MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

frazefast

And because 3 have failed to define what is/isnt materially detrimental is surely their undoing.
Also the RPI in April was 3.5%. I was informed on the 1st June that the increase would be 3.6% in line with March's rate. That seems materially detrimental to me.

aldredd

completelyterrified wrote: »

As far as I can remember, Materially Detrimental specifically relates to a rise of 10% or more.

where has the 10% come from for materially detrimental?

completelyterrified wrote: »

So, again, the rise isn't materially detrimental, but it is detrimental, and the fact that the iPhone T&Cs specifically state that a detrimental change can allow invocation of a customer's right to cancel under 10.1d, that's pretty much all that matters.

Let's not forget that this isn't just about iPhone users. So I would say it does indeed matter.

grumbler

aldredd wrote: »

It could be argued (as brought up much earlier in the thread) than an inflation-based increase ought not be materially detrimental, as the value of what you're getting has not changed - as you're package is now 'worth' more than it was a year ago.

Even in this case it is materially detrimental for the customers whose contracts started less than a year ago.

completelyterrified

aldredd wrote: »

where has the 10% come from for materially detrimental?

Let's not forget that this isn't just about iPhone users. So I would say it does indeed matter.

From Ofcom I believe, possibly last year (might have been the year before - my memory is sketchy).

I honestly feel that those on standard Pay Monthly terms are probably screwed here - I think the terms provided cover them, as although 4.1 is still vague, they can fall back on the argument that the terms specifically state the change needs to be "materially detrimental" in order to cancel without charge.

On the iPhone T&Cs, that's not the case. That's why I'm not pursuing my standard PM contract - I believe they're within their rights. Granted, I think the definition of Materially Detrimental should be defined within the contract, so I think that's a wee bit unfair, but I probably should have pursued that prior to agreeing to them. But, as I say, iPhone T&Cs are different, and similarly to Mr Dyson, I don't believe they've covered themselves correctly.

frazefast

Yes but they have not defined what is "materially detrimental".

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

Yes but they have not defined what is "materially detrimental".

I don't believe they have to, as Ofcom already have. If anyone challenges it, they can point to their guidance and say "Ofcom has said that Materially Detrimental" means this." Much in the same way that they don't define a whole of things in the T&Cs - this is to keep it vague, so that if guidance changes, they don't have to change T&Cs.

If one were to take this further, I suspect the answer would be if you weren't sure of the meaning of this specific term, you should have agreed to it when signing the contract, and could have easily researched to see what it meant in that context. But that's a whole other discussion.

The crux here is the iPhone terms - they specifically state that cancellation without charge can be invoked upon a "detrimental" change, and unless someone has defined that term to mean anything other than it's standard definition, that should stick.

frazefast

No the crux isn't just for iPhone users. We're all being screwed. I have already quoted Ofcoms' stance. on "materially detrimental" which is just as vague.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

No the crux isn't just for iPhone users. We're all being screwed. I have already quoted Ofcoms' stance. on "materially detrimental" which is just as vague.

Agreed completely. However, based on everything I've been able to find, other companies have manage to get away with the same rises based upon the "materially detrimental" clause. Thus, it's unlikely that this situation would be any different.

However, the iPhone debacle is an entirely different kettle of clause based fish. I suspect, especially after Mr Dyson's challenge, that this will be the argument which has the most chance of success.

I hate the price rise as much as anyone, but I'm being realistic in that I think they've got it sewn up for Pay Monthly contracts - I can't see anyone succeding in getting round it. I think those on iPhone contracts seem to have the best chance here, sad as it is.

frazefast

I disagree, 3 will use the same tactics on iPhone users as they will on the rest of us. They are increasing the price because they can. The word 'material' is ironically immaterial because there is no set definition on it.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

I disagree, 3 will use the same tactics on iPhone users as they will on the rest of us. They are increasing the price because they can. The word 'material' is ironically immaterial because there is no set definition on it.

There is a set definition to it. It was given by Ofcom, and they can refer to it. There's a whole host of things in the contracts that aren't defined in the contract but defined elsewhere. That's fairly normal, and entirely legal.

Anyone who challenges how reasonable the rise is in court who has a Pay Monthly contract would have to eventually challenge that term, and any judge of sound mind would look at the Ofcom guidance and deem they've stated it to be a fair rise. Any challenge to that is likely to fail, or to be so costly that it simply isn't going to happen.

Again though, the challenge which Mr Dyson has put forward regarding the iPhone T&Cs bypasses that because the "materially detrimental" clause doesn't exist in the iPhone contract and therefore can't be applied.

It's a kick in the teeth, I know, but that's pretty much where things stand right now.