Netia - termination of the contract without costs upon termination of the lease

Good morning,

Recently, I got a termination of the lease of a flat. I received information from a representative of Netia that they do not have the technical means to connect to the Internet in the new location. In this situation, I terminated the Netti internet contract because I considered this situation a force majeure, because the cancellation was not my fault and they would not provide me with the service. I have attached a copy of the termination notice to my complaint. A similar situation was described on another forum, and in response Netia replied, quoting: "If the change of residence is caused by the loss of title to the apartment (e.g. by sale) and a document will be delivered to us and it will be determined that we cannot reside in the new place of residence. technical for the provision of the service, it is a termination of the contract free of charge.
The same in the case of renting - you need to provide a document confirming that the owner / landlord will not provide the premises to us anymore, and there is no technical possibility in the new place. "

In response to the complaint, however, I received information that these were their previous internal arrangements, which are out of date. I don't feel I have to pay the termination penalty because I just had no other choice. I am going to visit the consumer ombudsman on Monday. I am asking for a hint.

Certainly in Netia there is (it has been for a long time and I have witnessed it for 2-3 years) an option without a contractual penalty when closing the company, according to what they informed me, there is no such option for people (consumers). But on the other hand, Netia charged the companies with the same service price, but net instead of gross, so they included it.

Your argument is sound. The idea is probably OK with the consumer defense office. Do you have more documents at the time of concluding the contract, in addition to the contract, e.g. the regulations in force at that time?

ddbbdd wrote:

In response to the complaint, however, I received information that these were their previous internal arrangements, which are out of date.

If there was no such provision in the contract or in the regulations, it will be difficult to do something, but on the other hand, they may get scared by the ombudsman and terminate the contract by mutual agreement without charging contractual penalties.

ddbbdd wrote:

I received information from a representative of Netia that they do not have the technical means to connect to the Internet in the new location.

Do you have it in writing?

First:

Since this apartment is not your property, you needed a written consent of the owner to bring the installation to the apartment.

Secondly:

Everyone has the right to change their place of residence ... if the operator is not able to "transfer" the service to another address for technical reasons, it should be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.

Thirdly:

The matter is to be dealt with. All you need is a little goodwill and common sense. The Consumer Ombudsman is not a bogeyman for Netia

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

The Consumer Ombudsman is not a bogeyman for Netia

You probably do not know how a letter from the spokesman can change the attitude of a company, even more powerful than Netia. If Netia had shown goodwill earlier, the spokesman would be unnecessary

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

Since this apartment is not your property, you needed a written consent of the owner to bring the installation to the apartment

All you need is a legal title to the premises, i.e. a lease contract. The installation may have existed before, Netia provides services on TPSA lines.

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

Everyone has the right to change their place of residence ... if the operator is not able to "transfer" the service to another address for technical reasons, it should be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.

You have signed a contract, then pay or make an agreement with the operator. Of course, everyone has the right to change their place of residence. But is it the operator's fault that you moved to Greenland?

maurycy123 wrote:

But is it the operator's fault that you moved to Greenland?

No unnecessary irony, please. The context of the author's statements shows that she moved within the same town.
This is what the consumer spokesman is for to say whether Netia is right or right ddbbdd

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

The Consumer Ombudsman is not a bogeyman for Netia

vodiczka wrote:

You probably do not know how a letter from the spokesman can change the attitude of a company, even more powerful than Netia.

The spokesman, from what I once found out, does not have any special executive power, so he can directly scare you at most. But if that were the case, its function would be, in the most general terms, redundant. What can the Ombudsman, if he already sends a letter to the company, and the company oils it, is to file a lawsuit on behalf of the consumer with the court (if he decides that the consumer is right). As he has the appropriate knowledge, he will do it more efficiently than we do on our own. So while the Ombudsman himself is a seemingly harmless entity, he can do quite a lot.

Nevertheless (returning to the topic) I see such a case as a loser.
Telecommunications law mentions nothing at all about early termination without incurring costs if the reason is moving - Link to the act: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20041711800

What's more, it is well explained in UKE guides (at https://www.uke.gov.pl/poradnik-uke-przeniesienie-uslugi-stawodnej-do-nowej-lokalizacji-14177 - let me paste the relevant part of the article here) ):

Poradnik UKE wrote:

Beata Jurkun, Senior Specialist,
Consumer Policy Department

Remember - the obligation to transfer services applies only to fixed-line telephony !!!

The contract for the provision of internet and television services is closely related to a specific location.

The supplier may enable us to provide services in a new location, if it has such technical capabilities. However, this is related to the need to conclude a new contract or annex. In such a case, the supplier may, for example, propose a technology change.

However, please note that this is the provider's decision and there is no obligation for them to fulfill our request to move their services to a new location.

By concluding a contract for the provision of internet or television services for a specified period, we undertake to use the services for the duration of the contract, in a precisely defined location indicated in the contract. The supplier's commitment is for that location.

In a situation where the operator informs us that the services will not be transferred, for example due to lack of technical capabilities, and the contract is prematurely terminated by us, it may be associated with charging the operator a contractual penalty in accordance with the terms of the contract we signed.

To sum up, remember, in the case of using cable network services and access to the Internet, a change of place of residence or registered office during the term of the contract concluded for a definite period does not impose an obligation on our provider to transfer services.

And most importantly, the termination of the contract by us on this basis may have unpleasant financial consequences.

From the information read, this means more or less for me that the operator has no statutory obligation to terminate the contract without charging additional costs due to early termination of the contract. If in your terms and conditions of benefitservice (possibly in the additional promotion regulations) there is no clause on the possibility of early termination of the contract if the removal is documented and the service cannot be transferred - unfortunately, the right in this case will be on the operator's side, and the subscriber's expenses.

The service provider may, of his own free will, terminate the contract and waive the early termination fee, but it is not his obligation. It is definitely worth sending a nice letter with a request on this matter (still remembering that he does not have to agree, so a request will probably be more appropriate than a request), but I would not expect a revelation. Usually, the larger the company, the more difficult it is to accept such a request positively, because unfortunately the sad reality is that the larger the company, the more it respects a single customer.

So good luck, it can be a tough "fight".

In my opinion, a lost case - the company is not interested that someone has changed something, and the rules of the game are changed in this case by the CUSTOMER who has agreed to the terms of the company (by signing the contract), which have NOT changed - the service works in the old place and the new one does not , but the client chose the new location, not the company.

@ddbbdd
Withdraw the termination notice and pay for it, although you will not use it - it will come out cheaper than the contractual penalty.

I moved a while ago and also had to move neostrada. I talked to the service office and technicians and they said that if there is no technical possibility at the new location, they can connect me in a different technology:

dt1 wrote:

Poradnik UKE wrote:
[...]
The supplier may enable us to provide services in a new location, if it has such technical capabilities. However, this is related to the need to conclude a new contract or annex. In such a case, the supplier may, for example, propose a technology change .

So instead of paying a fine, ask netia about the possibility of switching to, for example, LTE.
Back then, they offered me Orange FreeDom in CDMA technology, which would not be profitable for me, but today there is LTE, so you will not lose much.

vodiczka wrote:

You probably do not know how a letter from the spokesman can change the attitude of a company, even more powerful than Netia.

I know from practice. It adds little to the course of the case.

dt1 wrote:

The spokesman, from what I once found out, does not have any special executive power, so he can directly scare you at most.

There are no grounds for this in the present case.

vodiczka wrote:

All you need is a legal title to the premises, e.g. a rental agreement.

The deed of ownership of the premises and the lease agreement are two separate matters. The lease is not an act of ownership.

dt1 wrote:

good luck, because it can be a tough "fight".

Not necessarily. In this case, it is only the goodwill of the operator.

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

The deed of ownership of the premises and the lease agreement are two separate matters. The lease is not a deed of ownership.

No, but it is an act authorizing the disposal of the premises within the scope of this contract. If an on-premises installation already exists and can be used, the landlord's consent is not needed.

vodiczka wrote:

is an act authorizing to dispose of the premises

You're wrong. The availability of the premises does not entitle to install any installation.

vodiczka wrote:

If an on-premises installation already exists and can be used, the landlord's consent is not needed.

Is needed. Because it is an interference in the structure of the installation.

I've been through this a hundred times. Without the written consent of the owner of the building / premises, the tenant is not allowed to connect any installation, even on a physically existing line. Civil law. Buddy bows.

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

Is needed. Because it is an interference in the structure of the installation

What interference? Inserting the plug into the socket?

vodiczka wrote:

maurycy123 wrote:

But is it the operator's fault that you moved to Greenland?

No unnecessary irony, please.

This is not a Muriatic irony, but the most sensible answer on this topic. We are dealing here with a socialist claim, and everyone must bow to heaven under duress and loss, and why?

vodiczka wrote:

that she moved within the same town.

And what does this have to do with it? And if I move 20 meters to my neighbors, will I too? Imagine that they cannot connect Netia or Neostrada (and 1.5 km to the headquarters), but even if it was, why should the operator do it for FREE? After all, it is a lot of work and probably PLN 200-500 for fitters (including ZUS, VAT and others).

If it were real, EVERYONE would move to their neighbors for 1 day to break contracts for many things (keeping any unpaid bonuses). You just have to get along (polite, no aggression).

sPeRaCz.PL wrote:

dt1 wrote:

good luck, because it can be a difficult "fight".

Not necessarily. In this case, it is only the goodwill of the operator.

And that is why I wished you good luck, saying that you are starting from a losing position, and the practice shows that the bigger the operator, the less good will. After all, the service provider isn't a charity, so they'll take care of every penny.

Rognor wrote:

We are dealing here with a socialist claim, and everyone must bow to heaven under duress and loss, and why?

Supposedly because they had done it of their own free will before:

ddbbdd wrote:

In response to the complaint, however, I received information that these were their previous internal arrangements, which are out of date

I am not saying that they must continue to do so, but in this case we are not dealing with a "socialist claim" and with termination by the owner and not by the tenant. It is possible that Netia treated these specific and rather few cases without any problems and ceased to act of good will under the pressure of "Poles who can"

Rognor wrote:

EVERYONE would move to their neighbors for 1 day to break contracts for many things (keeping unpaid bonuses)

ddbbdd wrote:

I received information from a representative of Netia that they do not have the technical means to connect to the Internet in the new location. In this situation, I terminated the Netti internet contract,

The bold text explains it all and this should end the discussion.
Since it is the CUSTOMER who first terminated the contract (probably in the promotion because there is a penalty) - the company's demands are fully right, and the company is NOT obliged to accept the termination (after all, it is the CUSTOMER's will, and there are probably such paragraphs in the contracts, where they warn about such actions on the part of the client).
It was necessary to wait for the company's position in this aspect - the termination notice submitted and only you can uphold it and pay a fine, or withdraw it and pay the subscription fee (maybe less than the penalty).
And only then terminate the contract, when everything is promoted (of course, notify the operator 30 days in advance)

it took a while, but it worked. As for the conversation with the Consumer Ombudsman, he really did not contribute anything. He was even dissatisfied that I was bothering him because I should have paid the debit note. Ultimately, Netia accepted the complaint. I had to send a few letters with a request to send an extension agreement, which, according to them, I concluded with them by phone. Until today, I have not received anything like that, so I assume that these stupid extension contracts on the new terms of promotion concluded by phone are not even archived by them anywhere on "paper". So if I didn't want to terminate the contract, I wouldn't even know when I have this contract. The consultant over the phone said that if I send the termination of the lease, I would terminate the contract without any problems, and the complaints representative stated that the consultant did not have the authority to determine the properties of issuing the debit note. Stupid and that's it. They also tried to scare me by commissioning the case to Creditexpress Inkasso Poland. Generally speaking, the conversation with debt collectors was briefly intimidating me. You have to fight for yours

ddbbdd wrote:

You have to fight for yours

ddbbdd wrote:

Ultimately, Netia accepted the complaint

Well, you have to - but this does not mean that you won - because in response the company should send information that the contract is expiring and they acknowledge it and will not (however) charge you with costs - for everything you must have paper, otherwise you have practically no no evidence that the dismissal took place at all, moreover, you have no proof that they are departing from the debit note.
Accepting a complaint is not tantamount to waiving the demand for payment of a contractual penalty.

I wrote a note on how this case ended precisely because everything had already been taken care of - on paper. Regards