thanks Hammy - but they've had a change of heart this morning and agreed to let me go foc at least I agree with somebody here

I read the page on the UTCCR which silverfox1961 kindly pointed me at. It appears to me that it relates to 'goods' and the seizing of 'goods' rather than services, which in my humble opinion is what I think I am dealing with. Thats why I said I didnt think it was applicable. If you understand why it's applicable in my case would you please be so kind as to explain that to me. Or if you have other specific information which you think might be applicable I will be very grateful for your input. Otherwise I thank you for your input so far but I agree with you that there is little point in you continuing in the thread.

speaking personally I dont think it was. I pointed out the specifics of my questions several times and asked renegadeimp again and again to address it specifically - which he/she didnt, at least not in manner that I as a lay person could grasp. I agree with that. However I posted here because the provider does not agree. Therefore I wanted to understand on what legal basis I can address their reluctance. renegadeimp continued to respond with unspecific vagaries, which appeared to me to indicate that he wanted to try to find a solution without actually knowing what that solution was. I thanked him several times for his input, but as noble and generous as his input was I felt it became increasingly unhelpful - so I said so.

con artists and cheats - yes I couldnt agree more But I'm sure enough they are in the wrong and I will get success. Just trying to understand the technicalities

If you've already said it why repeat yourself? and so if we're repeating please let me repeat my question (again): With the greatest of respect renegadeimp you have managed to make a load of posts in this thread without actually coming anywhere near answering the question. I notice you have almost 16000 posts on here. Are they all equally useless? It might be better if you dont know - just say you dont know, or say nothing.

Hi silverox1961 thanks for reply a 'domain' in this context is a domain name such as consumeractiongroup.co.uk 'domains' are generally not 'owned' they are 'rented' from a national or global controlling body via a registrar. whilst I do think what they've done creates an unfair contract I dont think that UTCCR thing is really applicable. I have still control, its just they recently changed terms and conditions without notice meaning I have to pay to move to another registrar. Thus holding me ransom - which I think is probably kinda not illegal in this context ... maybe ... As long as thats what they said when we agreed terms. Which it wasnt. I think my question hangs on whether they can change terms without notice, given this clause is in the existing t&c's and can such a clause be included in a contract in UK consumer law? [this forum has a very annoying habit of just dumping carefully crafted replies claiming user is not logged in]

yes, thank you for those. altho I did know where they were I thank you for pointing them out. But as to my original question: it still remains unanswered I will be grateful for any input specific to that. for example this: can such a clause be included in a contract in UK consumer law?

as far as I know the regulator with a UK domain is Nominet - But I'm not sure, do you agree? If so, as far as I know Nominet have no opinion on whether or not the registar wants to charge a fee to transfer away. Thats down to the the agreement between registrar and client. They are saying they are within their rights. I dont agree. The issue here is whether they have a legal right to change that agreement as they have done. And it seems to me that in order to compose a FULL complaint I have to understand that position - which I dont. And with the greatest respect your responses are doing little to help. Can you please be specific about the legal position re the contract. and what/why is the 8 week period you mention please? What governs that? and who is the ombudsman here? thank you

thank you again for reply I have some questions: what constitutes a 'FULL' complaint? why do they have 8 weeks? what governs that time period? which is the regulator that will decide? and how do I invoke that regulator?

I thank you again for your input and again I agree with you, but they dont agree. In fact they completely disagree. I have explained the obvious points several times via email. Still they are refusing. So it seems I must ask again: What are my legal options and levers here please?

well yes we agree on that. (I think) However, as I said, as I have put those points to them and they are still refusing to allow the original terms (ie: free transfer away) to stand, claiming they have right to change terms "without the prior consent of the Client" So I ask again: What are my legal options and levers here please - to get them to honour the original agreement?

123-reg are domain registrars. They have introduced a new charge to transfer .uk domains away. This contradicts previous terms and very visible statements on their web site. They have given no notice of the change in terms. I want to transfer to a new registrar, and have asked them to waive the charge as it was not part of my agreement when I paid for domains there. But they are refusing to waive it pointing to a clause (that probably was in effect) that basically says they can do what they want when they want: Rather than me trying to explain it all in further detail maybe simplest if I point you to this web page where they explain it very well. http://www.mayne.net/123reg-domain-name-hostage/ some people on there have had success, but 123-reg are still refusing to allow me to transfer away free. What are my legal options and levers here please?

Well that was 2nd May And I can confirm that no rabbits have been pulled from any hat since then and it still isnt resolved Today I've given Lee my opinion that as a company VF is "mealy mouthed and mean" Why?... read on: let me clear up @2grumpy first: VF's standpoint is that if they do not receive it they will not accept at all that a cancellation letter was sent, happily or otherwise. And they still claim not to have received my wife's cancellation letter. I paraphrase Lee from a few conversations ago who told me "you should have sent it recorded delivery then shouldnt you" Well if thats what I needed to do thats what they should specifiy in the t&c's. Not leave it to some bloke on the phone to advise after the event. For the benefit of the new reader, I'll explain again that during this last 3 years my wife had major heart surgery, suffered a stroke which left her with some serious physical and cognitive damage, then had further major surgery. She spent a long time just sitting in a chair unable to get about on her own. During my best eforts to care for her I got cancer, we both lost our jobs and home. We now have serious personal debts and are on the verge of personal bankruptcy. She had been a good customer of VF for a number of years. So where are we up to now?... It seems that during the period after I cancelled the contract unbeknown to me (and her) my wife had used the phone. I asked VF for copies pf the bils and they sent them. She hadnt used it with wild abondon all over the place - but strangely just to one single 0904 number. She has no idea why or who but I tracked it down to QVC so I assume she had been watching home shopping channel on TV and had seen number come on the screen and dialled it. I knew nothing about it and she still has no idea about it. I checked, but we havent ever bought anything from them. I explained this to VF: They asked for all their money to be paid in full. I refused, we talked some more. They asked for all their money to be paid in full. I asked them to reconsider. I sent details confirming the dates and extent of my wifes illness and her deteriorating psychological condition. So after several months Lee came back to me again and said (I paraphrase him again) "basically the problem was that the phone had been used, Otherwise they would have conceded and cancelled all charges" But since it had been used they couldnt do this. However they would accept all the charges and the monthly amount for the months the phone had been used. I asked them to accept the charges only - on the basis that: the phone was already well out of contract and they had already conceded the monthly amount (...if it hadnt been used) and their losses only amounted to the charges. and had they cancelled as requested a very poorly woman would not have suffered this hassle. But Lee called me again to say VF wont accept my offer Their new offer was that they would accept all the charges and we split the difference 50/50 on the monthly charge. I think the charges are about £90 and monthly in total about £120 So the difference is about £60, in effect a discount of 40% on the amount. I wouldnt accept it. I told Lee in my opinion it was "mealy mouthed and mean" of a Company of VF's resources to be haggling over 60 quid with a woman in my wifes situation. I'm writing to VF to confirm my opinion. Does anybody on here have any view on my opinion?

Just a quick update to say Lee telephoned on Friday and was very helpful. Hopefully we can move the problem forward to a resolution. c.

Rumour has it you are good - but I dont think you know who we are yet? Perhaps its magic! It was from my wife. I wrote it but she understood it and signed it.