MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

System

Quentin wrote: »

Why would any court allow 3 to rely on Ofcom's definition of anything? If they wish to do this, then they would have to include this in the contract!

because Ofcom are the industry regulator. that's not just a fancy name, it's a government body.

i.e. rules and regulations...

grumbler

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

One you are out NEVER take out a "contract" mobile again. Keep to PAYG or SIM free

Don't know what 'SIM free' tariff is, but what's wrong with short-term sim-only contracts (let's stick to this thread and ignore other issues rather than price rises)?

frazefast

I just spoke to 3 again. Ofcom stated that material detriment is based on individual circumstances. 3 are complete ignoring this and using a blanket script for everyone ( iPhone user or not). Yet again they refused my PAC code. I'm done talking to them. I'll just spread the word about their practices and cancel my direct debit.

Quentin

tremault wrote: »

because Ofcom are the industry regulator. that's not just a fancy name, it's a government body.

i.e. rules and regulations...

You say you modified this post to "elaborate".

Please elaborate on how this "government body" can be used by 3 to define the meaning of their wording used in their contracts without informing the other side that they want to rely on Ofcom's definitions?

A contract has to be fair! How would that be fair?

System

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Best thing to do is try and get out if you can.

If Three won't let you out simply cancel at the earliest opportunity and learn from the experience. Either way they will lose you either by letting you go early or by you leaving and NEVER returning to them.

One you are out NEVER take out a "contract" mobile again. Keep to PAYG or SIM free and then you can hop ship if you are unhappy. YOU then have all the cards - they simply have the dud hand.

I don't know about anyone else but I took out this contract for the service, not for the phone. granted, the iphone is certainly a nice piece of hardware, but my phone before this did the job I wanted it for.
I came to three for the mobile broadband service. I chose this option because i could tether it to my computer and have internet wherever I go without having to worry about bt line rental etc.
£35 a month was a bit much for me but I decided to take the hit.
what three has done is insulting.
If the salesman said it STARTS at 35 a month and may be subject to change, I might not mind so much, but I signed up for £35 a month on the understanding that i could pay that and then not worry about connectivity or further costs.

(of course now I have gotten used to the iphone, I'm spoilt and it would be hard to go back to an inferior phone)

System

Quentin wrote: »

You say you modified this post to "elaborate".

Please elaborate on how this "government body" can be used by 3 to define the meaning of their wording used in their contracts without informing the other side that they want to rely on Ofcom's definitions?

A contract has to be fair! How would that be fair?

it's fair for the same reason that ignorance of the law is not a defence.
ignorance of the definition of words that has been established does not give you legal grounds to claim ambiguity.
it is perfectly plain that a company within a certain industry would be regulated by that industry's regulatory body.
it would be plain that the definitions used by said company would comply with the guidance provided by said regulatory body.

grumbler

tremault wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but I took out this contract for the service, not for the phone. granted, the iphone is certainly a nice piece of hardware, but my phone before this did the job I wanted it for.
I came to three for the mobile broadband service. I chose this option because i could tether it to my computer and have internet wherever I go without having to worry about bt line rental etc.

Their sim-only "All-you-can-eat data" tariffs seem to fit your requirements perfectly, are cheaper and are available on 1 month and 12 month contracts.

RichA

completelyterrified wrote: »

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.

I advise all pay monthly customers check the terms and conditions issued when you took your contract out. I'm not an Apple user, and mine don't contain any reference to material detriment, only detriment.

Contract taken February 2011, or thereabouts. I don't know when the change took place.

System

grumbler wrote: »

Their sim-only "All-you-can-eat data" tariffs seem to fit your requirements perfectly, are cheaper and are available on 1 month and 12 month contracts.

but unfortunately wouldn't be able to be used on my pc through my old nokia e63

grumbler

Still no point in paying through the nose during 24 months just for this. All androids provide wifi hotspot functionality and the most basic ones cost about £50.

My point was that it was a hypocrisy to say that you "took out this contract for the service, not for the phone".