MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

Yawn! It's Apple fan boys v the rest all over again. I'm trying to help everyone on here, you're just sticking up for your own and telling everyone else it's tough. Not true!

I have an iPhone contract, and an Android handset. I'll be picking up a galaxy note shortly. Nice try though.

You're trying to help everyone, but you're missing out a few things which are crucial to the argument. I'd love everyone to be able to cancel, and it would save me a further £26 a month. I just don't think it's worth pursuing, as I know I'll not be able to prove that it leaves me materially worse off. If you can prove that, or if anyone else in the thread can, they're more than welcome to, and I wish them the best of luck.

System

Quentin wrote: »

But in the 3 ts + cs there is no "cross referencing" of the word "material" or the expression "material detriment"!

yes I know. in my contract that term is not present. it is in the contract of those who do not have iphones, i believe. and people were arguing about whether that term means anything. I was just providing a bit of a backdrop.

frazefast

completelyterrified wrote: »

I have an iPhone contract, and an Android handset. I'll be picking up a galaxy note shortly. Nice try though.

You're trying to help everyone, but you're missing out a few things which are crucial to the argument. I'd love everyone to be able to cancel, and it would save me a further £26 a month. I just don't think it's worth pursuing, as I know I'll not be able to prove that it leaves me materially worse off. If you can prove that, or if anyone else in the thread can, they're more than welcome to, and I wish them the best of luck.

What is crucial to the argument is stating facts. You have stated "materially detrimental specifically relates to a rise of 10% or more" Not true.
You have stated Ofcom have their own definition of what is "materially detrimental" Not true.

I'm not being spiteful, I'm asking you to stick to facts so as not to misinform the readers on here.

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

But in the 3 ts + cs there is no "cross referencing" of the word "material" or the expression "material detriment"!

Again, there doesn't have to be. It's just a term, and if they haven't defined it within the contract, any legal challenge will result in them saying "here's xxx bits of evidence which show that it means this."

They don't define what the word "increase" means either - does it mean simply that the price rises? Or does it mean that the price itself could fall, but that the real cost of the contract increases because of a change in valuation in currency? Does "increase" mean the cost of the whole price plan, or the price of telephone calls? They don't have to define it, because the standard definition is enough, and if they want it to mean anything outside of the standard definition, they'd have to define what that specific meaning was.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

What is crucial to the argument is stating facts. You have stated "materially detrimental specifically relates to a rise of 10% or more" Not true.
You have stated Ofcom have their own definition of what is "materially detrimental" Not true.

I'm not being spiteful, I'm asking you to stick to facts so as not to misinform the readers on here.

And, as I've said about 4 times since then, even if they haven't, it doesn't matter, for the following reasons:

1 - The clause has been used successfully by two other companies in the same industry, with Ofcom's backing.
2 - Whilst I don't have time now to do a full search of stuff, typing "Material Detriment Definition" into google pulls up a front page with references to the term from several different industries, showing me that it's a commonly accepted phrase. That's just with one google search and a glance at the page. Judging by one of them, it's been referenced in legal cases, ergo it will have a definition that is widely accepted.
3 - Even I, non-legal expert, can deduce without seeing it defined in my contract that for something to be "materially detrimental" it would have to have a substanstial effect upon me, in a way which was material or tangible - the effect of having it applied would be visible because it was so large.
4 - Even without the definition, Ofcom has given guidance before showing that if a customer believes that they will suffer in a material way because of the change, they can provide evidence of this and it will be taken forward.

You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on the fact that you don't believe a legal document can be challenged because the firm forgot to put the right terms and conditions in.

You clearly don't understand when someone needs to define a term and when they don't, yet you're basing the rest of your argument on that. It's unhelpful. I'd rather be the one saying out loud "here's some reasons why your case might fail, based on history and precedent" and give people realistic expectations, rather than say "here's something I think, without any evidence to back it up" and give people unrealistic expectations as to the right to cancel. Simple as that.

completelyterrified

Either way - we're getting off topic here, and sniping at each other when there's no need. We both agree that we think the price rise is unfair, and that we're coming at the same problem from different angles. I suggest we put our differences on this aside and concentrate on the long term goal, which is helping anyone cancel who has the right to cancel?

*Extends conciliatory hand*

frazefast

completelyterrified wrote: »

You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on the fact that you don't believe a legal document can be challenged because the firm forgot to put the right terms and conditions in.

No I'm not.

Quentin

completelyterrified wrote: »

Again, there doesn't have to be. It's just a term, and if they haven't defined it within the contract, any legal challenge will result in them saying "here's xxx bits of evidence which show that it means this.".....

No.

If a row breaks out over the meaning of any ambiguous part of a contract, then the law is on the side of the customer.

The interpretation will be the one most favourable to the customer.

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

No.

If a row breaks out over the meaning of any ambiguous part of a contract, then the law is on the side of the customer.

The interpretation will be the one most favourable to the customer.

Except it's no more ambiguous than the word "increase" is, as I stated above, which could have several difference meanings depending on how you chose to apply the word to a given set of circumstances.

But, if you wish to go and challenge the term in a court of law, please do so. Just be advised that you'll probably not be successful.

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

No.

If a row breaks out over the meaning of any ambiguous part of a contract, then the law is on the side of the customer.

The interpretation will be the one most favourable to the customer.

You, today, 13:38:

Do you seriously believe Ofcom will challenge 3 on behalf of iPhone users because they accidentally omitted the word 'materially' in their T&Cs?

Has ONE single iPhone user successfully cancelled their contract with 3 without penalty because of this omission?

You're in the same boat as the rest of us IMO.