Fasthosts - Is This Even Legal??

[Flix]

The problem is:

 

Im trying to cancel my fasthosts account. I was told that I cant cancel as Im locked into a 12 month contract!! funny thing is, i cant remember signing an agreement for this contract...I requested proof of contract and was told that the proof is a ticked box to accept their T&C's?! I just hope I havent signed my home & possessions away also, by ticking this box;)

 

Surely this cant be legaly binding or even legal!

 

Anyone know if theres a way out of this "contract"? Im unemployed, I can barely afford to eat at the moment. The last thing I need is to be paying a monthly fee to a german billionaire conman for his useless service I dont even use

 

I was thinking of cancelling my debit card, but ive heard I will be billed £20+ vat for each missed payment which would cripple me.

 

Please help guys

Edited April 14, 2010 by Flix

[Mark_Blackpool]

I've been with Fasthosts before. I thought the way it worked is that you paid monthly * or annually and the payment dictated the length of the contract, certainly for hosting services - what service is it, and can you track it down on their site?

 

* the prices are quoted monthly, byt the payments are taken every 30 days. Not sure that's legal.

[locutus]

An online contract is as binding as a written one, it has to be otherwise you couldn't have online shops. The relevant legislation is the Distance Selling Regulations act 2000. Online and telephone shopping is bound by some other rules (the main one is they have to offer a 7 day cooling off period, as you don't see the goods) other than that just as binding and acceptable if they were to take you to court.

[Flix]

I've been with Fasthosts before. I thought the way it worked is that you paid monthly * or annually and the payment dictated the length of the contract, certainly for hosting services - what service is it, and can you track it down on their site?* the prices are quoted monthly, byt the payments are taken every 30 days. Not sure that's legal.

 

An online contract is as binding as a written one, it has to be otherwise you couldn't have online shops. The relevant legislation is the Distance Selling Regulations act 2000. Online and telephone shopping is bound by some other rules (the main one is they have to offer a 7 day cooling off period, as you don't see the goods) other than that just as binding and acceptable if they were to take you to court.

 

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

I understand that an online contract is binding, its just the way it was missold.

 

The product is advertised as x ammount p/month.

 

The 12 month contract was NOT stated when ordering the service on the product page or on the payment page. Only thing clearly stated regarding the product / service being ordered was the monthly fee. No mention of contracts.

 

If I was to order sky TV or a mobile phone service for example. I would be told about my commitment to a contract and I would have to sign to acknowledge the agreement / commitment to a contract . Thats fair enough, as im made aware of the commitment upfront.

 

Hidding a commitment to a 12 month contract (by making a small purchase) in the small print of the terms & conditions must be illegal, let alone disgustingly unethical! I see it as a form of false advertising personally.

 

There must be legislation that protects the consumer against this sort of robery. Its a blatant trap to be missold & agree to something without fully knowing what your agreeing to.

 

 

Is there a consumer act or legislation that protect us consumers from this type of corporate robery?

 

 

 

P.S. Its absolutly disgusting what corporations get away with here in the UK! makes me sick. Ive been ordering hosting services via the internet from the USA for nearlly 10 years now. Never has as much as a hiccup with the service, support and quality of product. Nothing ever

 

This is the SECOND time ive ordered hosting from a UK company and believe it or not it will be the SECOND time I will be seeking legal advice for beeing mugged. First time was with 1&1 hosting.

 

We need more class actions law suits in this country, instead of rolling over and letting corporation do what they want. In my case with fasthosts, all you need, is to do a quick google search to see complaint after complaint of how they abuse their weight and holes in the law to push us about.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Flix

[Mark_Blackpool]

I've used 4 companies in the Uk for hosting.

 

The two I've had problems with were Fasthosts and 1 & 1 (odd, that - I think one owns the other, actually, not sure which way around)

 

I think the "being screwed" thing is something which automatically applies to most telephony and internet companies in the UK. It's like some kind of automatic right.

 

With Fasthosts I was charged something like £23 when a card payment of about £5 failed. That's surely unlawful (but then the recent bank charges case might suggest that unlawful behaviour is to be permitted) and I also noticed at the same time I'd been billed every 30 days not per month so had been over-charged for 2 years. The "pay monthly" price is clearly advertised, and that is indeed how much you're billed. Just not every month, but every 30 days. So at some point you'll end up paying twice in the same month.

 

I still intend pursuing both of those at some point when I can be bothered. I notice the first one always causes them to back down on the day of going to court, so I'd expect to win that based on past cases which are well documented.

 

Like you I used to use a company called ECUi in Florida for 4 dedicated servers and they were really flawless, the customer service ethos is another world away. The closest I've got to that in the UK is Rackspace.

 

On a general note, I think a lot of this is the very British thing of getting stuff cheap. No point in making a widget that lasts 10 years and selling if for £5 when you can make one which lasts 6 months and sell it for £4. The latter will sell more, guaranteed.

 

That's perhaps why in Germany they drive VWs and here we drive Renaults and Rovers.

[locutus]

They do have to notify you of the commitment, but they can be sneaky about this. Things like "We lock this price down for you for a full 12 month term" and then there is the box full of terms with a scroll bar a mile long and a button underneath saying "I agree".

 

You can pay £10 to see the online forms via a SAR but I'm pretty confidant that they will have snook a minimum term in there somewhere.

[SOD'EM]

Just had a read of this.

 

Terms of service - Fasthosts

 

 

I think they have got you by the short and curlies.

 

They do offer a Pay As You Go package which can be cancelled at any time, but they have got you good and proper. (Unless of course you can prove somehow that they haven't kept up with their side of the deal ie. Shoddy work, false promises etc).

 

 

Here are the full T's & C's:-

 

http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/terms/?page=general

[Mark_Blackpool]

I think that's changed a bit since I looked a while ago. Looks like all contracts are now auto-renewing 1 or 2 year contracts.

 

However surely this (the duration) cannot be buried in the terms and conditions/small-print with no mention alongside other features, such as price - as per the OP's point:

 

Is there not some law which says that for a contract to be enforcible, the terms have to be clearly stated including the price and the duration (I recall the FSA warning mortgage lenders recently that some of their credit agreements might be in breach of law if they do not clearly show all the core terms on one page) - probably different legislation there, but as an example - if the supplier fails to make the terms clear then the contract does not exist in law?

[Mark_Blackpool]

Also interestingly, unless I missed it, the contract nature changed in March 2010 (did the OP's contract start before then so old terms apply?) - the payments now seem to be monthly, not every 30 days as used to be the case.

 

Wondering if trading standards have had them on that one so they've dropped the 30 day con trick and made all the contracts self-renewing. However such a core terms change is not at all dissimilar to quoting a price per month but burying away the fact that the payments are not, in fact, monthly, so I remain wondering if the new terms are legal unless the minimum duration is clearly presented.

[SOD'EM]

Also interestingly, unless I missed it, the contract nature changed in March 2010 (did the OP's contract start before then so old terms apply?) - the payments now seem to be monthly, not every 30 days as used to be the case.

 

Wondering if trading standards have had them on that one so they've dropped the 30 day con trick and made all the contracts self-renewing. However such a core terms change is not at all dissimilar to quoting a price per month but burying away the fact that the payments are not, in fact, monthly, so I remain wondering if the new terms are legal unless the minimum duration is clearly presented.

 

 

 

Well worth looking into;)