T-mobile change in T&C

thedalmeny

lolololololol........

So i've recieved a reply back... Here are 2 paragraphs from the email:

The timescales you refer to in our Code of Practice are totally separate from those relating to the referral of disputes to CISAS. Therefore, as previously discussed, we won't consent in writing to your complaint being referred to CISAS. You will therefore have to wait 3 months from the date that you first raised this issue with us to be able to refer your complaint to CISAS, which is 22 September.

As we?ve now clearly stated our position on more than one occasion, we won't be entering into any further correspondence on this matter.

Well i've rung CISAS, spoke to a bloke and relayed what was on the email over the phone.

He said due to the second paragraph, i can apply to CISAS now. So he took all my details and is sending me off all the information.

He thought it was rather amusing that they put all that stuff refusing to allow me to goto CISAS, than basically contradicted themselves with the second paragraph which meets CISAS requirements for a deadlock letter.

Mwahahah

rev_henry

Haha nice one. 'This is our final position and is the last we shall say on the matter, but this isn't a deadlock letter'. Erm, yes it is. I did think something like this might happen; just because they claim a letter isn't a deadlock letter, doesn't mean it isn't.
Meanwhile, I wrote to their head office over a week ago, they received my letter last monday (recorded) but haven't got back to me yet. I'm now sat waiting to board a Eurostar, if I use my phone when I arrive could this jeopardise things? I really wanted to get this sorted before my trip today, as it is one of the main reasons I'm doing this.

aimake

hello,
I phoned the CISAS last week and they told me that it is not necessary for the final letter to state the term 'deadlock' as long as it clearly describes a deadlock situation!
The gent at CISAS told me that as long as you have followed t-mobs code of practice and get a letter explained their final position, then they will take on the case.

thedalmeny

Well that’s my complaint and all supporting email correspondence and documents sent off to CISAS online.

Guy on phone said it’ll be 6 weeks or T-Mobile may just settle it straight away once CISAS submit it to them. Instead of defending it.

Will follow it up with CISAS in a day or two, make sure they’ve received everything ok and they don’t need anything else from me.
Will let everyone know how i get on.

thedalmeny

Btw here is also a copy from one of CISAS case studies..

As long as we structure out complaints to CISAS well - i see no reason why we shouldn't be ruled in favor of . Esp as we are supported by EU law in this case, whether they make the distinct between 'Services' or 'Additional' service is irrelevant i guess.

Case 05

Contract
termination: price
increase is a
change


Contract termination: price increase is a change

C was given notice of increased charges by T. C made several attempts to end his mobile phone
contracts but T did not respond. T denied that the increased charges constituted a change to the
contract between C and T justifying termination. T had no record of receiving C’s four letters, two
of which were delivered by recorded delivery

The Adjudicator found a price increase is a material change to the detriment of C allowing
C to terminate the contracts. On the balance of probabilities T had received the letters from
C. T was ordered to refund C all monthly sums paid since the first attempt to terminate the
contracts.

boloney

just got final response from cisas:
Contract
1 The Claimant entered into a contract with the Respondents for communications services.
The date of the contract is not stated.
Reference to Adjudication
2 A dispute has arisen between the parties and they have agreed that it be dealt with by
adjudication under the Rules of the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication
Scheme (the CISAS Rules).
Appointment of Adjudicator
3 In accordance with the CISAS Rules I, was appointed Adjudicator and I
received the appointment on 16 July 2009.
Timetable for the Adjudication
4 The CISAS rules say that normally a complaint will be dealt with within six weeks of receipt
from the Claimant and the Adjudicator will issue the decision within two weeks of being
appointed to deal with it. Sometimes there are delays if a party does not reply within the
time limits or if the post is held up.
Submissions
5 The parties have made the following submissions:
a) On 29 June 2009 the Claimant submitted an ‘Application to Use the Communications
and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme’ with supporting documents (‘the Claim’).
b) On 09 July 2009 the Respondents submitted a defence with supporting documentation
(“the Defence”).
c) On 14 July 2009 the Claimant submitted comments on the Defence (“the Reply”).
Page 2 of 7 Page 3

The Dispute
6
I am going to deal with this matter very briefly, for reasons that will become obvious.
7
The Claimant complains the Respondents re not entitled to change the terms of his mobile
phone contract. He says that he received a text message saying they were going to change
them. He is concerned about several proposed changes that he believes would be to his
detriment.
Remedy sought
8 The Claimant wants to be allowed to retain the current version 55 of the Terms and
Conditions, to be able to cancel the contract without a cancellation charge and to ensure
that the phone number remains his if he requests a PAC code to change provider.
Alternatively he effectively wants a declaration that the Respondents must reimburse him
any costs he incurs if he is obliged to move to version 56 of the T&Cs.
The Defence
9 The Respondents rely on provisions in their T&Cs that enable them to change the terms
and conditions if the changes are not of material detriment to the customer.
The Reply
10 The Claimant says that the contract is governed by EU Directive 2002/22/EC, Article 20.4,
which he sets out.
Decision
11 CISAS Rule 2(g) says that the scheme can be used to settle disputes about
Bills; and
communications services supplied to customers.
In my opinion, disputes about changing the terms and conditions do not come under either
of those headings.
12 Rule 2(j) says the dispute must not involve a complicated issue of law. In my view, there is
such an issue here. The question of whether contractual terms and conditions can be
unilaterally changed is affected by the 1999 Regulations, as well as by the Common Law
rules of offer, acceptance and consideration. It could not be resolved justly in an
adjudication, because lengthy legal submissions would be necessary before a tribunal
could reach a decision. Because of the importance of the matter to the Respondents and
its many customers, that process should happen only in court.
Page 3 of 7 Page 4

13 Rule 5(c) says only the adjudicator can decide whether he or she can settle a dispute. For
the reasons given, it is my view that this dispute cannot be settled by a CISAS adjudicator.
14 Having considered the parties’ submissions and the documents provided to me I DECIDE
AND DIRECT that the Claim fails.
15 Some General Points follow this decision.
Recommendation
16 I have no recommendations to make in this case.

thedalmeny

Looks like small claims is your only option.

I have emailed CISAS their own case study that i copied in the previous post as a supporting document, so hopefully that will be taken into account that a previous ruling has been made under similar conditions.

It does seem unusual that they came to this decision considering the case study. Although i'm hoping since im putting it forward as a supporting document, they shouldn't come to the same decision as your case.

Personally i have not asked for the old terms and conditions to apply - just pushing my right under EU directive to cancel my contract without charge.

I find it hard to believe they'd ignore their own case study. It's like a green like for any adjudicator to make a decision without worry.

aimake

wow, boloney, that is disappointing. At least I now know what my letter from CISAS will say.

I guess its a valuable lesson learned. Does anybody know what government agency (consumer protection group) could fight that on our behalf? I guess T-Mobile will try to grind us down and drag the dispute out as long as possible.

thedalmeny

aimake wrote: »

wow, boloney, that is disappointing. At least I now know what my letter from CISAS will say.

I guess its a valuable lesson learned. Does anybody know what government agency (consumer protection group) could fight that on our behalf? I guess T-Mobile will try to grind us down and drag the dispute out as long as possible.

Yeah i’m also shocked.

Then again it would also depend on how he constructed his case.

The law is pretty clear on the subject, T-Mobile will keep trying to fall back on ‘Additional Services’ is not part of the ‘Price Plan’ so not subject to the EU law. But providing you highlight that the EU law makes no distinction in that case and point out that a service is clearly defined as anything including ‘Additional Services’. You’ll be ok.

I think one big thing will be the case study – so make sure you submit that as a supporting document in your favour.

Equally however – CISAS has not made a ruling against booney. Simply stated they can’t come to a decision.

He should consult CISAS regarding the case study and why a decision in a similar case sided with the consumer, get a response.

Then just submit to small claims court. Armed with not only the law behind him, but also a CISAS case study.

He's shown he has taken all available routes of complaint before going to small claims, even if T-Mobile did turn up. They’d have a tough job winning. Whack couple of hundred quid on top on your claim for the hassle caused.. Bonza.

thedalmeny

Just to confirm to others.

I have spoken to CISAS – guy confirmed i can use the case study to backup my complaint.

He has reviewed the letter i stated was a deadlock letter and has accepted my complaint, said he’s gonna process it today and i’ll get a confirmation email by afternoon.