C’s broadband service was disconnected in January due to the telephone line which was owned by another provider being upgraded. No temporary service was provided until May.
Meanwhile C was billed for a broadband service that did not work. The stress exacerbated C’s psychiatric condition.
T admitted there had been problems but said it had done what it could to remedy them. The Adjudicator decided that T upgraded the broadband service without C’s prior knowledge. The other provider’s telephone line could not take the enhanced service; T could not use problems with line as an excuse to avoid responsibility.
If a provider fails to provide what has been agreed and charged for it is in breach of contract. It has no right to demand or to take money for something it does not provide. Exclusion clauses in the terms and conditions were void under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
The Adjudicator directed T to cancel its contract with C, remove its marker from the telephone line, repay all sums paid by C after the broadband service failed, cancel any outstanding invoices and pay C £350 compensation. Compensation for personal injury, such as the exacerbation of C’s psychiatric condition, was outside the scope of CISAS.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
