T mobile price increase

calamero

dmce wrote: »

Im in the same boat. Did you call them?

I emailed them as I didn’t want to be hanging on the phone for ages. It'llprobably take a few days to get a response. The main point here that most aremissing is this has nothing to do with OFCOM (unless they want to get involved- I think they're toothless anyway, otherwise why do they not stop the"you can claim £3850 pounds for your accident/payment protection etc"texts, but that’s another story), it is plain and simply a point of law. If youadvertise a monthly contract with a minimum tie in of now 18 and 24 months, anda headline price per month, you should expect that to be what you pay orthey're misleading you. You can't then make it variable and hide it in theT&Cs. They don't even put an asterix saying "* Price subject to change(with x amount of notice)" or "* Price subject to inflationaryrises" in the advertising which they should if they wanted to betransparent. In any case if you negotiated a lower price, like me, then I thinkwe have an even stronger argument as the price was agreed for the full term ofthe contract.

The easy solution is that they go back to 12 month contracts then they canquite easily introduce annual rises at time of renewal?!

simax wrote: »

Look guys, this has been done to deathbefore with Voda and Orange. OFCOM will say its fine so there is no pointcalling 150 as it'll get you nowhere and all it'll do is clog the lines upstopping people with genuine problems from getting through.

How is being overcharged not a “genuine problem” or do youjust accept being ripped off? Too many people in Britain just stump up withoutcomplaint, and that’s why these corporations get away with it. Probably less sowith the savvy clientele who frequent this site but I believe the majority justlook at price hike rise letters and say “oh dear” then continue to pay.

calamero

mobilejunkie wrote: »

They may "say" what they like. However, you have a contract and that is legally binding.

Unless that contract has unfair terms and conditions which is what has happened here. The intermediate company advertising the cashback deal often advertises the deal to show total cost per month once cashback taken into consideration (or gives TCO - total cost of ownership). This could be construed as misleading if the mobile company then adds a price subject to change clause. My contract was negotiated direct with T-Mobile so there's none of this muddying the water.

If enough T-Mobile customers say, "we're not paying and we'll cancel our direct debit, see you in court if you want to pursue this matter" then I think there'd be a quick climb down on this and other companies who are thinking about price rise opportunism....

Forget rioting and start with deprivation of income streams that's how you can effect change. After all is a mobile phone a necessity? How did you survive way back in the 20th century (circa 1997) when mobiles were not commonplace. Consumers are now addicted to these devices as "cannot live without" and they need to wean their selfs from their addiction. Mobile anon anyone?

simax

calamero wrote: »

I emailed them as I didn’t want to be hanging on the phone for ages. It'llprobably take a few days to get a response. The main point here that most aremissing is this has nothing to do with OFCOM (unless they want to get involved- I think they're toothless anyway, otherwise why do they not stop the"you can claim £3850 pounds for your accident/payment protection etc"texts, but that’s another story), it is plain and simply a point of law. If youadvertise a monthly contract with a minimum tie in of now 18 and 24 months, anda headline price per month, you should expect that to be what you pay orthey're misleading you. You can't then make it variable and hide it in theT&Cs. They don't even put an asterix saying "* Price subject to change(with x amount of notice)" or "* Price subject to inflationaryrises" in the advertising which they should if they wanted to betransparent. In any case if you negotiated a lower price, like me, then I thinkwe have an even stronger argument as the price was agreed for the full term ofthe contract.

The easy solution is that they go back to 12 month contracts then they canquite easily introduce annual rises at time of renewal?!





How is being overcharged not a “genuine problem” or do youjust accept being ripped off? Too many people in Britain just stump up withoutcomplaint, and that’s why these corporations get away with it. Probably less sowith the savvy clientele who frequent this site but I believe the majority justlook at price hike rise letters and say “oh dear” then continue to pay.

Nowhere in any of the small print or T&C's does it mention an actual price of your contract. It also states they can increase your plan by no more than the RPI, which is what they've done.

If you didn't read the small print, then that's your fault. If you did read them and accepted them, then there is no argument.

I'd stick with pay as you go next time as all networks have this clause.

Keith

calamero wrote: »

But if the T&Cs are unfair, as is my opinion, then it ain't "fine".

then why did you agree to them?

bobster11

Ok so i also got the price increase.
Companies these days pass the price on whenever they feel like it and they have little respect for the consumer,when i took my contract no one said hay there will be price increses you should be aware off and that they reserve the right to add inflation to your tarrif.
The salesman who sold me told me £25 and thats what i would pay for 24 months not about price increases and what i should be aware off in the small print.

Now forget people telling you that you should not ring 150 pick your phone up and select the options to go through to cancellation department,ask them for a cancellation fee price to terminate your contract.
When they tell you the price tell them how much notice do you have to give and that you would like to give the 30 days notice although you would like to stay with them if they had any other options?
I told them that i was putting my phone on ebay and would cancel and pay off my contract as they have left me no other course of action.
The lady put me on hold then came back and told me that she was pleased to offer me a £5 deduction for the remainder of my contract which is around 7 months £35.
The ladys also let slip that t mobile had so many cancellations today that they were instructed not to lose any more customers!!!
Hope this helps and remember please be polite its not the reps fault they are probably having one of the worse days or in fact months they can possibly have.

mobilejunkie

calamero wrote: »

Unless that contract has unfair terms and conditions which is what has happened here. The intermediate company advertising the cashback deal often advertises the deal to show total cost per month once cashback taken into consideration (or gives TCO - total cost of ownership). This could be construed as misleading if the mobile company then adds a price subject to change clause. My contract was negotiated direct with T-Mobile so there's none of this muddying the water.

If enough T-Mobile customers say, "we're not paying and we'll cancel our direct debit, see you in court if you want to pursue this matter" then I think there'd be a quick climb down on this and other companies who are thinking about price rise opportunism....

Forget rioting and start with deprivation of income streams that's how you can effect change. After all is a mobile phone a necessity? How did you survive way back in the 20th century (circa 1997) when mobiles were not commonplace. Consumers are now addicted to these devices as "cannot live without" and they need to wean their selfs from their addiction. Mobile anon anyone?

They didn't "add" a clause-though they did try it on. The hidden clause appeared in January 2010 - which is why I said what I did.

gjchester

Jwwallman wrote: »

Because they aren't on a fixed term contract so I can just change company if I'm not happy.

But neither are mobiles. They are a contract with a set minimum term, not a fixed term just like the capped or fixed price energy deals.

If you want flexibility you take Sim Free and PAYG, but if you want a free or discounted contract you have to commit to a mimimum term. Same in the energy world want a fixed price and you have to commit for a term.

mobilejunkie

Not the same; with energy companies there is a relatively small exit charge. With a mobile contract you are liable for the rest of the term whether you keep it running or not. However, this has all been covered before at length with Orange and Vodafone; like T-mobile, there are multiple threads all about the same issue and there is (in fact) nothing new under the sun!

gjchester

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Not the same; with energy companies there is a relatively small exit charge.

Not really, I have a capped price dual fuel contract, to end it early costs £150.


Wheres the difference?

tutti_fruity

Yinster wrote: »

I received the same letter. However since I joined them in Oct 10 this would be the second increase as the first one they didn't even bothered sending a letter so my monthly bill went from £20 to £20.42. I was with O2 before for over 10 years and never had as many increases in that period.

I will be leaving them when my contract ends.

The increase of 42p was due to VAT increasing from 17.5% to 20%. (I think those were the rates)
The same thing happend to me with o2.