MSE News: Orange to raise monthly mobile costs

JoshuaUK

DUTR wrote: »

terminating your Contract because Orange has changed its terms
4.3 You may also terminate your Contract if we vary its terms, resulting in an excessive increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us telling you about the changes). However this option does not apply if:
4.3.1 we have increased the Charges by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices published by the Central Statistical Office in the Monthly Digest of Statistics in any 12 month period; or

I'd be perfectly fine with the price rise if my wages had kept up with inflation too.

DUTR

JoshuaUK wrote: »

I'd be perfectly fine with the price rise if my wages had kept up with inflation too.

The point is, it is quite clear in the terms and conditions, so whilst the hopefuls think I am chastising them, a lawyer will laugh them out of the office and probably charge them for wasting time.

diamonds

Its a unfair contract & needs to be addressed by a court as Ofcon are hopeless.

DUTR

diamonds wrote: »

Its a unfair contract & needs to be addressed by a court as Ofcon are hopeless.

Why agree to the terms then if you feel it is an unfair contract?

Guys_Dad

diamonds wrote: »

Its a unfair contract & needs to be addressed by a court as Ofcon are hopeless.

Regrettably, courts are not proactive, so which keyboard warrior feels confident enough to step up? May I also refer you to the link to Which? in which their lawyer believes that Orange can do this and, of course, Vodafone have got away with their price "simplification" in October and that hasn't been challenged.

I do agree that a regulator who can't regulate should be shut down and public money saved.

saver_1_2

My other half has had the text she has an 18 month contract. After 18 month she is going to vote with her feet and i hope everyone else does too

olip74

The point is, it is quite clear in the terms and conditions

As has already been pointed out, this isn't the only relevant factor and Orange can't make you sign your rights away. The example that Martin Lewis uses is, if I get you to agree I can hit you in the face, I can still be charged with assault.

Firstly, when I renewed I did it over the phone and made a verbal agreement to enter a 24 month contract that would cost me £20.64 per month. I received the phone in a box with some user guides and a delivery sheet but nothing else - nada. The Ts and Cs were not included, nor was any attention brought to this clause while I was negotiating with retentions. There may be mileage here for people in a similar position. One poster has already uncovered case law that indicates that prominence must be applied to clauses such as 4.3.

Secondly, the Comms Act 'material detriment' clause has yet to be tested. Those who complain will have to go through the CISAS procedure and Ofcom may conduct an investigation (they have said so). Only then will we know who's right. Ofcom may decide that RPI has to be balanced against average wage rises over the same period, who knows? Additionally as I am sure affects many others, the net increase in my bill was to be around 6.5%, well above RPI. I would be surprised if this wasn't considered to be a material detriment.

These aren't spurious and hopeless arguments, they are measured and considered. Can't we just be allowed to get on with discussing these points without you replying to each post like a stuck record?

Daft_Punk

moorw003 wrote: »

The bottom line is when you take out a contract, it says £20 a month for 24 months. A company should honour that... if inflation is a problem and it's deemed not high enough... the contract should be £21 from the start of the contract.

Unfortunately that's not the bottom line. Contracts are far more complicated than that.

This train of thought that the contract says £20 so it should stay £20 is a very oversimplified view that most people can't seem to get away from.

Yes in an ideal world companies would never do things we don't want them to. But someone please show me a company that looks to protect their customer over and above protecting their profits and shareholders. Anyone??

Banks?
Gas and Electric?

The bottom line is there isn't any.

Boby

I am not against an increase... But not when still in a contract, simple. Otherwise everybody is going to increase any fixed price contact based on inflation. I certainly wasn't increased this year nevermind by inflation rate.

Get the price increase in new contract, but this is one way to annoy existing customer. If orange does this, everybody else will and we will be entering into a spiralling inflation as company will feel entitled to do so to remain competitive.

As for me orange is my broadband provider, well not anymore I am gone as a customer. When my mobile contract expire in 4 month my first call to them is not going to be about an Upgrade but a PAC code. The principle is wrong... Fixed contract = fixed price.

I will vote with my feet and also sell my orange stock. Not just yet... I want the benefit of the price increase, but will do as soon as the customer walk away... Concern here is that everybody will feel entitled to inflation increase...

DUTR

olip74 wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, this isn't the only relevant factor and Orange can't make you sign your rights away. The example that Martin Lewis uses is, if I get you to agree I can hit you in the face, I can still be charged with assault.

Firstly, when I renewed I did it over the phone and made a verbal agreement to enter a 24 month contract that would cost me £20.64 per month. I received the phone in a box with some user guides and a delivery sheet but nothing else - nada. The Ts and Cs were not included, nor was any attention brought to this clause while I was negotiating with retentions. There may be mileage here for people in a similar position. One poster has already uncovered case law that indicates that prominence must be applied to clauses such as 4.3.

Secondly, the Comms Act 'material detriment' clause has yet to be tested. Those who complain will have to go through the CISAS procedure and Ofcom may conduct an investigation (they have said so). Only then will we know who's right. Ofcom may decide that RPI has to be balanced against average wage rises over the same period, who knows? Additionally as I am sure affects many others, the net increase in my bill was to be around 6.5%, well above RPI. I would be surprised if this wasn't considered to be a material detriment.

These aren't spurious and hopeless arguments, they are measured and considered. Can't we just be allowed to get on with discussing these points without you replying to each post like a stuck record?

Can you show us where the 6.5% arises from?
Although RPI is 5.4% so not well above