MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

dido48

Im currently on a 24 month contract pay around £30 a month going up a £1 odd its still cheaper than the orange one i was looking at. Didn't use a lot of internet before but on it all the time now getting my moneys worth

System

grumbler wrote: »

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".

I don't see how it is hypocrisy and i don't understand why you would attack me for this. so I didn't expect a £50 phone to have that kind of feature as it seems like an advanced feature. I trusted the salesman. so sue me.
the point is, I took the contract out for the service. that was what i was saying in response to the other person who said that in future, we shouldn't take out a contract for the phone. I didn't. I tookk it out for the service and was told this phone would be needed to use it.

grumbler

I wanted to say something about Jaguar or BMW, but decided to rest my case.

That said, I don't justify rising prices for old customers during the minimum term and I hope Three will pay for their lies, greed and incompetence.

System

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...

Ofcom do not have the final say this issue, as regulator their job is to police multiple industries and act if they believe there is a case to answer. Ultimately any decision on a contractual issue like this can only be made by a court.

In your other posts you use the word definition where interpretation would be more appropriate. Again 'detriment' and 'material detriment' would be up to a court to rule on. The document written up by Andrew Dyson has an interesting section on this, suggesting the applying the Ofcom interpretation might be wrong in this case - remember Three's terms and Orange/T-Mobiles are all different.

badbt

If anyone wants to test out the legalities of this, I suggest the following:

Pursue a civil claim against Three for the 3.6% increase multiplied by the number of months remaining in your contract. State in the claim form that you are claiming for losses that will be incurred due to Three's breach of contract.

Your claim amount will probably only be £35, and court fees of £25. It's probably worth a risk and you could add even more "consequential losses".

It is unlikely that Three would contest these £60 claims as it would cost them more in solicitor fees to represent them in court. They are more likely to settle out of court. It will not set a precedent, but if enough people do this, the higher courts will take note... isn't this how PPI became mainstream?

Anyone want to take this course of action?

ferrit44

Does anyone know whether 3 can place a default on your credit report whilst the account/final bill is in dispute?

Quentin

badbt wrote: »

If anyone wants to test out the legalities of this, I suggest the following:

Pursue a civil claim against Three for the 3.6% increase multiplied by the number of months remaining in your contract. State in the claim form that you are claiming for losses that will be incurred due to Three's breach of contract.

Your claim amount will probably only be £35, and court fees of £25. It's probably worth a risk and you could add even more "consequential losses".

It is unlikely that Three would contest these £60 claims as it would cost them more in solicitor fees to represent them in court. They are more likely to settle out of court. It will not set a precedent, but if enough people do this, the higher courts will take note... isn't this how PPI became mainstream?

Anyone want to take this course of action?

Complete waste of time and money.

You cannot simply start a court action to sue for money you aren't yet owed!

frazefast

What can you do when they (and they probably will) sell the 'debt' to a debt collector?

ferrit44

frazefast wrote: »

What can you do when they (and they probably will) sell the 'debt' to a debt collector?

Question is, can they sell it on to a debt collection agency whilst under dispute? My guess is they shouldn't, but they probably will.

sureshk

Quentin wrote: »

Complete waste of time and money.

You cannot simply start a court action to sue for money you aren't yet owed!

*I'm not legally trained - the following is my opinion*

You can, kind of, but only for an anticipatory breach of contract.

However, this becomes complex when you apply it to the case of 3 and the future prices of the contract.

If you are suing for a one off payment, e.g. someone contracted to buy £1000 of x off you, then said they wouldn't, this would be easy to settle - you just sue for £1000.

However, 3 have not breached contract by increasing prices, so you can't sue for that. They have (most likely) breached contract by not allowing cancellation under 10.1 (d). But then what do you sue for?
Options would be:
1. the price rise (i.e. 3.6% x number of months, e.g. £1.25 x 20 months = £25)
2. The total cost of the contract remaining at time of signing (e.g. £35 x 20 = £700)
3. The total cost of the new contract remaining (e.g. £36.25 x 20 = 725)

However the law states that for breach of contract, the compensation you seek (without any extra damages for psychological damages, loss of business etc) should be equivalent to that which would put you in a position prior to the breach - i.e. you can only sue for moneys equivalent to that which would put you back at the same point before the breach took place. In this case, that rules out #1 above - the price rise is not a breach of contract. It also likely rules out #2, as if you stayed with 3 you would be paying the increased cost. This leaves #3, you could stay with 3 against your will (and informing 3 of such), then sue for the proposed cost of them breaching contract by forcing you to stay with them - this would be #3.

Alternatively you could pay the ETC under protest, then sue for reclamation of that (e.g. £35 x 20 *97% (3 % discount) = £679) for them breaching contract by forcing you to pay the ETC under protest.

_______________________________

Regards the definition of 'detrimental' - it has not been defined in either T&C, therefore any term which can raise ambiguity about the definition would be challenged under Regulation 7 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - which states it becomes that which is most favourable to the consumer.

This is what you would use in court.

The definition cannot be given 3 retrospectively, it cannot (and has not) been given by Ofcom (they never defined detriment, or material detriment, even in regards to previous rulings on Orange etc - they merely stated it was unlikely to be of material detriment). It also cannot really be given by the consumer, other than referring to the above regulation. No, the only person who can give the definition is a Judge, who would hopefully provide it under guidance of the regulation above.

3 are unilaterally applying whatever term they feel constitutes detriment to every single consumer - clearly this is not fair or legal. There is no mention of a percentage, or value, or factor, or anything that would indicate what level of price rise would constitute 'detriment' in their T&C - they have completely failed to define even a whiff of the term, therefore they have to accept whatever a judge would deem acceptable under Regulation 7 above.

This is what everybody is challenging / proposing to challenge in small claims court. However, in my opinion the only way to sue via SCC would be as stated above:
1. Pay the ETC under protest, then sue retrospectively for breach of contract
2. Stay with 3 under protest, then sue prospectively for breach of contract by them forcing you to stay.

Option 1 would probably be the easiest to prove, but require up front payment and then reclamation of the fee.