Origin Broadband – Mis-selling? No cooling off period?

[gribz 10]

ISPs (and banks) are probably the only industries that routinely get away with the practice of overselling to this extent. Can you imagine if you signed a year long contract with a milkman for 4 pints of milk a day, but on the very first day you find one pint on your doorstep. So you ring up and say "our agreement was for 4 pints of milk", and the reply is "Ah yes, but you live a long way the milk depot, so you only get 1 pint of milk a day. Sorry about that, but if you'd looked more carefully at the contract you signed you'd see we have a clause allowing us to alter the amount of milk we deliver based on your distance from our depot". That wouldn't wash.

 

For someone who says they've worked in the telecoms industry that's the worst analogy you could have picked. Complete nonsense.

 

As stated by Ghozer, there are many reasons why an end user may not receive the advertised speed. I am not a fan of the "up to" advertising but the problem as I see it is that people need to take personal responsibility for their connection. Research their line length, use several different websites to check distance to exchange, have the line checked for faults, ensure their internal wiring is up to scratch, install a high quality broadband filter faceplate.

 

And they must, MUST read the contract T&C's when they sign up. People just want to blame someone else for their mistakes, work with the ISP and Openreach if needed to and push to get every last ounce of speed out of the line.

 

However, if you want a crappy service from a multi-national company who are trying to control every aspect of the media, and couldn't give a toss about supporting local business then pay off the 12/18 month contract and go elsewhere.

 

Wow, that feels better.

[BLADE8T1 10]

For someone who says they've worked in the telecoms industry that's the worst analogy you could have picked. Complete nonsense.

 

As stated by Ghozer, there are many reasons why an end user may not receive the advertised speed. I am not a fan of the "up to" advertising but the problem as I see it is that people need to take personal responsibility for their connection. Research their line length, use several different websites to check distance to exchange, have the line checked for faults, ensure their internal wiring is up to scratch, install a high quality broadband filter faceplate.

 

And they must, MUST read the contract T&C's when they sign up. People just want to blame someone else for their mistakes, work with the ISP and Openreach if needed to and push to get every last ounce of speed out of the line.

 

However, if you want a crappy service from a multi-national company who are trying to control every aspect of the media, and couldn't give a toss about supporting local business then pay off the 12/18 month contract and go elsewhere.

 

Wow, that feels better.

My Bold,

So define crappy service?.

Because I would certainly call being shorted by 20+mb a crappy service.

You and Ghozer are pointing out the variances to people as though they are stupid!.Anyone who's EVER had broadband knows about the multitude of different variances out there(they probably learned it through the many times they were on the technical support numbers!).

But thats fine....

to be a few meg short we have grown to live with,it happens.But if YOU signed up to a company that specializes in the new Fibre to cabinet technology,and you was told twice that your speed would be 38mb.Would you accept 17mb down speed?,I know I wouldn't.In my past I have had,,,

Aol,bulldog,pipex,orange,bt,one2one,o2 and BE(which im with now).All of those companies had a cooling off period(to which I used a couple of times),so I am very suprised myself that origin doesn't have one.

If companies don't offer a cooling off period,are we supposed to just jump straight in with an 18month contract,and just hope you get a decent speed?,and if you don't,it tough luck?.

[kinetic 10]

For someone who says they've worked in the telecoms industry that's the worst analogy you could have picked. Complete nonsense.

 

I was using it from a legal perspective not a technical one

 

edit: To put it in the most simple of terms for the hard of thinking; if you sign a contract expecting to receive X and you actually receive Y (which in no way, shape or form conforms to what X should have been), that is a fundamental breach of contract by the seller. Such a breach of contract allows the other side to terminate the contract).

Edited September 4, 2012 by kinetic

[Antics^^ 10]

Ofcom has recently forced some ISP's to give a minimum, sweet spot, and highest speed estimate which I think will help.

 

A contract works both ways between a customer and an ISP, the ISP will have a lot of money invested when signing up a customer for broadband (BT Wholesale/Openreach charges, equipment etc) so a cooling off period does not make much business sense.

 

I think if an ISP and a customer have both tried their utmost to improve speed issues with no luck, then then a contract break should occur.

 

I think using a car MPG analogy might be a bit better. We are promised MPG by car companies, when in reality so many different factors can affect the results (driving

style, weather etc). The same can be said for broadband speeds.

[Antics^^ 10]

I was using it from a legal perspective not a technical one

 

edit: To put it in the most simple of terms for the hard of thinking; if you sign a contract expecting to receive X and you actually receive Y (which in no way, shape or form conforms to what X should have been), that is a fundamental breach of contract by the seller. Such a breach of contract allows the other side to terminate the contract).

 

Unless Y = X + Z (Z being speed affecting issues not caused by the ISP, but by the customer or external constraints).

 

Which is often the case (not always) with speed problems.

[Ghozer 112]

My Bold,

You and Ghozer are pointing out the variances to people as though they are stupid!.Anyone who's EVER had broadband knows about the multitude of different variances out there(they probably learned it through the many times they were on the technical support numbers!).

 

I wasn't pointing it out as though they are stupid..

 

The simple fact is (having worked in IT and Broadband support for over 10 years) people know about the "up to" thing, and that they might not get the speeds advertised, and people know that it's often caused by line length / distance from exchange, but they don't always know about the other factors, things like interference from power stations and other cables isn't something average joe bloggs or mary from down the street would know.. neither is the fact that the copper cables degrade, and any cables over 15 years old (10 would be better) should really be replaced, and any over 25 years old might not even stand a chance at supporting a 1mbps connection, yet alone 10mbps....

[BLADE8T1 10]

I wasn't pointing it out as though they are stupid..

 

The simple fact is (having worked in IT and Broadband support for over 10 years) people know about the "up to" thing, and that they might not get the speeds advertised, and people know that it's often caused by line length / distance from exchange, but they don't always know about the other factors, things like interference from power stations and other cables isn't something average joe bloggs or mary from down the street would know.. neither is the fact that the copper cables degrade, and any cables over 15 years old (10 would be better) should really be replaced, and any over 25 years old might not even stand a chance at supporting a 1mbps connection, yet alone 10mbps....

 

Sorry,but your original post is pretty patronizing,For starters your automatically assuming that the OP knows nothing about the factors you raise.All the OP wanted to know was is he legally stuck in a contract,and your talking to him as "joe bloggs".

How would you feel in his position?..

Anyway,,,

Since he has already stated sky gave him 16mb through the old copper cable,his copper cables don't sound that bad to me.16mb through copper is almost as good as it gets,and I know of people that are right now getting 0.7 through copper cables.

[heavenlyarts 10]

If you are connecting wirelessly to the router do the speed tests again hard wired.

 

I get 22MB down and 8 MB up when connected wirelessly, Wired

I get 32MB down and 12MB up

[kinetic 10]

The contract you have with an ISP is to provide an internet service, not to provide an internet service at a certain speed.

 

You actually couldn't be more wrong, and frankly that's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard.

 

You know, I was starting to write a big long post about how wrong you were; including the 3 elements of a contract, the concept of consideration and failure of consideration, and then I decided; life's just too short as this is ultimately meaningless. This will never end up in court anyway, they'll sort their little tiff out between them or he'll (hopefully) go the an advice centre and they'll advise of his options, they'll maybe part ways or kiss and make up and find some common ground (and live happily ever after), or he'll eventually end up talking to the communications ombudsman. So, it would just be noise!

 

The one thing I will is that even basic consumer protection legislation (Supply of Goods and Services Act, amongst others) contain extensive sections that insert implied contract conditions into ALL contracts, such as quality and/or fitness of the service provided (let alone the mass (or should that be mess?) of case law!). Besides which, a contract doesn't have to be expressed, it can also be implied. "Superfast Broadband" implies.... (I'll leave you to fill in the blanks).

[kinetic 10]

I am not wrong at all. OFCOM have recently changed the rules about advertising speeds precisely because BB contracts do not include a speed element and customers have no recourse if the speed is not as high as the estimate. Fit for purpose is of course an element, but the purpose of a BB provider is to provide BB.

 

You're talking about advertising and misrepresentation, I'm talking about post-contract agreement failure. Apples and pears.

 

OFCOM (as I'm sure you're aware) are the regulatory body of ISPs (and other communication bodies), they deal with how ISPs "should" behave (by setting guidelines over things such as advertising, and the behaviour expected by broadband providers as well as anti-competition regulations). Whilst they have a mandate to ensure consumers are free from unfair treatment this is from a top-down approach, working (or sometimes enforcing) within the industry. They have no remit beyond that (e.g., the direct relationship between the ISP and the Consumer - they may accept complaints and provide advice but they don't directly intervene in individual cases) - that's covered by contract law (more of that later), some legislation, and a whole mess of seemingly never-ending case law. Before reaching that stage the parties would be expected to explore other methods of resolution such as inter-party agreement, or an ombudsman (contrary to popular belief the ombudsman is impartial and has nothing to do with OFCOM, other than being approved by them).

 

But as you're so keen to use OFCOM as the de-facto resolution method of resolving disputes (which isn't want they do and they don't overule actual law - case or legislation). I'll quote them for you (latest release, August 2012):

 

"In July last year, a revised and strengthened Voluntary Code of Practice on broadband speeds came into force.

This requires ISPs to give more accurate estimates of a prospective customer’s expected maximum speed in the form of a range. In addition, it seeks to ensure that, where possible, customers’ speed-related problems will be resolved by their ISP.

If this is not possible, then customers whose speed is significantly below the estimated access line speed range have the ability to leave their provider within three months of the start of their contract without penalty. All of the UK’s largest ISPs are now signatories to the Code."

 

I've no idea if Origin are one of the signatories (perhaps they could state if they are, and if not, why not?), however, even if they aren't, an ombudsman may take into account that as all of the major ISPs are signatories to what is in effect an industry wide "self regulation" others should follow suit to that standard (within a certain capacity - I accept that small ISPs don't have the financial resources that BT does for instance).

 

They (OFCOM) also state (Aug 2012):

 

"Of the other superfast packages included in the research, the average download speed on BT Infinity’s ‘up to’ 76Mbit/s service was 58.5Mbit/s*, compared with Virgin Media’s ‘up to’ 60Mbit/s at 55.9Mbit/s.

BT’s ‘up to’ 38MBit/s package achieved speeds of 32.2Mbit/s* whilst Virgin Media’s ‘up to’ 30Mbit/s service had average speeds of 30.1Mbit/s." These are far from the speeds the OP is attaining, and any further action could use this as a reasonable guide of what to expect from "superfast" providers.

 

Now if someone is told "You will receive x speed guaranteed" that is a different matter and as long as you can evidence it the ISP would have no defence.

 

He's already been told (presumably verbally, which I why I advised him to get it in writing, although verbal contracts are still valid) that he should expect to receive "somewhere in the region of 38/10 Mbps" (direct quote from the OP). Whilst a few Mbps difference here or there would be slightly annoying for him, I would agree that it would be within the lawful (as well as ethical) boundaries of a pre-install quote (due to the factors highlighted above by Ghozer and others).

 

He is receiving less than half of that amount, which is the same (download) speed as he was previously receiving from Sky LLU (£7.50 a month, compared to Origin's £22.50 a month). He therefore (obviously!) made the decision to upgrade due to this quote of 38/10, as he's paying three times the monthly rate and is also out of pocket due to the £55 installation fee. If they quoted a lower figure, it is highly unlikely he would have changed ISP (this is classed in legislation as innocent misrepresentation, see below).

 

It appears to me that we actually agree on this point, so I'm not entirely sure why any of the other factors you raise are relevant.

 

Fit for purpose is of course an element, but the purpose of a BB provider is to provide BB.

 

The "fit for purpose" element was actually a bit of a red herring, as it applies (in legislation - specifically SOGA) to goods rather than services. Although, having said that, the phrase is now used all over the place; and will have been used in case law regarding the provision of services. Even when used in relation to goods it's ambiguous, to say the least. Even so, your interpretation of it doesn't fit the definition of it in the slightest - "fit for purpose" deals with the quality and fulfilment of a specification. That's not the same as "purpose".

 

Which brings me to the central point; all of the above has little influence on contract law or even existing legislation. We are now at a point where a contract exists and so, the central issue is the law of contract, particularly breach of contract (if this issue was to ever reach a court; partial failure of consideration on the side of the ISP is the factor which would probably be the major argument put forward by the OP).

 

The ISP may also be guilty of innocent misrepresentation (defined as when a "trader makes an untrue statement with no intention to deceive"), which I believe to be true in this case as I have no reason to believe the ISP has set out to deliberately deceive (especially as they posted on this thread and stated so themselves!). However, even in these circumstances "The client is not bound by the contract".

 

In both cases he would be able to nullify the contract and reclaim the £55 installation charge.

Edited September 6, 2012 by kinetic
typo

[kinetic 10]

Interestingly many ISPs are now actually advertising average speeds rather than top speeds. See for example Be Broadband (who were, I believe, the first ISP to offer 24Mbps), they now advertise the same broadband package as being 16Mbps to comply with the OFCOM voluntary code of "average" maximum speeds, rather than the theoretical maximum (they haven't slowed down the speed, I've just spoken to someone who works for O2, the maximum package speed is still 24Mbps, they just don't advertise that as the maximum any more, even though you can still achieve it!)

[ibbibeast2 10]

Basically what the title says.