British Domain Registrar Offers 'No Transfer Fees,' Charges Transfer Fee

First time accepted submitter RealSurreal (620564) writes "British web host 123-reg, which previously advertised 'no hidden transfer fees' has angered customers by introducing a £12 fee per domain for transfers out. Best of all, they didn't bother to tell anyone they were doing it relying instead on terms and conditions which say : '123-reg reserves the right to change, add, subtract or in way alter these Conditions without the prior consent of the Client.'"

Comments

Typical corporation bullshit

[ArcadeMan]

Sign here to be bound by terms we can change any time.

How can that be legal?

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[Zontar The Mindless]

Nice try, but Roman's English is better than that.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[hankwang]

I believe that in the EU, consumers have a legal right to terminate a contract without additional costs, within 1 month if being informed of a change in the terms.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[ledow]

It's not.

The problem is the overlap between basic consumer rights ("statutory rights"? Heard the phrase anywhere? Like every contract ever "not affecting them"? Actually, they can't be affected by contracts whether the contract says or not!) and contract law.

Yes, you can sign away an awful lot. But you cannot be expected to be held to a contract held as "unfair" (which this one almost certainly would be). The problem is proving that can be expensive.

Never forget that what you sign is only one part of what you've got on your side. You can sign, for example, that you would become a slave that your employer can whip. Your employer CANNOT enforce that though. Some rights, including your consumer rights, cannot be signed away and automatically make such things null and void.

If you took this to even small claims court, it would be found to be unfair, it would be made void, and you would not pay anything.

If, however, they took reasonable steps to inform you of the change, and got consent (even implied, but that's tricky), and gave you time to disagree (usually by termination of said contract), then it would be binding on you. Then it would be considered "fair" as it's not asking you to do anything illegal or drastic.

For future reference, this applies to ALL KINDS of contracts. The law is in place to override your ability to do this to your customers in an unfair way and take priority over ANYTHING they've signed. It just might take a customer taking it through small claims (or larger) courts in order to prove that. And, chances are, unless a lot of them do, they will not retract the policy in the company unless the court orders them to. So you might win, but no other customer (who probably won't bother to take it to court) would, and things like that.

I've used 123-Reg in the past. They were atrocious. But you can be sure that if I were a customer, there'd be a letter winging it's way to head office to state the above. Given the track record I have (and I'm no lawyer), they might tie up any domain I had for a few weeks but in the end they've been transferring my domains for free. I don't care enough to make them do it for other customers, that's those customers problem.

And the problem is that 99% of consumers think, like you, that this is "legal" just because it's on paper. And when you get the first letter in reply saying that they don't agree with your interpretation, etc. etc. etc. and basically saying "Fuck off" in legalese, you'll accept it grudgingly and just pay the £12. It's only the pedantic fuckers like me who actually enjoy being proven right that will go through the system and bug the shit out of them until they admit it.

It's not legal.
Your consumer rights ride straight over it.
But that doesn't mean it'll be easy to "convince" them (they know, their lawyers know, but they'll fight you all the way until you cause them more hassle than you're worth).

But take it to court and it'll be laughed out, if you even get that far. But it will cost you money (which you *can* get back from them) but most importantly an awful lot of time to sort out. And that's exactly what they rely on.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

When a phone company does it we can refer to them as TOSPOTS.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[Kjella]

This is why I like our Consumer Ombudsman (CO)

The CO considers cases upon complaints from consumers and traders, but will also at his own initiative look at marketing measures. Through negotiations with traders it is sought to arrive at voluntary arrangements. Failure to reach such a solution, the Consumer Ombudsman may submit the case to the Market Council which is a "court of law" in that field. (...) The CO and the Market Council have authority to issue decisions banning unlawful marketing and contract terms and conditions in standard contracts when deemed necessary in the interests of consumers.

They have the power to issue:
a) Bans of marketing activities or terms
b) Requirements like including information on consumer rights
c) Fines (one time or daily until activities cease)
d) Rather hefty fines for violating a) or b)

This is different from the Consumer Council which often helps mediate in individual consumer disputes, the CO goes after policies and offers. For example the "send a letter that looks like a bill" scam, if they issue a ban on your company and don't comply the penalties get nasty. That way they can't simply continue the scam by handing back money to those customers who complain. Sending a complaint costs very little and you as the customer don't take the shit for it personally. I guess it's sort of like class actions in consumer cases, except you get no settlement but it's quite effective at shutting them down or making them change their terms.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[allaunjsilverfox2]

Where does the constitution forbid it? If you don't like the term's don't sign up, stop expecting the nanny-state to wipe you're ass. -- roman_mir

You'd have to show me what constitution your referring to. Since the United Kingdom has no single Constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom)

Re:Typical corporation bullshit

[Sun]

A contract is binding once two things happen:
One party makes an offer
and
The other party accepts it.

There is no requirement for anything to be signed. As long as the registrar can prove that the you accepted their offer (say, by paying), and that you knew what the terms were (say, because they were posted on the web site, and linked to from the page in which you paid), you have a contract.

Now, obviously, in this case the terms were not available to you. Also, the advertisement is part of the registrar's offer, and is, therefor, as binding to it as the terms in the agreement. This entire thing is unethical, and at least seems to be illegal. Still, this is not because there is no contract.

And, again, IANAL.

Shachar

My favorite part of the company's repsonse

[rebelwarlock]

"This change to our product is not directly customer impacting..."

It's almost as if by transferring your domain away, you're no longer a customer!

Technically

[Livius]

...there are still no hidden transfer fees.

How about what we did over here?

[Opportunist]

If your partner changes your contract in a way that is not exclusively beneficial to you, he not only has to inform you a few weeks before it becomes effective, you also have the right to terminate the contract immediately without any early cancellation fees applying.

It sure helped to get some telcos off their bait and switch practice where they lured you in with incredible rates only to jack the price up once they got you tied down to that 2 years contract.

Just refuse to pay the fee.

[mysidia]

It wasn't agreed to... so just transfer your domains out and refuse to pay.

A registrar cannot decline to transfer your domain due to refusal to pay or due to a dispute over payment.

The Registrar of Record must not refuse to release an "AuthInfo Code" to the Registered Name Holder solely because there is a dispute between the Registered Name Holder and the Registrar over payment. ....

Instances when the requested change of Registrar may not be denied include, but are not limited to: Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period
....

General payment defaults between Registrar and business partners / affiliates in cases where the Registered Name Holder for the domain in question has paid for the registration.

...

The Registrar of Record has other mechanisms available to collect payment from the Registered Name Holder that are independent from the Transfer process. Hence, in the event of a dispute over payment, the Registrar of Record must not employ transfer processes as a mechanism to secure payment for services from a Registered Name Holder.

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee.

[mysidia]

Of course the gaining registrar charges a fee for transfer -- which covers the domain registration.

The issue is with losing registrars attempting to tack on a fee for customers selecting a competing registrar.

If this is just on the .UK domain... then be sensible, and register a .COM or a .NET in the first place.

Re:While the behaviour is illegal

[mrbester]

Bzzzt. Wrong. It breaches contract law and your consumer rights and they take precedence. Even if you "agree" your rights are still in place as not even you can sign them away. The option to "shop elsewhere" is irrelevant.

As to your strikeouts, who cares? Those were unenforceable clauses in the first place and thus automatically null and void. If they get pissy about it the *entire contract* can be rendered null and void, meaning they would have to refund any and all monies already paid to them.

Re:I reckon this could be challenged

[Anonymous Coward]

This really is simple in law though as with all law its a pain in the arse to fight, not expensive, not difficult but there is still a legal process to go through (hence the PITA).

As has previously been said, you cannot sign your rights away (even if you want to). e.g. the UK Sales of Goods act says that "goods have to be of merchantable quality". You can sign a contract (as a consumer, not as a business they have different rights), which says that the goods can be a load of crap and you have no right to sue. You can sign that contract but you still have the right to sue them if the stuff you've brought doesn't work. Sorry, but the UK law doesn't work that way, it is heavily in favour of the consumer up to around £5,000. The limit changes and I don't keep up with it.

The way to handle this is politely tell tell 123-Reg to screw themselves, that the terms and conditions you signed under still apply, and if they don't like it, you'll see them in the Small Claims Court where the magistrate will politely and legally tell them to go fuck themselves and that specific change in the contract is null and void. If you're lucky he may void the entire contract as well.

I have taken five business to the Small Claims Court and so far have won all five. The magistrates are sensible, easy to talk to (once you stop shaking) and very fair. They make allowances for you not being a lawyer and make it pretty easy.

Hopefully by now 123-Reg now have more publicity than they know what to do with ;)