MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

ferrit44

Im about to ring 3 and no doubt have a delightful conversation about them not enforcing their own Ts and Cs... the bottom line is, if I cancel and they try to take me to court, who is going to win? The Ts and Cs are pretty straight forward in my eyes, but the last thing I want is a black mark on my credit record after only recently cleaning it up.

Quentin

frazefast wrote: »

Yes they want me to pay the cancellation fee (14 months) despite holding their hands up at 10.1(d) and the interpretation of detrimental.
They won't shift. I will. I've lost my number, I hope 3 lose millions.

The PAC you want and the money you owe are different items.

They cannot refuse you a PAC just because you owe them! (Have they even sent you a final bill yet?)

To start the ball rolling, ofcom have a template letter you can send:

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/files/2010/03/PAC-not-received.pdf

liam8282

To cut a long thread short....

Has anybody actually managed to cancel their three contract, without penatly, due to these changes?

grumbler

ferrit44 wrote: »

Im about to ring 3 and no doubt have a delightful conversation about them not enforcing their own Ts and Cs... the bottom line is, if I cancel and they try to take me to court, who is going to win?

They will not take you to court. Neither will the debt collectors that they will sell the debt to after trashing your credit history.

You can take them to court and, IMO, you are likely to win.

Quentin

grumbler wrote: »

You can take them to court and, IMO, you are likely to win.

What would he sue them for?

grumbler

As I said many times, pay them the ETC under protest, then sue them for this amount plus court fees plus inconvenience. They will settle before the court.

Their current tactics is based on the correct assumption that very few people have guts to do this

ferrit44

As expected, a complete waste of time, they don't want to listen to their own Ts and Cs. Keep saying clause 4 means they can do whatever they want as long as it's not over RPI, over and over again like a robot. When I mentioned 10.1b he just kept saying it's irrelevant because they're invoking clause 4.

The advisor even admitted that the Ts and Cs weren't clear. When he was logging the complaint, I asked him to read through the complaint notes, and it took 5 times of me asking him to remove the "Material" element of the Ts and Cs from the notes.... seems to me he was doing his best to get the material part in. (Im on an iPhone contract)

He then disconnected the call as he refused to escalate to his manager and also refused to escalate the complaint to their internal complaints team. So I called back in and complained about the advisor. Apparently i'll get a call back in 72 hours from the complaints team, at which point i'll be raising their rather less than water tight Ts and Cs again.

Their internal policies appear to be as big of a joke as their terms and conditions. If they openly admit to them not being clear, what chance have we got to understanding them....

Seems to me they know they've cocked up with regards to the iPhone contracts, and are simply just trying to fob people off. I suppose it's down to each individual as to whether they can handle having a mark on their credit record for missed payments and a potential trip to the court house but I personally don't think they've got a leg to stand on.

On another point, I asked whether their complaint reference numbers went up in single digits for each one raised. He said they did. There were 500 numbers between Complaint 1 and Complaint, a mere 20 minutes apart. When I mentioned that it would appear 3 were clearly getting a lot of complaints then, he quickly backtracked and made up some !!!! and ball story about them being randomly generated

completelyterrified

I've done the T&Cs customer service dance now for a few days, and have gotten to the point where I've gotten them to state for the record that they will take my complaint no further so that I can take it up with the ombudsman. Complaint filed yesterday.

Hoping for success, as the argument hinges on the discrepancies in 4.1, and the difference between T&Cs in iPhone and Pay Monthly contracts. 3 admitted that they were different, and that I didn't have to prove they were materially detrimental, just that they were detrimental. They're pinning their argument on the fact that the change isn't detrimental to me at all - obviously, unless the legal/dictionary definition of the term "detrimental" has changed, it would be difficult for them to prove this.

Can only sit back and wait now.

completelyterrified

ferrit44 wrote: »

As expected, a complete waste of time, they don't want to listen to their own Ts and Cs. Keep saying clause 4 means they can do whatever they want as long as it's not over RPI, over and over again like a robot. When I mentioned 10.1b he just kept saying it's irrelevant because they're invoking clause 4.

The advisor even admitted that the Ts and Cs weren't clear. When he was logging the complaint, I asked him to read through the complaint notes, and it took 5 times of me asking him to remove the "Material" element of the Ts and Cs from the notes.... seems to me he was doing his best to get the material part in. (Im on an iPhone contract)

He then disconnected the call as he refused to escalate to his manager and also refused to escalate the complaint to their internal complaints team. So I called back in and complained about the advisor. Apparently i'll get a call back in 72 hours from the complaints team, at which point i'll be raising their rather less than water tight Ts and Cs again.

Their internal policies appear to be as big of a joke as their terms and conditions. If they openly admit to them not being clear, what chance have we got to understanding them....

Seems to me they know they've cocked up with regards to the iPhone contracts, and are simply just trying to fob people off. I suppose it's down to each individual as to whether they can handle having a mark on their credit record for missed payments and a potential trip to the court house but I personally don't think they've got a leg to stand on.

On another point, I asked whether their complaint reference numbers went up in single digits for each one raised. He said they did. There were 500 numbers between Complaint 1 and Complaint, a mere 20 minutes apart. When I mentioned that it would appear 3 were clearly getting a lot of complaints then, he quickly backtracked and made up some !!!! and ball story about them being randomly generated

Yeah, the complaints team are just as incompetent. Spent a good 30-45 minutes yesterday arguing with them about their terms, and they just parroted the same info as the rest of the drones I've spoken to.

Sad this, as outside of the customer service realm, I genuinely love using Three - coverage is great in my area, they always seem to be cheaper than other networks, and have had no complaints regarding service at all. But at the moment, I'm in a dire financial situation, and am running two pay monthly contracts for myself and my parents - this could potentially help me move from paying £61 per month down to around 15-20, and that £40 saved would be a massive, massive help to me. I'm not one for welching on what I owe people, but paying an extra £3.00 a month across those two contracts is enough to make a delicate situation worse, so I don't feel like it's particularly fair. And, I genuinely feel aggrieved at how they've handled this so far. Hopefully the ADR peeps will recognise the blunders made here.

ferrit44

completelyterrified wrote: »

I've done the T&Cs customer service dance now for a few days, and have gotten to the point where I've gotten them to state for the record that they will take my complaint no further so that I can take it up with the ombudsman. Complaint filed yesterday.

Hoping for success, as the argument hinges on the discrepancies in 4.1, and the difference between T&Cs in iPhone and Pay Monthly contracts. 3 admitted that they were different, and that I didn't have to prove they were materially detrimental, just that they were detrimental. They're pinning their argument on the fact that the change isn't detrimental to me at all - obviously, unless the legal/dictionary definition of the term "detrimental" has changed, it would be difficult for them to prove this.

Can only sit back and wait now.

So I guess I can do that now considering my initial complaint regarding the price increase apparently can go no further? Did you raise that through a website, or via a phone call?