Tmobile price increase
Options
Comments
-
T-Mobiles defence letter is dotted with inconsistencies and even refers to me in the wrong gender !!! Are they trying to save on legal cost by recycling the defence letters ?0
-
TM Finally refunded the money they took from my account for an Early Termination Charge for a PAC I neither requested with a penalty nor used! Took them 22 days, and did they add something as way of compensation? NO - but they did deducted this months charge which is not due until a week tomorrow -very naughty!!!
Good to see the cases are moving on, not sure if it is a good or a bad thing that TM are "recycling" the defence. It either means they are confident they can win on that basis, or it is all they have left. Time will tell.
I've not contacted the media for a while, but I know if any of us win a case there will be interest from the media.0 -
Does anyone here have any legal training / or is a lawyer ?
Because all that I can see is loads of legal jargon being bandied about. With no results so far !!
I suggest that this thread is closed down - with a new thread being opened - with all the facts put down clearly and simply
Rather than "I think this..." and "I believe that"
For someone to try to follow the whole story is now out of the question - it has been going on for far too long with too many twists and turns to it.....0 -
Does anyone here have any legal training / or is a lawyer ?
Because all that I can see is loads of legal jargon being bandied about. With no results so far !!
I suggest that this thread is closed down - with a new thread being opened - with all the facts put down clearly and simply
Rather than "I think this..." and "I believe that"
For someone to try to follow the whole story is now out of the question - it has been going on for far too long with too many twists and turns to it.....
Without being rude, I would suggest reading the thread? Everything you need to know is here in this thread.It would probably be quicker to read the thread than waiting/expecting someone else to do it for you.
There's always going to comments with "I think this" and "I believe that" when people are expressing their opinions about something. Remember that no one has had a result yet, so everyones method on how to go about the process is still only an opinion. It's not ideal, but it is what it is.
There has been 'no results' so far because our cases with Cisas are still in progress. It's probably at least another 3 weeks before we learn the outcome(according to the last email I received from Cisas regarding my case).
No, it doesn't seem like anyone here is a lawyer, lawyers don't tend to give advice free of charge. If you feel the need for a lawyer though, you would probably have to pay for the privilege.0 -
Without being rude, I would suggest reading the thread? Everything you need to know is here in this thread.It would probably be quicker to read the thread than waiting/expecting someone else to do it for you.
No, it doesn't seem like anyone here is a lawyer, lawyers don't tend to give advice free of charge. If you feel the need for a lawyer though, you would probably have to pay for the privilege.
There has been 'no results' so far because our cases with Cisas are still in progress. It's probably at least another 3 weeks before we learn the outcome(according to the last email I received from Cisas regarding my case).
Personally, I think 21twinkle has a point. Most people would struggle to make sense of the many and varied meanders this thread has taken since it started. I would also agree that, while everything you need to know probably is here is this thread, the majority of the legal-sounding arguments made here won't take you anywhere and are probably misleading and so I can appreciate that it would be difficult for the layman to see the wood for the trees.
21Twinkle - FWIW, I am a lawyer and while, as I have said, I'm explicitly NOT offering legal advice in this forum, I have stated my opinions throughout this thread should you wish to read them.
On the other hand, some have implied/warned that I am a T-Mobile stooge or that I am (perhaps unwittingly) helping T-Mobile prepare their defence. I can tell you that that is total !!!!!!!! but I'm sure most people are sensible enough to be able to see that for themselves.0 -
hi all just had defence back from CISAS from t-mobile, its goes as follows, any ideas on how to respond or what to put for each or most points?
1. The Respondent submits that the issue at the heart ofthe Claimant’s Claim relates to a business decision taken by the Respondent toincrease its prices.
2. Rule 2(g) of the CISAS Scheme Rules (“the Rules”) providesthat the CISAS Scheme (“the Scheme”) can be used to settle disputes about
i) bills and/or;
ii) communication services provided to the Respondent’scustomers.
3. Rule 2(j) of the Rules provides that the dispute mustnot involve a complicated issue of law.
4. The Respondent submits that the cause of action pleaded by the Claimant is neitherdirectly related to bills or communication services and therefore represents adispute which falls outside the remit of Rule 2(g) and therefore is a matterwhich is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme
5. Further the dispute, as pleaded, necessitates theconsideration of the legal interpretation of clauses contained within the serviceagreement entered into between the Claimant and Respondent, applied as againstfacts, to ascertain whether a legal right of termination exists. The Respondentsubmits that such issues of legal interpretation and consideration requiresevaluation and application of areas of law concerning contractualinterpretation which are by their very nature complex and complicated.
6. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that theClaimant’s claim as pleaded cannot be dealt with under the Scheme and that pursuantto the Rules an adjudicator is not therefore able to consider the Claimant’sclaim.
7. The remainder of this Defence is pleaded withoutprejudice to the above.
RESPONDENT’SDEFENCE
8. The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimantas pleaded or at all.
9. The Respondent is a mobile telecommunications networkoperator that enters into service agreements with its customers to enable itscustomers to access the services. TheClaimant is one such customer of the Respondent.
10. Access to the Respondent’s network is granted to the customerby way of the issuance to the customer of SIM card which is issued subject tothe Respondent’s then applicable conditions for telephone service.
11. The Claimant has been a customer with the Respondent since24 June 2011 in respect to account number *********. The Claimant has one mobile number being ******** (“the Mobile Number”).
12. On 24 June 2011 the Claimant entered into a ServiceAgreement (“the Agreement”) with the Respondent in respect to the Mobile Numbervia the Respondent’s telephone sales department. The Claimant was made aware that theAgreement was subject to terms and conditions which were offered to the Claimantprior to entering into the Agreement and were available for viewing on theRespondent’s website. A copy of theterms and conditions were subsequently despatched to the Claimant. TheAgreement was subject to a 24 month minimum term period.
13. Attached hereto at Schedule1 is an extract from the Respondent’s billing system which shows the orderprocessed on the Claimant’s account on 24 June 2011 in respect to the MobileNumber. The order shows that a SIM card,a Samsung Galaxy Apollo handset, Terms and Conditions, conditions version number58 and Distance Selling Regulations (DSR) Standard letter was issued to theClaimant.
14. At Schedule 2attached hereto is a copy of CVN58 applicable to the Agreement entered intobetween the Claimant and the Respondent. The terms and conditions governing theAgreement contains amongst other things the following;-
(i) Clause 2.5.1 - UnlessWe agree otherwise, a new Minimum Term will apply. Once that Minimum Term isover this Agreement will continue until terminated;
(ii) Clause 7.1.4.- We can increase any Price Plan Charge.We will give You Written Notice 30 days before We do so. The change will thenapply to You once that notice has run out;
(iii) Clause 7.2.2. You canonly give Us notice to terminate this Agreement by calling customer services.Your Agreement will terminate 30 days from when We receive Your call, althoughYou are free to change Your mind and call Us to withdraw Your notice oftermination at any time during that period. You will be responsible for allCharges up to and including the date that this Agreement terminates;
(iv) Clause 7.2.3 - ACancellation Charge won’t apply if You are within the Minimum Term and:
(a) Clause 7.2.3.3 - The change that We gave You WrittenNotice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as apercentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculatedas a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We send YouWritten Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreementbefore the change takes effect.
15. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 on or about the 2-8 April 2013the Respondent issued to the Claimant (together with all of its pay monthlycustomers) written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 3.3% increase inprice plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 9 May 2013. TheRespondent submits that adequate Written Notice was provided to the Claimantfor the purposes of Clause 7.1.4.
16. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 3.3%is an increase above the Retail Price Index (‘RPI’) (when calculated as a percentage)for the 12 months before the month in which the Respondent issued the Claimantwith the Written Notice.
17. The Respondent further denies that such increase incharges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreementwithout paying a cancellation charge.
18. As the Written Notice was issued in the month of April2013 then the relevant month’s RPI figure for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 ofthe Agreement is the RPI figure as published by the Office of National Statistics(“ONS”) representing March 2013; being the month before the month in which theWritten Notice was issued. The March RPIfigure, published by the ONS Statistics was 3.3%. By way of the MonthlyStatistical Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) published by the ONS the following is stated:-
TheRPI 12-month rate for March [2013] stood at 3.3%
The Bulletin is a lengthy document so has not annexed tothis Defence but can be made available to CISAS upon request.
19. The following is a summary of the RPI figures issued bythe ONS month by month for the period January 2013 to March 2013.
RPI MonthRPI PercentageRPI Publication DateDecember 20133.1%15 January 2013January 20133.3%12 February 2013February 20133.2%19 March 2013March 20133.3%16 April 2013
20. As the increase in charges of 3.3% set out within theWritten Notice is not higher than the RPI figure published for the month beforethe month in which the Written Notice was issued (March 2013) of 3.3% theClaimant, by way of Clause 7.2.3.3 or otherwise, is not entitled to cancel theAgreement without paying a cancellation charge.
21. The Respondent avers that published RPI figure forMarch 2013 is the correct figure to use when applying the strict interpretationof Clause 7.2.3.3. Clause 7.2.3.3 specifically refers to the ‘Retail Price Index (also calculated as apercentage) for the 12 months beforethe month in which we send You Written Notice. (emphasis added). Itfollows, in line with the strict interpretation of Clause 7.2.3.3, that theWritten Notice being issued in April 2013 relates to RPI figure for March 2013. Whilst the March RPI figure was not issueduntil after the date of the Written Notice such does not affect theconstruction and interpretation of the Clause 7.2.3.3.
22. It is denied, if such is alleged, that the fact thatMarch 2013 RPI figure had not been published at the time the Written Notice wasgiven restricts the Claimant’s ability to give notice to cancel as pleaded orat all. Clause 7.2.2.3 provided thatnotice to cancel (no such right being admitted) was required to be given priorto the new charge taking effect. Thenew charge was to take effect on 9 May 2013. March 2013 RPI figure was published on 16 April 2013. The Claimant therefore still had ampleopportunity if the relevant RPI rate gave grounds to cancel (none beingadmitted) to give notice before the new charge took effect.
23. The Respondent denies the Claimant’s claim that itrefused to abide by its terms and conditions. The Respondent acknowledges the Claimant’s request to terminate his Agreementwithin the minimum term period pursuant to Clause 7.2.2 and advised the Claimantin processing the request that he would be liable for the cancellation chargefor the remainder of the minimum term period. The Claimant wished to proceedwith his request for cancellation and as advised, and the Respondent submits,as contractually entitled to do so, it applied a cancellation charge to theaccount. The Claimant transferred the Mobile Number from the Respondent’snetwork on 29 May 2013 and a cancellation charge of £10.93 was applied to theClaimant’s account.
24. The Respondent denies that it has breached itsAgreement and/or breached its duty of care to the Claimant. As provided for by way of Annex 4 to GeneralCondition 14, the Respondent is not required to issue a written deadlock letterwhen requested by a complainant where the subject matter of the complaint isoutside the jurisdiction of the Respondent’s Alternative Dispute Resolutionscheme. The Respondent remains of the view, and as previously stated by CISAS,that the decision to increase its prices is a business decision and fallsoutside the remit of the Scheme. Accordingly, as the subject-matter of the complaint falls outside theremit of the Scheme the Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a deadlockletter.
The Respondent denies that the Claimant isentitled to seek recovery in the sum of £50.00 for any purported stress,inconvenience or upset caused by poor customer services. The Respondent hasprovided a response to the Claimant in a timely fashion and that such responsehas been consistent. Whilst the Claimant’s appears to dislike the content ofsuch response it does not follow that the Respondent has breached its duty ofcare to the Claimant0 -
NittyGritty wrote: »hi all ...
The defense being is more or less the same for everyone from what I have seen so far. Post # 1133 Barnicle Fiend Post outlines a good response for most of the relevant points in T-Mobiles defence.0 -
Does anyone here have any legal training / or is a lawyer ?
Because all that I can see is loads of legal jargon being bandied about. With no results so far !!
I suggest that this thread is closed down - with a new thread being opened - with all the facts put down clearly and simply
Rather than "I think this..." and "I believe that"
For someone to try to follow the whole story is now out of the question - it has been going on for far too long with too many twists and turns to it.....
I think you are being quite unreasonable. This is a public forum after all, you cannot expect legal advice (especially for free). There's a few members on here that have spent many hours gathering vast amounts of information which others are free to use to help their case against EE, if they so wish.
If you are after proper legal advice, go and find yourself a lawyer and pay the going rate.0 -
I suggest that this thread is closed down - with a new thread being opened -
I suggest you exit the thread, not click on it again and make your own new thread which meets your requirements for yourself and anyone else who wants to debate with you?
And then you can leave this thread to those who wish to use it for its purpose of discussing the increase as they have been doing for the last 2 or 3 months.====0 -
I suggest you exit the thread, not click on it again and make your own new thread which meets your requirements for yourself and anyone else who wants to debate with you?
And then you can leave this thread to those who wish to use it for its purpose of discussing the increase as they have been doing for the last 2 or 3 months.
Bit harsh as 21Twinkle is the OP of this thread and therefore did exactly that already!
Debt Free 🍾 since 6.8.13 £31,997Saving for🎄Xmas ☃️ 🎁 2024 £104/£365 28.6%6 mth 🆘 fund £6kMortgage offset fund £5.2k/£63.1kIt turns out the answer to my problems wasn’t at the bottom of this tub of ice-cream, 🍨 but the important thing is that I tried...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards