MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

Quentin

aldredd wrote: »

.... This is the problem with having ambiguous T&Cs - always open to interpretation

Their ts + cs aren't ambiguous as far as the charges go. They don't mention what charge you will continue to pay, only that their charges are not limited and will be as shown in the Price Guide.

charges for access to, and use of, Three Services in respect of your Package as set out in the Price Guide.
These charges may cover (without limitation) fixed periodic charges, usage charges, account administration fees, fees for Connection and re-Connection and any costs incurred in collecting outstanding payments from you

.

(They do set out that if the charges increase above RPI, then you can cancel without penalty, though these increases announced don't go above RPI increases)

Quentin

nononsence wrote: »

..... The T&Cs of the other operators I have looked at do give them a right to increase prices in line with RPI - but not 3.

You give us all false hope!

You have misread the 3 ts + cs. They do allow increases to their charges "without limitation", though do protect customers by allowing them to cancel without penalty if an increase is over the RPI increase.

See extract quoted in the post above #32

lolavix

I don't see why it's such a big problem to be honest - my utility bills have increased far more than the 87p my phone bill will a month - I'm not struggling that much that I need to worry about 87p yet :-)

nononsence

Quentin you obviously have found something in the T&Cs that I cannot find. Can you please point out where in the 3 T&Cs that it states that if they increase their charges by RPI we lose the right to terminate without penalty and this overrides the clause that alows us to cancel for a detrimental change.

Quentin

nononsence wrote: »

Quentin you obviously have found something in the T&Cs that I cannot find. Can you please point out where in the 3 T&Cs that it states that if they increase their charges by RPI we lose the right to terminate without penalty and this overrides the clause that alows us to cancel for a detrimental change.

As posted, #33 (with quote from ts + cs #32).

The ts + cs say the charges are as set out in the price guide and "not limited", (but any increase over RPI increase allows us to get out without penalty!)

Quentin

lolavix wrote: »

I don't see why it's such a big problem to be honest - my utility bills have increased far more than the 87p my phone bill will a month - I'm not struggling that much that I need to worry about 87p yet :-)

You may have missed the point!

If we were able to use this price increase to cancel contracts without penalty, then we would have the benefit of our (expensive) smart phones for no further payment and could sell them/stick cheap sim only deal in them etc

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

As posted, #33 (with quote from ts + cs).

The ts + cs say the charges are "not limited", (but any increase over RPI increase allows us to get out without penalty!)

That's a qualifier for the ability to add further additional charges to your bill, not limited to the list provided. It's not a qualifier for increasing a price plan.

Quentin

completelyterrified wrote: »

It's not a qualifier for increasing a price plan.....

Yes it is, it says the price you pay is as set out in the "Price Plan"! Only if that increases above RPI increase, can you get out of the contract without penalty.

Idiophreak

nononsence wrote: »

the clause that alows us to cancel for a detrimental change.

As aldredd said, this "detrimental change" argument isn't going to fly.

The currency is worth less this year than it was last year...so as long as they increase by less than inflation, in real terms you're no worse off - so it isn't a change to your detriment.

The problem occurs when your wage doesn't rise at the same rate - so you end up paying out more from the same amount of money...but if that's the case, though it pains me to say it, your argument is with your employer, not Three.

I think a more interesting line of enquiry might be around the split between contract cost and the tariff itself...

Most people pay, say, £30...of that, a certain amount (£10) is actually just a finance plan to pay for the phone...and (£20) is the actual cost of the tariff.

I'd suggest that adding inflation on to the tariff is probably fair..but I'm not so sure about adding inflation to the portion that's effectively a finance agreement. It's really hazy, though - and I'm sure their T&Cs cover this somehow. It would also be quite an argument to be held in order to prevent paying, maybe, 1/3 of the rise...

completelyterrified

Idiophreak wrote: »

I'd suggest that adding inflation on to the tariff is probably fair..but I'm not so sure about adding inflation to the portion that's effectively a finance agreement. It's really hazy, though - and I'm sure their T&Cs cover this somehow. It would also be quite an argument to be held in order to prevent paying, maybe, 1/3 of the rise...

They get around that by the fact that it's technically not a finance agreement. I once had a network issue with 3 when I moved house, and my contract was terminated a year early. They requested the handset back, and when I argued that the handset had been advertised as free with the contract, they came up with exactly the above argument - that the contract is part service, part payment for handset.

I approached the Citizen's Advice Bureau with this, and they backed up my theory that that isn't the case - if they charge up front for the handset, that's the handset cost. If the handset is free, it's an incentive to take on a higher priced service plan. There's nothing in the contract to state that part of the cost is a price plan, and part of it for the handset, ergo it isn't enforceable.

I took this back to Three, they agreed, and the handset was mine to keep.