Is it legal for mobile companies to increase contract cost without consent?

Apologies if there are other threads on this, I couldn't find them.

When Three contacted customers back in March about increasing the cost of their mobile broadband contracts by E3, they gave them 30 days to cancel their contracts without penalty.

If they didn't hear from those customers they went ahead and increased the price of their contracts.

I would have assumed such a big corporation was on solid legal ground doing this, but it was a few years back I got Vodafone to back down and refund me around E500 they took from my account when I left them - they said I had agreed to a new contract (by default), I argued I had not, I had not signed anything, and that I was out of contract. They backed down very quickly too when I threatened legal action, which surprised me.

Has anything changed since then legally? Or was that just Vodafone avoiding hassle?

I ask because I am now tied to that new Three contract without signing anything or verbally agreeing to the new contract that increased the cost - due to circumstances genuinely beyond my control, I did not see the letter they sent me in that 30 day period.

Does the law allow them, and other companies, do this? Are they entitled to take a 'non-response' as a legal agreement to a price hike? Surely if there is no response, that should end the contract?

They have to advise you of the right to withdraw from your contract even when in contract

Yes, they are allowed to do this, and the 30 day period entitling you to opt-out without is also covered in the legislation. See ComReg guide here.

Hard to say what happened in your previous Vodafone case, it may have been down the them not having evidence of you accepting the initial contract or noticing an issue in how they modified the terms.

Many thanks for the reply and link, Leo.

I see the ComReg page states, alright, that service providers are required to give 30 days' notice re changes to contracts, but it doesn't say what happens if the customer doesn't, for whatever reason, respond - it seems, based on Three's actions, that no response entitles them to bind those customers to the new conditions/prices.

I suppose this is similar to the whole argument about the auto renewal of contracts, I see there are moves in the UK to clamp down on them, I'm not sure about here. A pal of mine living in New York won a battle with an American newspaper over the auto renewal of her subscription with them, apparently New York law requires that the customer actually give verbal or written consent before a contract can be renewed, rather than the company going ahead and renewing it in the absence of a response. Hopefully we'll have similar here one day.

Meanwhile, I remain mystified by an agreed contract that has been significantly altered by a company remaining legal in the absence of the customer agreeing verbally or in writing to the changes. Surely ComReg should apply the same conditions in these circumstances as they do when the original contract is agreed - ie you can only enter in to it by agreeing over the phone or signing an actual or online form.

In my Googling, I found this on the RTE site (https://www.rte.ie/news/money/consumer/2011/0516/138352-pulling-out-of-tv-phone-and-other-contracts/):

Is there any way out mid-contract?

Your best hope is that the mobile service provider themselves change a significant term of your contract, because then they have breached their contract with you and you can cancel.

No mention there of the 30 day notice business, just that the contract has been breached.

A legal minefield, I'd guess.

Your terms and conditions may have changed,but the contract length hasn't .If you are out of contract,you are on a 30 day rolling contract.

MichaelCOH said:

I see the ComReg page states, alright, that service providers are required to give 30 days' notice re changes to contracts, but it doesn't say what happens if the customer doesn't, for whatever reason, respond - it seems, based on Three's actions, that no response entitles them to bind those customers to the new conditions/prices.

Click to expand...

While not explicitly stated, the implication is that it is perfectly legal here.