Got an email from BT saying prices are rising in Jan 2018.
Act NOW to keep broadband prices the same.
When I did act it gave me option of paying £47.49 for 18 months, or £49.99 for 18 months.
For the SAME package i.e. unlimited infinity 1.
Tried chat, but they said they could not help, had to ring.
Rang them and they told me today that the cheaper one woulkd not protect me from any price rise, whereas paying the extra would mean no prices rises.
Initially I thought it was a £45 gamble if prices rise, then I thought, hold on it says 'contract'!
Anyone have thoughts on this?
there a quite a few posts about this and clarificationby a mod try using the search facility
Received same email as you but I can't understand how the price can change before the term of the contract (12 months), in my case 31 July 2018.
I can get broadband and calls at their offer of the same price as my old contract, if I renew now for 18 months but will the price increase apply to me if I am in a new contract, surely it's fixed at the agreed price (today's) for the next 18th months.
What do BT mean by 'in contract', it seems they can tie me down for a fixed period but the cost can change. Can someone clarify please.
My contract is for 12 months which I took out about six months ago.
When I received confirmation email of my order it did say:
Our prices and terms may change at any time while you're in contract with us. We'll let you know about any important changes before they happen.
So BT have only done what they said in their confirmation email.
I'm not saying I agree with a price rise during a contact, just stating a fact that it could change under the terms of the contract..
egr55 wrote: What do BT mean by 'in contract', it seems they can tie me down for a fixed period but the cost can change. Can someone clarify please.
I keep banging on about this and here we go again. The simple fact is that a contract exists for as long as you take a service from BT or any other provider, which might be for years or even decades. It's a common (if not universal) practice for providers to offer lower prices in exchange for a commitment from the customer to retain the service for a specified minimum term, with a penalty to pay if the customer ends the service during that minimum term. The provider is permitted to increase prices at any time, but if it does so during a minimum term the customer can end the contract without paying the penalty.
So the answer is that 'in contract' in this context is a sloppy way of saying 'during the minimum term'. This is clear in the T&C (see the link in Message 4 above) and I reckon that such clarity would prevail if the correct terminology became the norm. BT don't help when official advice refers to being 'in contract' despite the obvious inaccuracy.
in my case its not just signing up to an 18 month contract but also agreeing to a price rise at the end of the 18 months
you are always in contract with BT whether it is a fixed term 12/18 months or a rolling monthly contract after your fixed term is completed you are not agreeing to the price going up to £63.99pm after 18 month term is completed more you are being advised that after the 18 month deal your price will revert to standard cost - unless you re-negotiate a new deal
It's not dishonest but it is shady, an intrinsic element of the battle for custom. Providers have to do something distinguish themselves from the rest when they're mostly sending the same stuff down the same wires. This is the reality of the benefits from competition we were promised during the late 20th-century orgy of privatisation and deregulation.