We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices
Options
Comments
-
When joining Three on "The One Plan"; my contract was;
£99 upfront fee for iPhone4S
£35 / month for 24 months
Currently the exact same deal is
£49 upfront fee for iPhone4S
£34 / month for 24 months
(i had to remove link to 3 website, the forum thinks I am a spammer
The interesting bit I find is, why I will be paying £36.25 although I signed for £35, while new joiners pay £34 for the same service (and less upfront fee)
If this increase wasn't made, I was fine with the difference, because a contract is what it is, but why does the cost to provide me the same service allegedly increased, while in truth it decreased?0 -
You paid a premium at the time to get (what was then) a new phone. As availability and competition increased, the price of the phone and monthly contract comes down and (in theory) the current monthly price has already factored in an increase in inflation over the term.0
-
Ironically I've just had a spam text from 3 offering a Samsung S11 for £29 a month for friends and family.
Why isn't that £29 plus 3.6% !0 -
Because new contracts have (in theory) taken the current inflation levels into account.0
-
Nowhere in the terms does it state that you have to accept an increase in costs as long as it is below RPI. The section immediately after 4.1b(iii) lists explicitly the conditions whereby you cannot cancel:“You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10. Subject to the above, you will not be able to end the agreement if such variation or increase:
(i) is due to changes to the law, government regulation or licence which affect us; or
(ii) relates solely to Additional Services; or
(iii) relates solely to Add-on(s) (if applicable to you). In such circumstances you will not be able to end your agreement but you will be able to cancel the Add-on(s) by giving us 30 days’ written notice; and
(c) if you carry on using 3 Services after the variation commences, you will be deemed to have accepted the variation.“
All it says concerning RPI is that these limitations (i),(ii) and (iii) on your right to cancel "are subject to the above", i.e. the limitations apply only where Three have met their obligations as set out in 4.1a and 4.1b:“4.1 We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Price Plans, on the following basis:
(a) any updated Price Plans and new terms will be available on our website and on request to 3 Customer Services;
(b) if you are a Pay Monthly Customer, we will let you know at least one month in advance if we decide to:
(i) discontinue your Price Plan; or
(ii) make any variations to your agreement which are likely to be of detriment to you; or
(iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Price Plan (if applicable) by an amount which is more than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in any twelve month period.
You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10...”
Note that these are all merely obligations on Three to update their website smallprint or to notify the customer in certain circumtances - nowhere does it say that variations are defined by 4.1b and nowhere does it say that 4.1b is a requirement for you to invoke your cancellation right under Section 10. To read it as such would be fundamentally fallacious logic. I phrased it in my letter like this:
"Clause 4.1 is of the form:John can do X, subject to John doing Y in the event of Z.
e.g
John can eat cake, subject to John brushing his teeth if John goes to bed
This in no possible way equates to:X only occurs in the event of Z, subject to John doing Y.
e.g
Eating cake only occurs if John goes to bed, subject to John brushing his teeth
You will of course immediately see how absurd it is to conflate the two as Three customer services have been doing. The former lines in no way demand that Z is a
necessary requirement for X; that John needs to go to bed in order for the eating of cake to occur. Let us substitute “John” with “Three” in the prior examples. The terms state:Three can do X, subject to Three doing Y in the event of Z
i.e
Three can vary the Terms of Agreement, subject to Three giving advance notice in the event of 4.1b(i),4.1b(ii) or 4.1b(iii)
This in no possible way equates to:X only occurs in the event of Z, subject to Three doing Y.
i.e
A variation only occurs in the event of 4.1b(i),4.1b(ii) or 4.1b(iii), subject to Three giving advance notice"
Three were in one of my phone calls trying to say that a variation is defined by 4.1b(iii) - that is, that there need be an increase in costs above RPI to constitute a variation, before I would be granted the right to cancel - but as I've just demonstrated, this is wholly logically invalid. But even if it were, this would mean 4.1b(ii) was also an applicable condition in our case. The arguments they have provided are wholly self-defeating.
I have very little faith in companies abiding by their own contracts when they can't get fundamental logic right...0 -
Nowhere in the terms does it state that you have to accept an increase in costs as long as it is below RPI. The section immediately after 4.1b(iii) lists explicitly the conditions whereby you cannot cancel:“You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10. Subject to the above, you will not be able to end the agreement if such variation or increase:
(i) is due to changes to the law, government regulation or licence which affect us; or
(ii) relates solely to Additional Services; or
(iii) relates solely to Add-on(s) (if applicable to you). In such circumstances you will not be able to end your agreement but you will be able to cancel the Add-on(s) by giving us 30 days’ written notice; and
(c) if you carry on using 3 Services after the variation commences, you will be deemed to have accepted the variation.“
All it says concerning RPI is that these limitations (i),(ii) and (iii) on your right to cancel "are subject to the above", i.e. the limitations apply only where Three have met their obligations as set out in 4.1a and 4.1b:“4.1 We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Price Plans, on the following basis:
(a) any updated Price Plans and new terms will be available on our website and on request to 3 Customer Services;
(b) if you are a Pay Monthly Customer, we will let you know at least one month in advance if we decide to:
(i) discontinue your Price Plan; or
(ii) make any variations to your agreement which are likely to be of detriment to you; or
(iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Price Plan (if applicable) by an amount which is more than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in any twelve month period.
You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10...”
Note that these are all merely obligations on Three to update their website smallprint or to notify the customer in certain circumtances - nowhere does it say that variations are defined by 4.1b and nowhere does it say that 4.1b is a requirement for you to invoke your cancellation right under Section 10. To read it as such would be fundamentally fallacious logic. I phrased it in my letter like this:
"Clause 4.1 is of the form:John can do X, subject to John doing Y in the event of Z.
e.g
John can eat cake, subject to John brushing his teeth if John goes to bed
This in no possible way equates to:X only occurs in the event of Z, subject to John doing Y.
e.g
Eating cake only occurs if John goes to bed, subject to John brushing his teeth
You will of course immediately see how absurd it is to conflate the two as Three customer services have been doing. The former lines in no way demand that Z is a
necessary requirement for X; that John needs to go to bed in order for the eating of cake to occur. Let us substitute “John” with “Three” in the prior examples. The terms state:Three can do X, subject to Three doing Y in the event of Z
i.e
Three can vary the Terms of Agreement, subject to Three giving advance notice in the event of 4.1b(i),4.1b(ii) or 4.1b(iii)
This in no possible way equates to:X only occurs in the event of Z, subject to Three doing Y.
i.e
A variation only occurs in the event of 4.1b(i),4.1b(ii) or 4.1b(iii), subject to Three giving advance notice"
Three were in one of my phone calls trying to say that a variation is defined by 4.1b(iii) - that is, that there need be an increase in costs above RPI to constitute a variation, before I would be granted the right to cancel - but as I've just demonstrated, this is wholly logically invalid. But even if it were, this would mean 4.1b(ii) was also an applicable condition in our case. The arguments they have provided are wholly self-defeating.
I have very little faith in companies abiding by their own contracts when they can't get fundamental logic right...
I've gone down this line with them tonight - was on the phone nearly an hour which admittedly was both frustrating and a lot of fun.
I've been promised a callback within 24 hours by a manager though, following this little gem:
When I went through the various terms in "flowchart-esque" manner - ie, pointing out when each clause would come into effect, they repeatedly mentioned 4.1.B.III - we went through this at some length, with a bit of a standoff occurring as to whether it was applicable.
They moved onto claiming the change had to be "materially detrimental", which was quickly shoved aside, as the iPhone contract doesn't contain this phrase, which they agreed on.
They then moved onto the fact that one of the terms (can't remember which now, and have left my printed copy in my bag). stated that I lost my right to cancel if the change was due to law, regulation or license changes - when I pointed out that RPI was a measurement, and was none of the above, the representative said she needed to speak to her manager.
15 minutes later, she returned and said "look, I've spoken to my manager, you're right, this isn't a change in law. However, what's happened here is that because of a rise in costs the government has given companies special authorisation to raise their prices, so it's SORT of a law." I asked if I could speak to her manager about this, and she said it wasn't possible.
My stunned silence probably deafened her. I asked if the conversation was being recorded, and if I could have that in writing as the reason why I couldn't cancel. She told me at that point that her manager would call me back at a time convenient to myself.
So, nudged a bit further forward. Might get nowhere, but at least I had a fun 45 minutes. I almost pitied the poor girl who'd called me - I was quite insulted though that they thought the "it's sort of like a law" thing would get me off the phone. They also seemed surprised that I actually knew the T&Cs, had read them, and had a copy with me. Preparation pays.0 -
Read the whole thread. What you have suggested has been tried (and failed) before because the price rise is at the rate they state is allowed in the t&c therefor is not at your detriment.
Hi KTF - any chance you can provide the clause which states specifically that they can raise prices in line with RPI? If you can, it would be a massive help to those of us who've bothered to actually read them, because it's missing from all of ours.
You'll note that Orange and T-Mobile actually have them in. Three don't. That's the problem.0 -
Variations to your agreement or prices
4.1 We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Packages, on the following basis:
(a) any updated Packages and new terms will be available on our website and on request to Three Customer Services;
(b) we will let you know at least one month in advance if we decide to:
(i) discontinue your Package; or
(ii) make any variations to your agreement which are likely to be of material detriment to you; or
(iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Package (if applicable) by an amount which is more than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in any twelve month period.10.1(d) Within one month of a materially detrimental variation to your agreement. You can end the agreement within one month of us telling you about a variation to your agreement (which includes your Package) which is likely to be of material detriment to you. You must give notice to Three Customer Services within that month and your agreement will finish at the end of that month once we receive your notice. (A Cancellation Fee will not be charged.)
From: http://www.three.co.uk/_standalone/Link_Document?content_aid=12204570530010 -
This rise is equal to the RPI figure over a 12 month period so is within the boundaries of iii.
As the price rise is within definition 4.1.b.iii then this is not your 'material detriment' and the above does not apply so you cant cancel it due to the price rise.
From: http://www.three.co.uk/_standalone/Link_Document?content_aid=1220457053001
Maybe not!!
Here's the comment from Paddy over in the Which?Con forum.
"As a Corporate Customer of Three with around 85 contracts (all only 6 months into 24 month contracts on iPhones) all my employees received the same text/email
Our Legal Team contacted the Three Corporate Team to challenge the 10.1 (d) clause as to us as a company its resulting in around a £200 per month in increases
Three are in the process of reversing the price increase as this was considered to be a “detrimental increase” to our business
But as a company with so many contracts we probably had more “say in the matter” than one individual
Surely Three should consider the same needs of the 100+ people on here who actually combined have more business with them than I do. But they don’t.
Seems Three don’t want to upset their Corporate Accounts but are happy to upset individuals.
Needless to say my “Personal Account” will still have the increase as they are not willing to listen to me as an individual
Just proves Three have one rule for one person and a different rule for their Corporate Accounts"
That suggests they may not be so sure of the interpretation of their own T&C's. :mad:Fiscally responsible or just a tight git? :
Lincolnshire 3.0kWp REC panels SMA 2500HF Inverter East Facing with no shade0 -
This rise is equal to the RPI figure over a 12 month period so is within the boundaries of iii.
As the price rise is within definition 4.1.b.iii then this is not your 'material detriment' and the above does not apply so you cant cancel it due to the price rise.
From: http://www.three.co.uk/_standalone/Link_Document?content_aid=1220457053001
Except that...
a - iii doesn't apply as it's specifically stating that it only applies in a situation where they've raised prices above RPI - it basically just sets out what notice they have to give if they go down that path, and under what circumstances I lose my right to cancel (if it's related to a change in law, government regulation or license, or if it relates to add-ons only). There's no clause stating that if they raise prices in line with RPI, I lose my right to cancel due to a detrimental change. Which brings us nicely to...
b - materially detrimental - this term is required to be specified in the contract. It is in the pay monthly terms. It's not in the iPhone terms. They've forgotten to put it in. My contract specifically states that if a change is made, and it's detrimental to me, I can cancel without charge. Not "materially detrimental", but "detrimental".
You can argue all you like about Ofcom having sanctioned this with other firms, but both of those firms had specific clauses in their terms stating that they could raise prices in line with RPI and that the user forfeited their right to cancel in this situation, and also that if a change was made it had to be "materially detrimental" before a customer could cancel without charge. Three has neither of those. The fact that when challenged on it, they fall completely silent and then start making up rubbish about "special authorisation from the government" should be enough to show you that they've bodged this one.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards