the phone for a fixed period for a home phone/broadband package that the provider subsequently tried to increase. The provider had insisted they were entitled to increase the price by giving one months notice. I unsuccessfully went through the providers complaints procedures but once I made the complaint to Comreg they agreed to settle and honour their previous commitment.

I'm not sure if the fact that your package is for TV as well will affect Comreg's ability to deal with it. I doubt it but might be worth contacting them to check.

I've had a look at their website https://www.comreg.ie/consumer-information/internet/contracts/ and one thing I noticed that might affect you is:

'The 2011 Universal Service Regulations states that authorised service providers (for either landline, mobile, or internet services) may not have consumer contracts that have an initial minimum term longer than 24 months.'

I'm not familiar with these regulations but VM may argue that your contract is not legally enforceable beyond 2 years.
 
Sorry. What I meant was that the minimum term was not longer than 24 months so it has not fallen foul of the Universal Service Regulations.

Brendan
 
Contracts work both ways. Sparkrite wishes to hold the provider to an indefinite contract. I'm not saying that the provider would be successful in this argument but it might be one that they make.

I would also stick by my advice for Sparkrite to contact Comreg as I don't think the Small Claims Court will deal with this as was previously advised.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Is this an impression or have you data on it?

I think it would be hard to get data as the product has changed so much.
Click to expand...

While I can't be sure which provider Sparkrite is referring to , my own broadband provider emails me every year with a substantial increase, for a no better and sometimes worse package. I've taken to recording my retention calls with them to avoid disputes later.

I would take great pleasure in seeing them held to the word of an ... ahem over-enthusiastic salesman. For technical reasons shopping around is not a credible option, although I'm hopeful Siro will change that in time.
 
Last edited:
Just a short update,

Am now in possession of a copy of the call.
"never go up" , "price is stagnant", "will not increase" and "for life" are all descriptions used by the providers CS rep.

It is actually stronger than I remembered it.

Time to make a formal complaint, methinks and if no joy then see if Comreg are interested or maybe even the bould Joe.
 
Another short update :-

After raising an 'official' complaint with the provider, they have agreed that I was indeed told that the price would never go up but that the rep. made a 'mistake' and they would/could not honor the contract that I entered into.
All they would do, was the same as was offered before ie. :- waive the increase for 12 months and credit me one months tariff.

Initially I rang to cancel my subscription and only continued with it because of what I was offered, so as it turns out I was in effect duped and I feel mis-sold a product.
Any thoughts?
 

A contract doesn't need to be written. It can be verbal - offer and acceptance are the only criteria unless there is an obvious error which a reasonable person would recognise (i.e. something posted for €1 instead of €100 - which was an obvious typo). Usually, the problem with enforcing a verbal contract is how to prove it was offered.

In this case, that element is acknowledged. They seem to be relying on the "obvious" error excuse. But given it was made during a call to cancel and the OP suggested the agent go off and check the specific offer being "for life"... I would have thought it's enforceable to some extent - maybe not for actual "life" but for a significant period (longer than a year)
 
EmmDee said:
A contract doesn't need to be written. It can be verbal - offer and acceptance are the only criteria unless there is an obvious error which a reasonable person would recognise
Click to expand...

Contract law in Ireland requires agreement, intention, & consideration.
 
Leo said:
Contract law in Ireland requires agreement, intention, & consideration.
Click to expand...

Ok - but we already knew there was consideration. And the intention was clearly there - including the clarification of the terms. So my point was that there was an offer and acceptance of the offer. The fact it was verbal doesn't invalidate a contract
 
Thanks Leo and EmmDee for the above.

They are sticking to their guns, ie. :- waive the increase for 12 months and credit me one months tariff.
I am not happy with this at all.
Comreg. were worse than useless, asking questions when I had already supplied the answers and then washing their hands of it by saying the provider had offered a resolution.

The provider is not disputing the offer was made but is saying it was down to 'human error' but I pointed out that the agent had gone and checked it with a colleague, this is also not in dispute.
I went on to say the fact remains that I was retained as a customer on that basis, which I accepted in good faith. Initially, (Jan.2019) I rang to cancel my subscription and only continued with it because of what I was offered, but now it turns out I was in effect mis-lead and I feel mis-sold a product. To date in 2019 this provider have received €525 from me that they would not have, had I not being offered the 'fixed for life' price.

I really don't know where to go with this, retain a solicitor or file a case with the small claims court ?
What would you ( anybody ) do in this case ?
 

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is not written on, I don’t mean to be unkind but that is the law, try and enforce it.
 

I have been accused in the past of having too much time on my hands, you may be in the same position.

If a mistake was made then I don’t understand how you think it is enforceable, If you feel that strongly then consult a professional legal advisor.
 
Its a running joke on some forums that certain providers change their contracts so often that you rarely get 6 months before they change it. Billing is a shambles and getting refunds in cash rarer than winning the lottery. Pricing is basically market stall haggling and you have to get it in writing or they won't honour it. Even where they do they change pricing or contract before the contract ends.

The only solution is to switch providers as often as you can to the lowest.

One family member has a long running battle with one provider who agreed services and constantly tried to get out of it. Billing at the new pricing, but they've never cut it off, and the increase has never been paid. Been going on for years.
 
Palerider said:
A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is not written on, I don’t mean to be unkind but that is the law, try and enforce it.
Click to expand...

That is not the law. The law is clear that a contract does not need to be written. It can be verbal or implied. Every time you buy something in a shop you have entered a verbal agreement. If verbal agreements weren't recognised then there would be no consumer rights (i.e. the seller being contractually obliged to provide goods and services that are fit for purpose etc)

That adage relates to the fact that enforcing a verbal contract is difficult because proving the offer and acceptance in a contested situation is a problem. However in this case, there is a record (and acknowledgement) that there was an offer.

Are Verbal Agreements Legally Binding? - Farleys Solicitors

Verbal agreement disputes can be messy. Commercial contracts and commercial litigation solicitor Rachel Harrison offers her expert guidance.
www.farleys.com

 
EmmDee said:
Ok - but we already knew there was consideration.
Click to expand...

Yes, so we're agreed that 'offer and acceptance' are not the only criteria.

EmmDee said:
And the intention was clearly there
Click to expand...

I think that is the core of the issue here, did the company really intend to offer these terms to customers or did the agent make an error or overstep?

EmmDee said:
The fact it was verbal doesn't invalidate a contract
Click to expand...

The reason the expression that 'verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on' is so common is that is is nigh on impossible enforce a verbal contract.
 
I think what you are looking for is a further explanation of how the error was compounded by the operator on the phone “double checking” with someone else. If the operator had made the error on his own it is easier to understand and explain and accept the offer that has been given.

so perhaps write back to them saying you would accept it was an error except the operator checked and you have been offered no explanation of this double checking so feel unable to accept their current explanation that it was an error by one person and can they relook at this?

I had an issue with laya when one of my children turned 18. I got a letter saying her cost was 900 (can’t remember exact figure) and I got a letter the following day saying her cost was 300. (What I failed to notice was one letter was for the next year cover and the other was for the previous year cover).

So I phoned and asked why the 18 yr old had two different prices on letters issued one day apart. The phone operator said they were doing a special deal for students and the lower figure applied. So I apparently said at the end of the call “Can I confirm again that the cost for my 18 yr old for next year is €300?” and the operator said yes. I wrote on the letter, phoned them on date and confirmed lower figure is correct.

Roll on 3 months and when I downloaded the cover from the Laya site the 18 yr old is at the higher figure of €900. So I phoned back with my 3 pieces of paper, the date I had phoned and my understanding of the outcome. The supervisor looked into it and came back and pointed out the issue that one letter was the previous year and the other letter the following year, which when pointed out to me I fully accepted but I had got verbal confirmation from them it was the lower figure for the renewal. She went back and listened to the transcript, which is when she quoted the line above to me. So they happily refunded me the difference, although their operator had made an error. It was the fact that I had asked for confirmation of my understanding at the end of the call that swung it for me.

So you asked was he sure, he went off and double checked. It was that part that caused you to remain with them “for life” and you feel they are not addressing it, but maybe say you would be happy with 5 year cover at that price but not 12 months.
 
Leo said:
The reason the expression that 'verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on' is so common is that is is nigh on impossible enforce a verbal contract.
Click to expand...

No - it's because it is so hard to prove a verbal contract if the terms of the contract are disputed. If there isn't a dispute over that then it is perfectly possible to enforce a verbal agreement. You do it every day when you buy a coffee - if you were given a tea you would return and get it replaced.

The issue here is that they are saying their agent made an error. That has nothing to do with verbal vs written contract. The agent could equally have posted out something in error.

So the dispute here is not whether there was a verbal or written contract. It is whether the agent acted outside their remit and offered what would be reasonably construed as an error. That would be the argument if brought to small claims. And the fact that the agent was asked to verify their offer is completely relevant.

That doesn't mean the firm would be obliged to reinstate the offer "for life" in a court. It could be argued that the current offer is an adequate one. But given it's their first offer (and implicitly concedes there is an issue), there is potential for an improved offer if pushed.

This is not a dispute about whether a verbal offer and acceptance exists. Intention doesn't mean that the company intended to offer this deal - it means that the two parties had the intention to create a legal relationship - which again is not in dispute
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register