since when are you not allowed to downgrade your price plan?

[booth83]

You're less than a quarter of the way into your contract, and have got a "free" fairly high end phone?

Yes, but the amount i use my phone has changed, therefore i need less than what my tarriff offers me, and it would be prudent of me to downgrade as a result of that, it's a shame that one is not allowed to change their mind. I'm not about to try and find out but i'm sure if i rang them now and asked to upgrade my tarriff this would not be a problem, I wonder though if in doing that i would then be unable to downgrade after that, in principle this seems wrong, people change and thats life.

[toythatkills]

If you were worried that your circumstances would change then you shouldn't have entered into an 18 month contract.

A quick browse of eBay suggests that you could get about £250 for your phone. This works out at £14 a month over the life of your contract, effectively reducing the payments to £16 a month, with the same contract terms. Is that better?

Then you can use your old phone or buy a £20 PAYG thing from Tesco. Problem solved.

[booth83]

It's not really possible to predict that my circumstance would change so why would i worry about it?

I'm not angry about it now like i was when i first posted, but i don't agree with having a fixed tarriff for the entire duration of a mobile phone contract, the business model used to be more consumer friendly than that, and in the future i'll be checking to avoid this.

I am considering the ebay option for the handset though, I have no problem using my old handset.

[toythatkills]

I'm not angry about it now like i was when i first posted, but i don't agree with having a fixed tarriff for the entire duration of a mobile phone contract, the business model used to be more consumer friendly than that, and in the future i'll be checking to avoid this.

I've bolded the important words, there.

You've signed up to a contract and been given a very expensive phone at no cost. This phone was not free to Vodafone, Sony Ericsson don't give these out out of the goodness of their heart. If after just four months Vodafone allow you to downgrade your contract so that you're paying less (and I'd imagine you'd like to pay substantially less, ideally, but even a small amount) then they will begin to lose money by having you as a customer. Your phone costs them money, your continued connection costs them money, the calls you make cost them money.

That's not much of a business model. Their contracts will have been priced very specifically to cover the cost of the phone while being as competitive as possible, there's not likely to be any give.

[saif]

Dogg, "as far as I'm concerned" does not cut it legally. The British legal system is quite fair and is usually based on what a reasonable person in your position would do (the mythical man on the Clapham omnibus). A reasonable person would think:
I am about to agree to a service of 18 months for which I will receive a service and in return, I shall pay cash in consideration.
The terms of this contract that I am going to sign are in front of me.
I shall see what I am agreeing to before agreeing to it as I have been given ample opportunity.

The recourse you have is, as explained, only with implicit contracts (only if this is not explicitly opposed - T&Cs probably do this but waive it as a good favour) OR if you have not been given the opportunity beforehand to see the terms (there is a famous case with a hotel room having conditions visible in the room only).

Yes, people's situations change - and that is why you are given the option to choose a lower priced contract, or one that is less binding in return for a lower subsidy on your phone. Vodafone would NOT have offered the phone subsidy if you were not likely to spend as much on a contract - ebay shows how much that subsidy is worth.
Why should they take the hit for your change in circumstance - unless you paid for them to take that risk on with insurance or something? This is called managing risk - the credit crunch has shown that companies need to take a lot more care in taking on the risks of consumers without due care.

[Dogg Thang]

Whenever I've upgraded my phone, I've always been sent a copy of the terms and conditions of the contract with it. Admittedly this is with o2, but surely everyone is the same? I'm fairly sure there's also a "cooling off" period so if I'm not happy with the terms then I can return the phone.

If people aren't reading the T+Cs, that's not the company's fault.

I'm with O2 here in Ireland and have seen contracts but only when I've upgraded in an actual shop. I've never been sent any. But then this is Ireland and there is a tradition of doing things arseways here...

As for it not being the company's fault, if it hadn't become standard practise to sign something without reading it, I'd agree. It would be different if we were all going through these with our solicitors and it was just the odd sucker who had no idea what they were signing. But in this age of agreeing to a giant wall of legalese text with no more than a clickthrough, I'm not buying it. It won't be the same for all companies of course but I'd say many bank on the fact that nobody bothers to read their fine print and that's when it becomes a problem. While I'm thinking more of the Google spin-off type agreements rather than mobile phone contracts which, given you're getting a subsidised phone, should be taken that the phone company are going to make damn sure you're paying them a significant sum of money, the principal is the same - people don't read contracts, companies know this.

As I said, a contract should be looked at by solicitors and should be negotiated. Not given to you by some goon in a tie just looking to make commission and signed in a rush so you can get on with your lunchbreak. Or over the phone.

I wonder what I'd get from O2 if I sent them a counter-proposal to my next contract with them?

[abigsmurf]

Incidentally, keep a look out for changes in free minutes and pricing when you're on a contract. If they lower them, they are adversely changing the conditions of the contract which voids them.

THEY are terminating the contract in this case, you do not have to agree to a new one, you do not have to pay any sort of termination fee. It's something that can save you a lot of money if you spot a change in T&Cs.

[saif]

Dogg, go for it:
If O2 do not check it and then agree to it, you may be quids in. Companies do know that people do npot read the T&Cs for most things - of course they do. But, they do form part of your contract so it is in your interests to check that it agrees with what you want before signing your possessions away. If you choose not to check, it is your loss (as it would be O2's if they agree to your counter-proposal).

If people understand the concept of money - and surely we all do - why do they think they can get something for nothing from companies that are in the business of, first and foremost, making profit.
Vodafone are only going to subsidise that poncy phone that everyone wants if they think that they can make a net gain out of it. Same with O2. Same with Orange. I think you see where I am going with this. The only difference is for a) loss leaders (basics range in supermarkets - making you go there to buy *other* profitable items) or b) strategy (MS with the Xbox project - take huge losses in order to hamper the competition).

[Taka]

My girlfriend just recently reduced her Vodafone contract to the lowest one they offer after about 9 months in. Lady on the phone didn't make a fuss about it or anything, she says. Worth a call again a few months?

[abigsmurf]

worth a try, you're going to get a different person on the help desk anyway. Depends if they log requests for a cheaper contract or not.

[toythatkills]

My girlfriend just recently reduced her Vodafone contract to the lowest one they offer after about 9 months in. Lady on the phone didn't make a fuss about it or anything, she says. Worth a call again a few months?

Was she on an 18 month contract originally? Nine months is about when you'd be able to change a 12 month contract with Vodafone.

Had she ordered one of the most expensive phones they offered at the time?

[merf]

watch TTK's stance on this crumble when they announce that Scribblenauts is now an Iphone 3g S exclusive and you have to have a 36m contract to get it.

[toythatkills]

watch TTK's stance on this crumble when they announce that Scribblenauts is now an Iphone 3g S exclusive and you have to have a 36m contract to get it.

I'm buying three.

[Taka]

Was she on an 18 month contract originally? Nine months is about when you'd be able to change a 12 month contract with Vodafone.

Had she ordered one of the most expensive phones they offered at the time?

She is currently on an 18 month contract, but prior to that she was on a 12 month and had been with Vodafone for a while, always on 12 month contracts before they were no longer the norm.

The phone she took out was one of the high-end Sony Ericsson Cybershots at the time (no doubt can be had for free now) which she paid ?50 or so towards, she says.

I'm on O2 and I've always been able to reduce the monthly tariff after the halfway point on my contracts, and would be surprised if other networks didn't do the same.

[toythatkills]

Vodafone customers can change their contract 70 days before it ends, so with a 12 month contract that'd be about nine months. So they weren't giving her any preferential treatment!