MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

dudtwo

If you have a Twitter account, feel free to join those of us who are active in the @ThreeUK @ThreeUKSupport #ThreeUK Twitter streams/timelines, to add your objections about their business practices, so that as many existing Three customers can share your story and understand that not everybody is happy about the methods that they adopt to sell "fixed contracts" and force people to pay inflated prices by:

1. FAILING to point out clearly their true VARIABLE nature but attempting to hide it within the T&Cs, and even when asked repeatedly by new customers if the price is indeed fixed for the duration of the contract, still insisting that YES it is... in contravention of those same T&Cs and the law!

2. FAILING to provide an actual COPY of the T&Cs at point of sale anyway, but instead slyly referring people to their web site, where THREE can then apparently switch and change the details and dates of those same T&Cs as many times as they wish to their hearts content with impunity, whilst all the time alleging that no matter the date that you took out your contract, these same T&Cs still apply!

3. FAILING to word those T&Cs properly and then failing to admit that they had done so!

4. FORCING only individual/personal customers who they feel are already "trapped" in extended "fixed" contracts, to bear the burden of the price increase (completely in defeat of their own arguments as to why they are actually requiring the extra finance), whilst at the same time not applying said "much needed" increase to their BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, PAYG CUSTOMERS, ROLLING CONTRACT CUSTOMERS, or most importantly their NEW CUSTOMERS!

5. INSULTING or hanging up on customers who phone their Customer Services or Executive Offices to complain and assert their legal rights!

6. STONEWALLING or simply not replying to customers (by whatever means they can) who are pursuing any avenues of complaint, until the legal 30 days notice period has expired, and then insisting that they have no further right to pursue the matter any further!

7. REFUSING to accept that hidden within those same T&Cs, according to Section 10.1(d), any customer who wishes to leave their contract without penalty has every right to do so under law!

8. FORCING customers as a result to pursue the financially, emotionally and psychologically burdensome avenue of pursuing their case through court procedure, not only in order to be heard, but to gain the justice that they so richly deserve!

And all of this while STILL escaping ANY real scrutiny or punitive action by the official bodies that are supposed to police their industry such as the ASA, OFCOM, Consumer Ombudsman, etc.

And equally all of this WITHOUT even mentioning their secret trialling of their data management product called TRAFFICSENSE on their allegedly unlimited AYCE plans, without ONCE informing any customer that they were doing so, in contravention of their contracts, the law AND even their OWN ADVERTISING of said AYCE plan products!

As such, this too forms the basis of yet another "breach of contract" dispute in its own right!

I have even discovered a further issue whilst monitoring the Three timelines on Twitter, relating to Three's sneaky ways of operating their business.

It seems that in order to delay the legitimate cancellation of ANY contracts, and here I am referring even to those of customers whose contracts have naturally reached the end of their legal term, those same customers are being FORCED to hold on the phone for prolonged periods of time, and then often experiencing the dropping of their call by Three Customer Service personnel, consequently forcing the customer to ring back repeatedly and continually in order to attempt to cancel until frequently they simply give up!

Given all of the evidence above, Three clearly do NOT merit ANY further business whatsoever until they admit their many shortcomings and duplicitous business practices, and clean up their act!

digp

dudtwo very excellent summary.

digp

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?352441-Three-UK-Price-Increases

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html

RichA

Anyone keeping up with the Which? conversation? Like others, I cancelled by citing 10.1 and requesting PAC. Credit report shows account closed, settled, listed at £0.

Worth looking at yours if you went down a similar route...

Buzby

Isn't this just a rant? And one that could be applied to any service provider? (Giving you the opportunity to decline to do business with them and safe the problem being an issue for you?).

E-Commerce is here whether you like it ir not, and the vain hope that T&C's will remain set in tablets of stone totally unrealistic. Since the last 10 years or so has resulted in T&C's changing often, this is covered by the condition that they reserve the right to amend and change their terms when required, and the customer agrees to this as a condition of using the serives(s).

THis means that you are bound not by some historical document you have in a filing cabinet, but the CURRENT one that applies to all customers equally. As paper documents are not good at updating in Harry Potter style, referring to the web conditions is the only meaningful way, as if a term changes that you have an issue with, then your right to exercise a termination follows.

RichA

Historical document? Huh? I took the contract last year, and was under my first minimum term. That's hardly historical. Increases clauses are the same in both - they only talk of a notice period.

latecomer

Buzby wrote: »

THis means that you are bound not by some historical document you have in a filing cabinet, but the CURRENT one that applies to all customers equally. As paper documents are not good at updating in Harry Potter style, referring to the web conditions is the only meaningful way, as if a term changes that you have an issue with, then your right to exercise a termination follows.

But the terms which you accept are those at the time of taking out the contract and I believe you must be notified of any change to the terms following this. Should any of the changes be detrimental then you should have the right to leave without penalty. Obviously this ability to increase prices was already in the T&Cs and the only difference between 3 and the other networks appears to be the wording.

real1314

Buzby wrote: »

Isn't this just a rant? And one that could be applied to any service provider? (Giving you the opportunity to decline to do business with them and safe the problem being an issue for you?).

E-Commerce is here whether you like it ir not, and the vain hope that T&C's will remain set in tablets of stone totally unrealistic. Since the last 10 years or so has resulted in T&C's changing often, this is covered by the condition that they reserve the right to amend and change their terms when required, and the customer agrees to this as a condition of using the serives(s).

THis means that you are bound not by some historical document you have in a filing cabinet, but the CURRENT one that applies to all customers equally. As paper documents are not good at updating in Harry Potter style, referring to the web conditions is the only meaningful way, as if a term changes that you have an issue with, then your right to exercise a termination follows.

Please, educate yourself on:-

1. Contract Law
2. Consumer Rights Law
3. The concept of money saving

You're way, way, way behind. You're the equivalent of a lungfish jumping out of the sea and trying to evolve lungs so that you can play games with the humans.

Come back when you have read up on the above.
:cool:

sanibel686

I've been following this over on which? where I have posted five times on a particular subject, that of credit score if a customer leaves three. Three post a bad credit score to Experian who are then the keeper of that credit score for all other businesses to reference you against. I’ve asked Which 5 times now to pick up the phone and advise Experian that Threes terms are ambiguous and under dispute that it would be unwise to accept three’s credit determinations. If Experian accept this principle then three are left dead in the water and we can all leave without sanction. Of course they can still attempt to prosecute but that is far less likely and the courts are minded to take a balanced view which I for one would be willing to risk, but I wouldn’t risk my credit score. As I’ve said I’ve asked Which to make this call 5 times now, so far not a dickie-bird!
So I thought I'd ask here!

digp

which don't seem to very interested in actually pursuing this. their "complaint" to OFT is a gimmick. if they wanted to, they could make a supercomplaint. wonder why they are not doing so?