Hello and welcome to FUTube. The segment that’s all about U…
being really F’d off. First up tonight it’s Tanya.
I recently purchased a mobile phone from Woolworths.
Ah yes, Woolies: the Fresh … Phone people? I wonder what went wrong?
Next please. I bought a fresh phone two days ago. Now look at it.
Tanya got a $35 plan with handset for one
of her kids. But while her family was on holiday over Christmas, she missed a couple of the
monthly payments. Not long after they got back
$70 was paid so we were up to date
But even though Tanya was happy to continue on the plan:
my plan had been cancelled and
that I was to pay out the remainder of the plan.
Woolies told Tanya she had to pay their “Early Termination Charge”
a cancellation fee where you pay out the unpaid number of months remaining on the 24 month contract.
Now (whispers) Telcos are actually allowed to charge cancellation fees.
But the Telco Ombudsman, the TIO, has a very clear position on them:
Any charge for terminating a contract should reflect a genuine loss to the provider.
And where it doesn’t … the provider will not be able to enforce the charge.
“Genuine loss” to a business is hard to gauge from the outside.
But Wooliess should be experts in “genuine loss”.
After all, they are the biggest owner of pokies in the country.
So much fresh food.
Unlike with pokies, Woolies is by no means the biggest or the worst offender on cancellation
fees for mobile plans. Many telcos still charge them. And actually, we think changes to Woolies
plans over time support our view: that telco cancellation fees are often more about money
grabbing than mitigating genuine losses. The Woolies cancellation fee used to charge
you 100% of the remaining months. In early 2017, they dropped it to 50%. And then in
October 2017, they dumped the cancellation fee for new customers only.
Now you just pay for the month you cancelled
plus anything else you owe, including on your handset, which is fair enough.
Of course it’s possible cancellation fees
really do recover genuine losses, and Woolworths just dumped them out of the goodness of their hearts.
So many hearts.
But we think it’s more likely Woolies dropped their cancellation fees - like many telcos
have - at least in part cos they didn’t reflect genuine losses. So if a telco tries
to slug you with a cancellation fee for ending your mobile contract, it may well be worth disputing.
That’s what Tanya did. Her plan had a 50% cancellation fee.
She complained to the TIO, which is free and can be a very efficient
- if boring - way to sort things out.
Oh c’mon!
When Tanya complained to the TIO, Woolies Mobile - through their Customer Advocate - quickly backed down.
Tanya was happy with that result. Woolies
wiped the cancellation fee,
saying it was a gesture of goodwill
I got a Gesture of Goodwill!
So remember, just cos a fee is explained clearly in a consumer contract that doesn’t mean
a business can enforce that fee against you. They’ll probably try to “convince” you to pay.
They might tell you worrying things about debt collectors and your credit rating.
Like they did to Tanya:
that it would go to an outside debt collector company
But that was not true at the time.
A [consumer] contract debt is not a default until it’s 60 days overdue. And defaults
under $150 cannot go on your consumer credit report.
You shouldn’t just ignore cancellation fees: either dispute them, or arrange to pay them.
But consumers have rights even when valid debts are being pursued. For more, checkout
The Checkout story at thecheckout dot tv slash debt collectors
And remember most telcos (except of course Telstra) now offer some plans without excessive
cancellations fees … so
Fresh really is best.
Next up, it’s Steve who’s been simmering
over a problem with the ASKO cooktop he bought, complete with 5 year manufacturer’s warranty,
2 years ago. ASKO, built to last...for a couple of years.
Now, there are some warning signs about Steve’s cooktop. For a starter, ASKO named this model
after the most famous dystopia of all time … 1984
It was all good initially, but after a while in the middle of cooking after about 5 or
10 minutes, the gas would suddenly cut out. But when Steve brought this to ASKO’s attention….
we were told that it was our fault for using a flat bottomed saucepan on a wok burner .
Steve sensed
ASKO was trying to make him pay for the repair by relying on exceptions in their warranty
for “misuse” or use that’s “contrary
to .. written instructions”. Manufacturer warranties tend to use expressions like that
which - funnily enough - tend to work in favour of manufacturers.
But the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality - which includes being reasonably durable
- uses a different expression. Cos funnily enough, the Consumer Law tends to work more
in favour of the consumer. It says damage by “abnormal use” isn’t covered.
So to dodge the consumer guarantee, a seller has to prove “abnormal use”.
The name “Wok Burner” does suggest you’d mainly use it for with, well, a Wok. But does
using a slightly different shaped pan count as “abnormal use”?
Steve didn’t think so.. and we agree
It might be different if ASKO went out of the way to tell customers
that Wok burners are Wok-only.
But nowhere does it say that it's possible to damage the unit if you use certain pots or stuff like that
Other cooktop makers give specific advice against using wok burners with other pans.
But ASKO didn’t. Even though their User Manual is specific about all sorts of things…
The appliance is not suitable for space heating.
Now you tell me.
The User Manual also covers off other very
normal uses like: Never flambé under an extractor hood.
Now you tell me. And ...
Do not warm closed tins ... a buildup of pressure ... will cause tins to explode.
You’re no fun ASKO. You might get injured or scalded.
But this is the only meal I know how to cook.
So I can’t flambe this tin can under my range hood in space? Houston, we have a flambe problem.
So Steve pushed back. Dear ASKO …
Do not use the device as a worktop! OK, that’s an abnormal use. But Steve eventually
got ASKO to back down This cooktop has been repaired ... under manufacturer’s warranty
But they say:
a refund or replacement is not warranted in this case.
Steve thought differently. we think that is a major problem and we would
never have bought this unit had we known about that.
But in the end he decided to accept the replacement, which sounds like a sensible outcome to us.
Cos even tho under the Consumer Law consumers can insist on a refund rather than a replacement
if there’s a major failure, taking a case to a Tribunal to push that point requires
a lot of time and effort, and there’s always the risk you might not win. And now Steve’s
got his replacement cooktop...
I’ve got smaller fish to fry.
Actually I might even flambe it.
Steve! No! Oh dear. Until next time, cook safe. and Good Night
night.