I am writing to Kevin McKenna MP, the Member of Parliament for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, to ask him to look at a package of reforms on telecommunications contracts.
The letter is dated 4 October 2026. It is a constituent submission, not a press release and not a claim that anything has been agreed. I am asking whether he would raise the issue with ministers, Ofcom and the relevant regulators, and whether he would be willing to speak about the broad principles if he finds the case persuasive.
The full letter, including the original PDF, is published on this website.
Read the proposal: Telecommunications Contract Hardship and Exit Reform
The question
When circumstances change, should the law wait until a person falls into serious arrears, or should it provide an orderly way out while the handset still has a value and the harm can still be limited?
A phone contract is easy to start and hard to leave. The monthly figure looks manageable in the shop. The long tail of the agreement is easier to set aside, particularly when the handset is the thing on the table and the total cost is not.
The proposal is not a request for free phones, and it is not a request to wipe out legitimate debts. The aim is to stop an affordable communications arrangement turning into a serious debt problem when circumstances change.
Why I am writing
The reason is personal. I have experienced debt on more than 50 occasions, with around ten of those involving phone contracts. I am currently dealing with approximately £1,400 linked to two EE devices, both originally taken under 24-month arrangements, which has now progressed to CRS. I am also dealing with approximately £483 owed to Lowell Financial Group, relating to a debt formerly associated with EP Financial Solutions.
I am not presenting those debts to excuse my own decisions. I accept responsibility for the agreements I entered into. I am presenting them because they show where the current system tends to act too late.
Between the ages of roughly 18 and 23, I repeatedly took out device contracts. Over time I ran those liabilities up to around £15,000 and was refused further business by two companies because of non-payment. In those years I often did not care enough about my credit record. I was focused on the device. I wanted the latest phone, and I wanted to show it off.
I can still remember the appeal of a glossy black iPhone 7. What mattered then was the look of the phone and what it represented. What did not carry the same weight was 24 or 36 months of payments.
Young adults, and how a sale is laid out
I have asked Parliament and regulators to consider the position of young adults aged 18 to 23, including young adults with additional needs. I have Asperger's syndrome. I raise that not to avoid responsibility, but because it is part of how I experienced a product-led sale.
I do not believe autistic people, or people with additional needs, should be treated as incapable of making financial decisions, or denied adult independence. The argument is narrower. Some consumers process a sales environment and a long-term commitment differently, and good regulation should take that into account.
Standard telecom websites tend to lead with the handset. Large photographs, savings claims and a prominent monthly price. The phone is the hero of the page. There is nothing unlawful about selling a product attractively. The question is whether a financed agreement should put the commitment first and the picture second: the manufacturer, the model, the total device cost, the monthly repayment, the length, any upfront payment, the airtime cost and the expected price increases.
What the proposal asks for
The package has seven parts. Stop the service, through a rapid way to end eligible future telecommunications service, while the customer remains liable for service already used. Return the asset, where a financed device has become unaffordable after material hardship. Recover its value, against a transparent assessment of model, age and condition, and credit that value against what is still owed. Settle the difference through an affordability-based repayment plan, rather than letting the account slide into default.
The remaining parts are there to keep the scheme from being abused, and to keep it from arriving too late. Hardship should be verified. Deliberate damage is not the same thing as hardship, and buyer's remorse is not the same thing either. Providers should offer a real intervention before an eligible account is sent to an external debt collector. And someone leaving an unaffordable device arrangement should still have a route to basic connectivity, so that hardship does not become exclusion.
The principle is plain. Return the asset. Recover its value. Pay what is still legitimately owed. Stop service that is no longer affordable. Intervene before collection wherever possible.
Before it reaches a collector
One of the stronger parts, in my view, is a hardship step before external debt collection. A provider should first have to consider affordability, a cheaper option, a structured repayment and, where it is relevant, surrender of the device and a valuation. Collection should remain available. It should come after that work, not instead of it.
This is not a party point. Redundancy does not ask how someone votes. Nor do bereavement, caring responsibilities, a cut in hours, or any other sudden change in a household. Debt does not ask how somebody votes either.
Where to read it
The letter sets out the package in full, including the questions I have asked Mr McKenna to put to ministers and to Ofcom, and the timeline of what has and has not happened. Nothing further has been received. I will record a response here if one arrives.
Telecommunications Contract Hardship and Exit Reform
This is a personal policy proposal. It does not represent UK Government policy, proposed legislation, or an endorsement by Kevin McKenna MP, Ofcom, or any other public body.
Taylor Silverstein
Sheerness, Kent