MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

completelyterrified

Idiophreak wrote: »

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.

That's not true though - it's still a detrimental change, because it leaves the user worse off, regardless of wage increases. There's nothing in the T&Cs relating to cost of living increases - there is however, a plain and basic statement that if they raise the cost, and it's detrimental to you, you can leave. The fact that a user's employer hasn't raised wages doesn't come into the matter - the terms simply dictate that a change which is detrimental to the user can be used to justify termination.

If my wage was £1000 per month 6 months ago, and my bill was £30, and I'm still earning £1000 per month now, but my bill is £31, I'm £1 a month worse off, because regardless of fluctuations in currency value, nothing has decreased in price. I'm not receiving any extra services, so I'm paying more for the same thing - I'm worse off. Simple as that.

Now, there's obviously a call to be made as to what you could justify as being "worse off" in terms of monetary values - that's where the rub lies.

Idiophreak

completelyterrified wrote: »

If my wage was £1000 per month 6 months ago, and my bill was £30, and I'm still earning £1000 per month now, but my bill is £31, I'm £1 a month worse off, because regardless of fluctuations in currency value, nothing has decreased in price. I'm not receiving any extra services, so I'm paying more for the same thing - I'm worse off. Simple as that.

...but that's the point...you're worse off because your employer has given you a pay cut. (ie not raised your wage in line with inflation). You're not worse off because of the change Three have made.

If your wage had risen with inflation, your wage would have grown to £1033 and you'd be no worse off by paying the extra £1.

coupleuk

I have a 15GB allowance each month which is costing me £15 - Im out of Contract.

Im confused by the price hike article on MSE.

The rise will also hit mobile broadband customers.

On a £30 monthly plan, this would represent a £1.08 monthly or £12.96 annual increase. The cost of calls and data will not rise.

It states the price rise will affect Mobile Broadband Customers BUT also says that data charges won't rise.

Which is it?

I only pay for data at £15/month so will my bill increase or not?

Anyone know?

Quentin

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Quentin, callum9999 and chanz4 - you three are exhibiting signs of business scruples having clearly screwed up and in need of a refresh.

If 3 mobile try it with me they will quickly find they are three contracts down and no they will not be smiling.

No - just pointing out that posts like yours telling us we can get out of our contracts are red herrings, and needlessly creating expectations.

And just cancelling your 3 contracts and expecting them to let you off without paying the early termination fees for all of them is dreamland!

daleski75

If the debacle about the orange and t-mobile increases are anything to go by playing the detrimental card ain't going to work and I am sure 3 will have a script ready to combat that as well.

Also do not under any circumstances stop your DD as this will wreck your credit history and you'll soon be having debt collectors knocking on your door,

NATOuk

(Long time lurker, first time posting)

I've been infuriated by Three's decision to increase monthly tariffs. I have read the terms and conditions upside-down, inside-out and I cannot see ANYWHERE where they are allowed to increase the monthly tariff without the other party (ie, me) being able to cancel the contract without penalty.

Compare this to Orange who have a very specific clause in their terms and conditions:

4.3 You may also terminate your Contract if we vary its terms, resulting in an excessive increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us telling you about the changes). However this option does not apply if:
4.3.1 we have increased the Charges by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices published by the Central Statistical Office in the Monthly Digest of Statistics in any 12 month period

Now, if Three had THIS clause in their terms and conditions then this would be an open-and-shut debate.

Personally I think it's a gamble on their part - Raise tariffs, resist and confuse people who query it as much as possible so people just accept it, and once it's in force anyone who hasn't rejected it is bound by the agreement to have accepted it. Then just deal with a small minority who fight them tooth and nail over it.

Before anyone says 'Oh it's just a small monthly increase of £x, what's the issue?', that's not the point. If *WE* had done something which wasn't covered by the T&Cs you can be sure Three would be holding us to our agreed contractual terms. In this instance, I am confident that the current T&Cs are not adequate to prevent people from ending their agreements without penalty as a result of this proposed increase.

I have spoken to Ofcom, Ombudsman Services Communications and Consumerline and I'm pretty confident that if I fight long and hard enough over this I'll be able to get released from my contract as stipulated in the contract.

System

aldredd wrote: »

They would argue that an increase in line with inflation isn't detrimental. This is the problem with having ambiguous T&Cs - always open to interpretation

Hi, I joined up to respond to this, I also am on three and recieved an email today.
the reference to the terms and conditions is correct. also, i need to point out 'contra proferentem' favours the party that did not draft the contract. if the term 'detrimental' is deemed to be ambiguous then this automatically favours us.
legal definition of the word detriment is not ambiguous though.

detriment - Any loss or harm to a person or property; relinquishment of a legal right, benefit, or something of value.

this change represents a relinquishment of something of value, that is money itself. the agreement is clear that the terms and conditions apply to the t&c plus the product package. there is a change to the package that is detrimental to us. we have a contractual right to end our agreement without additional charge if we choose to do so within a month of this notification.

Idiophreak

tremault wrote: »

legal definition of the word detriment is not ambiguous though. detriment - Any loss or harm to a person or property; relinquishment of a legal right, benefit, or something of value. this change represents a relinquishment of something of value, that is money itself.

No, the *contract* represents the relinquishment of something of value - because they take money off you each month. This change does not.

Thing of it in terms of eggs. If £30 bought you 100 eggs last year (probably organic free range jobs for that price ) - and this year £31 buys you 100 eggs...the "value" of £31 is the same as £30 last year - 100 eggs. So you're not relinquishing anything of greater value this year than you were last year.

aldredd

tremault wrote: »

Hi, I joined up to respond to this, I also am on three and recieved an email today. the reference to the terms and conditions is correct. also, i need to point out 'contra proferentem' favours the party that did not draft the contract. if the term 'detrimental' is deemed to be ambiguous then this automatically favours us. legal definition of the word detriment is not ambiguous though. detriment - Any loss or harm to a person or property; relinquishment of a legal right, benefit, or something of value. this change represents a relinquishment of something of value, that is money itself. the agreement is clear that the terms and conditions apply to the t&c plus the product package. there is a change to the package that is detrimental to us. we have a contractual right to end our agreement without additional charge if we choose to do so within a month of this notification.

The issue is though, that by increasing in line with inflation, the 'value' hasn't changed - in fact, they could go as far as to argue you've been getting it 'cheap' since shortly after you signed up.

(Remember, many people who have been getting no pay rise state they're worse off - this is because the value of the money has gone down - due to inflation)

Don't get me wrong, as per my earlier posts, I disagree with the notion of them increasing the prices for those within the minimum contract period, but getting them on whether an inflation-linked rise is 'detrimental' or not, I don't think will go far - but by all means try and report back, they may back down.

KTF

Thankfully my 24 month contract runs out at the end of this month and I have 'upgraded' to one of their SIM only plans which escapes this rise.