MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

frazefast

completelyterrified wrote: »

There is a set definition to it. It was given by Ofcom, and they can refer to it. .

Where is it then? I can't find it.

And either way, 3 wont care if you're an iPhone user or not, you'll still get a knock on your credit rating should you cancel. I for one don't care.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

Where is it then? I can't find it.

And either way, 3 wont care if you're an iPhone user or not, you'll still get a knock on your credit rating should you cancel. I for one don't care.

I'll Google tonight when I'm home - at work at present and only have limited access. I'm sure someone else could possibly provide this mind? Fairly sure I've seen it on these forums before.

I'll cancel only once I've had assurance/a ruling that I'm in the right. I'm not going to knock my credit rating at all.

And regardless of whether 3 care, they have to stick to the terms and conditions they presented to me. My terms clearly state that if a detrimental change is made, I can cancel without charge. Granted, they'll fight it tooth and nail, but so shall I.

completelyterrified

Also (again from memory) - if you're going to claim something has affected you in a material manner, I believe the onus is on you to provide proof of that - ie "the extra £1.30 will leave me short on my rent, here's my expenditure figures" etc.

Claiming that something is merely "detrimental" to you is a damn sight easier.

frazefast

With all due respect you're not being helpful at all. There is no set definition and there is no 10% imaginary figure.

All I have seen with reference to Ofcom's stance on material detriment is :

"Ofcom has considered the complaints it has received about the recent rise in Orange’s prices and acknowledges that many consumers feel unhappy with these changes. ‘However, having assessed the complaints against the relevant consumer legislation, Ofcom has decided, on the evidence available, not to proceed with an investigation at this time as this price rise is not likely to be a breach of current legislation.
‘Whilst we do not believe that there is a case for us to investigate this general matter, whether or not individual consumers suffer material detriment will depend on the individual circumstances in each case"

Quentin

completelyterrified wrote: »

I'll Google tonight when I'm home - at work at present and only have limited access. I'm sure someone else could possibly provide this mind? Fairly sure I've seen it on these forums before.....

Even if Ofcom have somewhere defined the word "material", as there is no reference to using the Ofcom definition in the 3 ts + cs, then you are wasting your time googling for it, as (even if you come back and show us), it is irrelevant to this issue!

System

I got the same message from Ofcom as posted above.
I've sent a reply to them pointing out that my contract says "detriment " and not "material detriment". waiting for response.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

With all due respect you're not being helpful at all. There is no set definition and there is no 10% imaginary figure.

All I have seen with reference to Ofcom's stance on material detriment is :

"Ofcom has considered the complaints it has received about the recent rise in Orange’s prices and acknowledges that many consumers feel unhappy with these changes. ‘However, having assessed the complaints against the relevant consumer legislation, Ofcom has decided, on the evidence available, not to proceed with an investigation at this time as this price rise is not likely to be a breach of current legislation.
‘Whilst we do not believe that there is a case for us to investigate this general matter, whether or not individual consumers suffer material detriment will depend on the individual circumstances in each case"

And, as I've said, I'll do my best to provide that info by trawling the internet for it tonight. At the moment, I'm at work. If I'm wrong on that, so be it, I'll be happy to admit so, and all the better for those who have contracts with that term in.

What you've provided there though supports the argument that nothing will be done in the cases of those who have a "material detriment" clause in their contract. I'm working on the understanding that for something to be "materially" detrimental, it would have to have a material or tangible effect on your life - ie, it would prevent you from paying rent, utilities, or would cause you financial hardship. In those cases, people are encouraged to provide evidence of that, and 3 have certainly offered to take evidence of that when they've been on the phone to me.

Ofcom have previously accepted price rises from two firms on this basis, so it's highly unlikely that a third challenge to that particular term will fail. This is why I'm banging on about the iPhone terms, and why a whole boatload of other people are too - because they don't contain that particular term, and thus the term can't be applied because I didn't agree to it at the point of signing up.

I'm not knocking your argument, nor your attempt to fight what I still consider to be an unfair rise, I'm just commenting on the fact that based on history it will quite probably fail. I certainly don't have the answers in all of this - I'm yet another disgruntled consumer who can read a contract and spot a flaw in it. I'm clearly not alone in this.

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

Even if Ofcom have somewhere defined the word "material", as there is no reference to using the Ofcom definition in the 3 ts + cs, then you are wasting your time googling for it, as (even if you come back and show us), it is irrelevant to this issue!

From memory, there's no definition of the words "government", "regulation", "law" or "license" stated within the 3 t&cs either, but 3 can still choose to not allow you to end your contract based entirely on those terms.

EDIT
It also wouldn't be irrelevant. Even if that 10% isn't in print anyway, nor has ever come from Ofcom, and I'm entirely wrong, if Ofcom have ever given any form of guidance regarding the term, and any instruction to customers believing they fall within those terms, then that absolutely matters, as 3 can refer to that guidance in any legal challenge.

In this case, if Ofcom haven't stated what it means, they have given previous guidance in these circumstances that the obligation to prove that it leaves you "materially" worse off lies with you, the consumer. That means anyone who finds that term being applied can fight it, but only if they can prove it's going to leave them "materially" or tangibly worse off.

frazefast

Quentin wrote: »

Even if Ofcom have somewhere defined the word "material", as there is no reference to using the Ofcom definition in the 3 ts + cs, then you are wasting your time googling for it, as (even if you come back and show us), it is irrelevant to this issue!

Precisely.

System

Quentin wrote: »

Even if Ofcom have somewhere defined the word "material", as there is no reference to using the Ofcom definition in the 3 ts + cs, then you are wasting your time googling for it, as (even if you come back and show us), it is irrelevant to this issue!

this is tricky, since these terms can be clarified in many different places and take on a common meaning or loose definition.
searching for the term "material detriment" brought me to the following as an example. htt p:// www. austlii. edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/pada2007236/s419.html#material_detriment
this may relate to land and not phones, and it may be australian but it does demonstrate that such definitions exist in some form and could be cross referenced.