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

completelyterrified

Buzby wrote: »

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.

What you're saying here is incorrect. A great number of people, myself included, are finding that they're arguing that the change isn't "detrimental". Not "materially detrimental", which has a specific meaning defined by Ofcom, but simply "detrimental". They state that they've defined what is and isn't detrimental in clause 4.1biii. They haven't.

The terms state they're more than welcome to make a change to the contract, but if that change is detrimental to the consumer, the consumer has the right to cancel without charge. If they want to enforce a specific meaning of the word "detrimental", they have to define what that meaning is. They haven't, ergo the standard definition applies. Since I'm receiving exactly the same service but for a higher cost, it's definitely detrimental, in much the same way as it would be detrimental to Three (and against the terms) if I stated that my personal costs have risen, so I'm paying then 3.6% less per month.

Had they included the term "materially detrimental", as they have in their pay month T&Cs, that would have been different. They didn't though, so those on an iPhone contract are well within their rights to cancel without charge.

ferrit44

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Regrettably it's not "garbage" till the court rules against them and their t&c. Their employees are following instructions - and are right to do so as they have no discretion to overturn the company's t&c (and I suspect you didn't really expect them to roll over at this stage, eh?).

And, as far as being jokers, then they join the list of the other major networks who all have raised prices mid-contract, the only difference being the current dispute over their contract wording. Back to carrier pigeons and land-lines maybe?

You misunderstand me. They were refusing to give me a PAC code, advising me that I had to pay an ETC up front. That is, as we well know, complete garbage.

I disagree with their Ts and Cs as well, but that's a different point I was making.

Guys_Dad

ferrit44 wrote: »

You misunderstand me. They were refusing to give me a PAC code, advising me that I had to pay an ETC up front. That is, as we well know, complete garbage.

I disagree with their Ts and Cs as well, but that's a different point I was making.

Sorry, I misread that point and you are absolutely correct. Apologies.

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

This particular garbage they are spouting is not related to any court case, or the contract ts + cs!

It is a cynical tactic aimed at "ignorant" customers unaware of the PAC rules.

As shown by the way they quickly backed down and gave out a PAC to a customer who was aware of the PAC "rules".

As per previous post, I misread the point being made and you are correct.

Khal

Got my iPhone on the One Plan in mid-February 2012, so will be affected by the price rise until February 2014. Paid £69 upfront and agreed to pay £36 per month for 24 months. Today (11 June 2012) Three are offering the same iPhone on exactly the same price plan for £49 upfront and £34 per month. So new customers pay less than existing ones for the same service! Can this be legal?

Quentin

Khal wrote: »

.... Can this be legal?

Yes .

Rusty!

Khal wrote: »

Can this be legal?

Of course it can. Do you expect things to remain at the exact same price for eternity?

Quentin

grumbler wrote: »

......However, is it far too unreasonable to expect the prices to remain the same for the duration of the contract?....

Yes it's totally unreasonable to expect a supplier to hold prices for ever!

(These mobile contracts are not for fixed periods, they last until the customer wants to cancel them)

grumbler

I deleted my post almost instantly because I realised that I took Rusty's one out of context. Unlike Rusty, I meant the airtime prices, not the prices (or upfront charges) for the phones.

If you mean the airtime prices, then I stick to my guns. It is not unreasonable to expect the prices to remain the same for the duration of the minimum term. I said 'contract', not 'min term', but it was obvious what I meant.

Khal

Rusty! wrote: »

Of course it can. Do you expect things to remain at the exact same price for eternity?

Of course not. But neither do I expect an identical phone package to be offered at a lower monthly rate to new customers only - which is what Three are doing here. Sky, Talktalk etc. get round this by offering "6 months at half price" deals to lure new customers in. When the introductory discounted period ends, they pay the standard rate.