Three Mobile price-hike: customers may be able to cancel contracts without penalty

Quentin

matrix999 wrote: »

.....I'm wanting to cancel under sec 10.1 due to the price increase and challenge them in court over their terms and conditions. Three are coming out of some rubbish that i need to pay the ETC just now before they will issue the PAC??

The PAC "rules" don't allow this.

Read up on these and challenge them over this.

michaeljtbrooks

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Would this SCC case be claiming the excess monthly costs or any cancellation charges that 3 would hit you with if you cancelled unilaterally?

My understanding is that the small claims case is being instantiated by Andrew Dyson, the Oxford Fellow in Contract Law to reclaim the cancellation charges he has paid and to gain a court decision on whether or not his cancellation met clause 10.1d).

If his cancellation was found to meet the terms of 10.1d), Three will be liable for both parties court costs and associated expenses, Andrew's termination charge, and fully liable for any damages Three have caused to him by harming his credit score.

Should this case succeed then it sets a legal precedent for all others in a similar situation with a similar contract. A customer would simply need to state to Three that they were aware of Dr Dyson's case once it had concluded, and intended to pursue Three in the same way. Because of the legal precedent set, the customer would have a guaranteed win, thus Three would know it they will end up incurring far more costs by allowing the customer to take them to small claims than by settling and giving the customer what they want.

So the upshot is this:

If you are in the same position and were to today state to Three that you intend to cancel under your rights under 10.1d) and have made a record of this (I'd suggest corresponding in writing), and be refused by Three, you would have an extremely strong case to retrospectively claim back your monthly contract fees from the day of notice once Dr Dyson's case is concluded (assuming it is found in his favour).


So, while I disclaim any liability for others following or not following anything I have said, the action I have taken is this:

1) Rang up Three customer services (333), and stated I wish to exercise my rights under 10.1d) in response to their "materially detrimental" change of a price increase. Argued with customer services when they tried to claim that a below RPI price increase "isn't materially detrimental" (it IS - see Dr Dyson's paper). Also argued with them when they claimed that Section 4.1b negates my rights to cancel under section 10 in the case of below RPI increases (the section does NOT state that).

2) Stated at the end of the call to Three Customer Services that I am giving my notice to cancel under 10.1d) and failure of them to cancel my account without penalty constitutes a breach of contract on their part.

3) Sent a written complaint to Three mobile [www (dot) three.co.uk/Support/Contact_us/Complaints_code_form] stating that:
- I have given my notice to cancel under section 10.1d) in response to Three's notice of price increase.
- I have been unjustly refused this contractual right, thus this constitutes a breach of contract by Three
- That Three Customer Services have knowingly misrepresented the clauses in their contract by trying to claim that Section 4.1b) has a wider scope than it does

4) Sent a copy of my complaint to the Office of Fair Trading, the telecoms Ombudsman and Ofcom.


If enough Three customers kick up a fuss in this way, then Three will have no choice but to allow customers their right to cancel without penalty, else face a PR disaster. Should they choose the latter, then Dr Dyson's case will hopefully force Three by way of legal precedent to allow customers the cancellation rights they agreed to anyway.

So do it. If you are affected by the price hike ring up Three, tell them you want to cancel under 10.1d) citing Dr Dyson's arguments and if they refuse fire off a complaint to Three. Don't stop your Direct Debits or agree to cancel your contract with an early termination charge, just wait for Dr Dyson's case to come through. You can make a retrospective claim afterwards.

grumbler

michaeljtbrooks wrote: »

...to reclaim the cancellation charges he has paid and to gain a court decision on whether or not his cancellation met clause 10.1d).

If his cancellation was found to meet the terms of 10.1d), Three will be liable for both parties court costs and associated expenses, Andrew's termination charge, and fully liable for any damages Three have caused to him by harming his credit score.

If he has paid the charges and is reclaiming them, I don't see how Three may harm the credit score and why would he need a decision "on whether or not his cancellation met clause 10.1d".

matrix999

Finally managed to convince them to issue the PAC without paying the ETC.. What a carry on though!! That Three Mobile are needing a good kick up the a**e!!

digp

matrix999 wrote: »

Finally managed to convince them to issue the PAC without paying the ETC.. What a carry on though!! That Three Mobile are needing a good kick up the a**e!!

Would be pleased to learn how you managed this.

Were you on the iphone contract also?

barmeepbanameepninibom

i'm going to do it too, for both of my contracts (mobile broadband and the iphone 4).

i did, over the phone, offer to take a credit on my account for the cost of the increase they were proposing but was told no one in all of Three UK has the power to authorise such a thing :S

so now they're losing £60 a month just from me for the sake of £2 extra they would have made.

crazy crazy people...

was it Confucius who said, "Ain't nowt queer as folk"?

michaeljtbrooks

grumbler wrote: »

If he has paid the charges and is reclaiming them, I don't see how Three may harm the credit score and why would he need a decision "on whether or not his cancellation met clause 10.1d".

I don't know enough of the specifics of the claim beyond what I've said, but I would suggest that:

The basis for his claim is that Three breached their side of the contract thus he is not liable for any such penalty charges that Three would be permitted to make under that same contract. Therefore the court needs to rule on whether or not Three breached the contract which will hinge upon whether refusing Dr Dyson his right to cancel without charge under 10.1d) constitutes a breach.

Such a court ruling would have two effects in terms of setting legal precedent: 1) that people in Dr Dyson's circumstances are entitled to cancel under 10.1d), and that 2) Three is in breach of contract if they refuse such entitlement to customers under the same Terms. It is the legal precedent here which is what Dr Dyson is interested in, not really the money.

I do not know for certain whether Dr Dyson has paid the ETC or not, but from my correspondence with him it sounds as though he has.

Guys_Dad

Well, I would not even remotely argue with an Oxford Fellow in contract law ! I wish him well.

And, of course, if he has paid the ETC, then there is little likelihood of him having an adverse comment on his Credit Record.

Worth keeping an eye on.

If he wins, I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of 3's Contract adviser!!!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Half the problem with ETC's is they sting the customer for the cost of all remaining line rental.

What should really happen is they customer pays only for the residual value of the handset. After all the handset isn't really "free" is it, we all know that. If it is totally free why does the phone company need to lock you in?

Anyway every time I hear of someone taking on a "new contract" I think "stoopid eejit".

In fact isn't it arguably incredibly sad that mobile phone companies have brainwashed society into believing how essential thier airtime and handsets are? Cast your mind back to the days before the mass mobile phone rush? We all managed to live our lives absolutley fine.

Buzby

Speculation, and ultimately nonsensical. Tariffs are not relevant in the context of a service contract - just because there is no reference to it does not mean any deficiency in the drafting (as it would be an irrelevance). A court would have to decide if the increase as 'reasonable' and I'd suggest in these straitened times, 3.5% would be.

As for precedent setting - of course there won't be, and there could never be. This is a small claim only, and the outcome will have no bearing on any similar action.