Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

pau1200 wrote: »

Ok I think im going to need some help with my defense. Ive spent sone time comparing word for word my response with others there are subtle differences and they have been smarter with the wordings. Im not sure if the defense template fits as they have rewordered there points.

Any help will be great.


38. The Claimant has enclosed within his supporting documents an extract of the Respondent’s defence in respect to the CISAS case reference ??????????. The Respondent notes that such a case relates to a completely separate matter which the Claimant was not a party to. Such being a confidential document in any event. The Respondent fails to see the
relevance of this document to the Claimant’s application and furthermore the Claimant has not provided an explanation for the same. The Claimant is hereby put to strict proof thereof.

Response to add for Paragraph 38


"Paragraph 38
The document referred to was not sent to the receiver as a confidential document, and the person receiving the document has given their permission for its use. The document entirely relevant (as explained in my CISA case) as it is conclusive proof that EE applied the March 2013 RPI rate in 2013 meaning that in 2014 EE have applied an annual RPI rate to an 11 month period (the 12 month RPI rate being 2.5% and not 2.7%). It is interesting to note that rather than defend my point that the contract does not allow EE to apply a 12 month rate to an 11 month period they chose instead to question the documented proof -which originated from their own legal team! I put EE to strict proof that EE have not applied a 12 month rate to an 11 month period."



The docuent refer

EFC_1878 wrote: »

Okay, cheers! I'll keep an eye out.

Also, I think it's great that you are going to so much effort to help out others. Kudos.

On the change in T&Cs forum we are trying the following approach for "late claimants", We don't know if it will work yet - and will only work here is the adjudicators rule that EE have breached GC 9.6:


As EE have not complied with GC 9.6 in that they never notified me of my potential right to a penalty free cancellation as required under GC 9.6 should a change in T&Cs be likely to be of material detriment to me, I was not put on alert that I needed to follow the link provided in the text message with any urgency.
My late notification of this claim is entirely due to EE mis-communication of my rights under GC 9.6 and I should no be prevented from pursuing a claim due to EEs tactic of deliberately misleading me as to the true substance of the changes being made. For the avoidance of doubt had EE complied fully with GC 9.6 then I would have been in a position to have meet the artificial deadline EE have imposed.