Everyone wants to save money. We believe, as consumers in this modern day, we are well protected against sharp practice and generally tend to assume that fellow businesses will be honest and honourable in their dealings with us. Not always so.
This is my own account of my experiences with telecom company Unicom.
Just over 3 years ago I signed to Unicom. It seemed like a good deal and was presented to me enthusiastically by an elderly gentleman dressed in a smart, grey suit. A year later I decided to go back to BT, mainly because I wanted a reliable broadband service. Unicom did not supply this service at the time and even if they had I still wanted a more established company. The wheels were put in motion by BT and very soon I got a call from Unicom to ask if I was aware I was in a 3 year contract and that as I hadn’t given them notice, I would have to pay to end the contract. This ran into hundreds of pounds – I can’t remember now exactly what she said but it was enough to make me wait another 2 years. So I waited, and recently, just over 3 years after first going with Unicom, I contacted BT to take my lines back. The letter soon arrived from Unicom saying I would have to pay £100 ‘admin’ charge + 100% of service charges + 30% of calls I ‘would have’ made for the rest of my contract. As you can imagine, I swiftly emailed them telling them to check the dates. I was outside the 3 years. I then got another call telling me that actually I was not released from my contract as I hadn’t given them not less than 3 months notice before the 3rd anniversary of the contract that I wanted to end it. Another person from Unicom rang me today to inform me I would owe £1853.00 if I leave Unicom. Bearing in mind I was not told by the original salesman of these clauses. Nothing to do with severing the contract was ever explained and I can’t find any trace of the original contract even though I have my telecom paper meticulously filed. I have asked them to send me a copy of the contract. They informed me this would take ‘some time’ to pull from the archives and I would be best advised to re-instate the lines while it was all being sorted out. I told them I would not re-instate the lines, had never been advised of this termination clause when I signed and would not pay this money to which she said, ‘well, you’d better get legal advice then. It’s up to you to read your contract.’ She also mentioned another of my numbers – a residential line – which I was not even aware was with them (because they deal with business lines). When I closely inspected my records I saw that that number is with them too – though I’m sure I never asked them to take it on. I know I should have realised about that sooner – but it still came as a shock because I was sure that number was in with my TV package??? I’m wondering now if I gave the salesman that number just as a ‘contact’ and he went ahead and put it on the bill. I’ve now applied to BT to take that one back too so it looks like I’ve got a massive fight on my hands.
I have done some research to find others in my situation. There used to be a 15 page tread on vunet with dozens and dozens of similar complaints against Unicom. The vast majority were by people being caught in the same 3 year 'roll-over' situation as us. This thread now seems to have disappeared???
Here are a few others I have found.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review247942.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/showthread.php?t=26921
http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=84666
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/finance-news/2008/01/24/it-s-time-to-name-and-shame-the-contract-sharks-86908-20296114/
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/132433-unicom-missled-us-about.html
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=682401&highlight=unicom
In a nutshell the repeated and over-riding complaints are:
Customers attention is seldom ? (no reported cases) brought to the fact they are signing a 3 year contract.
(Unicom claim it is printed on the front of their forms clearly, but I am unaware of how long that has been the case – please see anecdote below which was written in reply to Chris Earle of Unicom claiming the clause is clear)
‘Hi Chris
I agree the forms are clearly marked, however, it's the way the forms are presented. I'll explain. The sales rep visits you and spends perhaps 30 minutes explaining the advantages of changing to Unicom. No mention what so ever of the 3 year tie in or extremely heavy cancellation fee.
After your convinced to change service provider and the sales rep has your “trust” out come the forms ( I think about 4 in all requiring signing, one straight after the other)
with the words from him “please sign these now I’ll explain what your signing afterwards”. So you quickly sign them. Because there are a number of these forms to sign and you have been re-assured that all will be explained afterwards, you focus your attention to the little box at the bottom where you have to sign and not at the top of the form.
Then afterwards, after more friendly chat the meeting ends and you’ve forgotten that you have not had explained to you the terms and conditions you bid him farewell. I guess it’s basic human psychology and it works, because the customers attention is distracted from the top of the form where it states 3 year contract and once convinced to buy the service you wish to please the sales man and speed things up so you can get back to your own work.
If you want to improve the form(s), simply place the “3 year contract” bit right next to where the customer has to sign in big red letters and there will be a much higher chance they will see it, not watermarked in the same colour scheme as the rest of the form. I read the form twice last night and didn't even notice the watermark underneath the signature box as all that bright orange tends to merge into one. I guess there’s little point asking the sale men to point out verbally to the customer it’s a 3 year contract, or explain about the high cancellation fees as compliance is very difficult to monitor and prove.
But what I can say is, when you have such a significant cancellation clause (which is only in the myriad of small print on the reverse of the form and not in clear sight at all) I think it is very important that it should also feature very prominently next to the box where the customer is signing and has their attention focus on and that should be clear and in a different colour to the rest of the form so it stands out, after all I have to admit I’ve never come across such a draconian clause before when switching services whether they be telecoms or Gas / Electric etc so your just not looking for it.
Now I am cancelling not because I’m unhappy with the service you supply, because I haven’t received it yet, nor because of the experiences of the people here. I don’t know if they represent the mainstream or just a small unfortunate number. I am cancelling merely because the projected benefits for me are so small (maybes £5 to £8 per month) and the risks of cancellation on a 3 year contract which would incur high costs are so significant.
I hope this input helps and the form design is changed because clearly it’s wasting both your time and the potential customers time when significant terms and conditions are not made crystal clear at the point of sale.’
Customers are not being made aware that if you don’t give 3 months notice before the 3rd anniversary of your contract, it automatically ‘rolls over’ for another 3 year period.
I ask,who, in their right mind, would ever knowingly sign up to a deal like this?
I would love to hear from anyone else with good or bad experiences of Unicom. My aim is to be both fair and accurate in this report and I will publish any honest account.
I have no complaints against the service Unicom provided and certainly have no objection to any company making a profit for that is the reason they exist.
My passion here is to expose a very bad business practice of luring customers into an unreasonable contract. I personally do not know of or have ever dealt with any other company which needs to tie you in for 3 years and then makes it difficult to withdraw from. Why would there be a need for this if the service/product is good? If they do feel the need of it, then salespeople should make it very clear at the initial meeting. This was definitely not done in our case and apparently not in most others.
Currently my case has now been passed to debt collectors. I have asked Otelo to investigate but failing this I will fight the matter in court to see if British justice is a fact or a myth.
I would be happy receive comments.
Please contact us here.
Shirley