need out of mobile contract

J

johnmck

Registered User
Messages
73
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.
 
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.
 
Ok - I need a way out. Three have no mobile coverage in Fermanagh or very little - could be an excuse
 
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
 
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
business consumers. Regulation 171 requires that an undertaking that provides to end
users connection and/or access to the public telephone network shall do so in
accordance with a contract.
Click to expand...


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 …”.
Click to expand...

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.

...


...

No service provider appeared to be fully compliant with the requirements of
Regulation 17 of the 2003 Regulations.

(paraphrased as '100% level of non-compliance')
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.

This relates to Regulation 17 of the EU directive, and Ireland's failure to implement it.


In 2003 COMREG confirm (see COMREG 03 129) that they have a legal obligation to ensure compliance with a compulsory EU law.


In 2007 COMREG test the level of compliance (see COMREG 07 49), and determine that all companies operating in Ireland, all 74 of them are using illegal contracts, and are in breach of EU law.


This situation still pertains today, where all telecommunications companies in Ireland are breaking EU law, and have been since 2003.


Are you happy about this?

If not, do you intend to do anything about it?

Should I tell my children that the law doesn't apply to everybody?, because that's the clear perception.

I would like a written reply outlining your position on this. I'm pretty certain that you will not be able to defend nine years of acknowledged lawbreaking.


Your predecessor, Eamonn Ryan, lied to me about this issue, and then went silent and refuses to engage any further. That's not the type of response I'm hoping for.. I'm hoping that you will force international telecommunications companies to start observing the law. COMREG, and your Government department have both refused to ensure my rights were upheld, over a period of several years. (My first complaint to COMREG was in 2008, and they have done nothing since)

I have complained to both COMREG and your Dept. and both have refused to help... or worse. (COMREG lied to me in writing, as did Minster Ryan.. hardly an inspiring performance, and your government department ignored the issue and refused to engage, I've been complaining since 2008)



So, in the first instance can you confirm that I have correctly described the situation.. that all telecommunications companies operating in Ireland are breaking both EU and Irish law, and have done so for years?


Secondly you can tell me what you intend to do about it? Do you intend to completely dismiss complaints from the Irish public, and ignore this issue?

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

All documents mentioned have been attached.


Cheers so
Joe
Click to expand...
 
Hi Joe, could you clarify what laws are being broken here as it's a bit hard to decipher from the above?
 
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
business consumers. Regulation 171 requires that an undertaking that provides to end
users connection and/or access to the public telephone network shall do so in
accordance with a contract.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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
 
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?

I first sent the email below on the 5th of August, .. I specifically requested that you confirm receipt. You made no response.

I wrote a follow up email on the 15th August, again asking for confirmation of receipt,.. again you failed to respond.


This is my third email, todays date is the 30th August. I am asking for confirmation of receipt of my previous emails, and some indication when you'll be in a position to reply fully to the issues outlined in my first email.


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

Regards
Joe
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.

I would like the Dept. to acknowledge that all of the 74 companies operating in the telecommunications sector are breaking both Irish and EU law, as per published reports by Comreg. Who within the Dept. can provide such an acknowledgement? To deny this fact would be to deny published findings by Comreg.



I would like to ask the Dept. and the Minister for an opinion on the fact that COMREG acknowledge that 74 private companies, .. that's every company in the telecommunication sector, have been breaking both Irish and EU law for the last nine or so years. I would like an opinion on the fact that not a single punitive action or other sanction has been taken against any of the 74 companies repeatedly deemed by COMREG to be breaking Irish law. Who within the Dept. can provide an opinion on the failure of Comreg to take a single punitive action against any of 74 companies deemed to be breaking Irish law for years on end?



I would like an opinion from the Dept. and the Minister on the fact that Comreg lied to me in writing and made what Comreg knew to be a false determination. This relates to my specific instance of a contract having been determined by Comreg to be compliant, despite the fact that the generic contract was ruled by Comreg to be non-compliant, both before and after my specific instance of the same contract was ruled to be compliant. This clearly requires an explanation, .. as the text of all contacts was identical, yet diametrically opposed rulings were given. This represents a deliberate attempt by Comreg to deny me my Irish and EU rights, and it was an action wilfully taken by Comreg.
Who within the Dept. can confirm that the situation described above is accurate?, and who can justify the diametrically opposed rulings made by Comreg in relation to identical contracts?



I would like an explanation as to why not a single company changed their contracts, despite being given three months to do so by Comreg, in July 2007? This relates to the fact that Comreg published that all 74 lawbreaking companies were given three months in July 2007 to produce legal contracts... yet none of them have done so. So did Comreg ask them to change their contracts, and they refused?, or are they incapable of changing their own contracts? or did Comreg not actually make that demand of the 74 companies? In the third case Comreg themselves would have lied in their own published report. It isn't credible to say that Comreg did insist about changes and yet none happened,.. and four years later still nothing has happened. That level of incompetence isn't credible. So the question remains unanswered as to why Comreg appear to have no say in their own regulated industry?



I have asked several questions there, each indicated by a question mark. I can make separate requests for information if you wish to choose to handle each complaint individually. My desire is for each complaint or enquiry to be dealt with separately as much as possible. This list of question is not exhaustive, and in the course of any replies you may make more information may come to light which may result in more enquiries or requests for information.


Any help you could offer would be much appreciated.

Cheers so
Joe
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top