Is the mortgage in just your name or jointly with your wife? Is the First National Tricity debt in just your wife's name, or joint? I only ask because that rang alarm bells with me - somebody on this forum will know if this makes a difference.

I have never heard of BT asking for ID to provide a phone service - presuming they have not started doing so, you can always pretend to be the new occuppier.

I have only heard of PAC codes that expire if not used within 30 days, meaning that the contract rolls on unless the customer gives notice to terminate (or subsequently obtains a new PAC and actually uses it). I didn't think they were still allowed to insist you actually complete the minimum term as long as you pay for the minimum term (and sometimes an additional surcharge). I submit to your greater experience. And remember to cancel the termination or use the PAC to port out onto a PAYG SIM if you do not actually take a contract with another provider! I was forgetting about the virtual ones. Even though some things are meant to be standard... Good advice, as always.

Thank you. You are right, of course. Facts do not influence a court's ability to reach an unjust verdict. BT claim that by paying the phone bill to BT in the usual way, their customer has suddenly agreed to a contract with a third party, "BT payment services" (BTPS), to provide a payment handling service to BT at a cost to the customer. Since the BT customer does not have the option to choose not to pay their phone bill, any contract BTPS claims to have with the BT customer is akin to a document signed under duress. BTPS may provide a payment handling service to BT but provides no service at all to the customer, since the customer still pays BT.

Yes, some firms also try to claim that using the service constitutes such acceptance. If the supplier cannot prove the T&Cs/obligations have been clearly shared with the consumer, they may struggle to enforce them. They might succeed - nothing's certain in a court hearing. Most people I know cancel the DD immediately... Others use an inactive account to set it up, or have an instruction on their bank account that any DD payment requests are refused. The courts would appear to be repeatedly accepting bullsh!t, in that case. If I ask you to supply a service and I pay you for that service, the existance of a contract could reasonably be inferred. However, anything beyond the period I pay you for cannot realistically be inferred from that payment without any further evidence (such as documents, tapes of phone conversations...)

OK. In my opinion, any court (or anybody else) that decided I had entered into a contract lasting "x" months minimum just because I paid for one (or more) months (and had not agreed to any contract length) is living on a different planet. If I pay for a product or service, it means I accept I am liable for the service. There is no reason anybody should believe it means I accept I am liable to pay for "x" months.

My understanding is that only Vodafone insist on porting in at the point of setting up the contract. O2 used to say within 14 days but actually allow a month or more. Orange within 6 months. I thought 3 and T-mobile both allowed porting in anytime during the contract, in which case Rattyryan won't have a problem with this. Really? I thought they issued the PAC and if you used it, they would issue a final bill covering until the end of the minimum period (or 30 days if longer).

Which would seem grossly unfair. If a customer has received a service, there is nothing inherent in the act of paying for that service that constitutes a contract to continue to pay for the service after the customer has told the supplier to cease providing the service. Payment is simply remuneration for the service received. There is no obvious reason for the customer to perceive that it would bear any greater significance.

By the time the case came to court, the period the line rental covered would have elapsed, so it would indeed be a debt - unless they had disconnected you. Then (in my opinion) they would be seeking unjust enrichment. And I just noticed this thread is nearly 2 years old (-;

Would a company stay in business for over 12 years if 80% of customers had "issues"?

People had the Devil's own job getting three to honour this 2 or 3 years ago when they switched from o2 to Orange for their 2g backup - people with o2 coverage but no Orange coverage. You could try convincing them that your house move is a factor beyond their control, which has resulted in their no longer being able to provide 3 Services. (-;

In addition to Orange providing the 2g backup, didn't three set up a joint venture with T-mobile for their 3g and HSDPA networks?

IIRC, Three will allow the contract to be passed to another person as long as you give permission and the other person is "acceptable" to Three. I think you also have to be at least six months into the contract. "Acceptable" means they can pass three's credit check over the phone.

It is possible that they don't have internet access at work. (-; I typed "bt privacy policy" (without quotes) into a well-known search engine and found:- although I looked at more than one link and some gave the address below:- and some simply said:-

Apology not necessary but the courtesy is appreciated.

Received another set of letters today, this time with my name correct. Wonder what made them notice? I have not contacted them.

I'm not familiar with that publication, so I don't know what they said. I googled "phones 4u investigation" to check before writing post 8 because my recollection was of no fine as long as the regulator's requirements were complied with.

I presumably saw something that isn't there, as I see nothing now. Please accept my apology.

OK, so they "dumbed down" by introducing GCSEs not long after I did my O levels (-; I thought they were saying info stays six years if account is active but record of that account (inc final six years of data) stays six years after account closes.

I used to have "full" itemisation for 1p and over but they switched to 20p and over without any warning and refuse to switch back.

P4u customer relations should be able to supply you with a scanned image of all the forms... You could then check the signature on the insurance form. Are you sure? I understood they had "co-operated fully with the investigation" and given "certain undertakings" - which if not honoured, could allow Ofcom or Staffordshire trading standards to apply to the courts for an enforcement order, any breach of which could lead to a substantial fine for contempt of court. Sic

OK, so we must be talking some time ago. I have only ever known it to be seperate form. Indeed; many of them fail to recall anything except the smart new phone and not having to buy top-up vouchers.

I would regard deception as wrong, personally.

I also have not been able for over a year to access my BT account online because "There was a problem in processing your request. Please try again later." I find their bills are confusing and sometimes misleading in many respects. IIRC, they "re-aligned" their charging periods late last year, claiming that the line-rental period charged for on each bill was somehow out of sync with the period of call charges (or some such) and that charging a bit extra on one bill would sort it out. I think this was a note on a bill or a leaflet enclosed. Either way, can't find it now. My previous experience with writing to BT suggests you should expect a reply after Easter but probably before Whitsun.

How? The insurance agreement requires a signature that has to match the ones on the contract. Which benefit of the insurance are you referring to here?