You can cancel your Orange contract!

DamePeggy

Apologies for the typos, I'm in a bit of a rush this morning...

I've just received my decision from CISAS and I have to say that I'm pretty annoyed about it.

The adjudicator agreed that it all came down to the interpretation of Clause 4.3.1. and that the term was indeed unequivocal, but that he had to take into account the intention of the parties and so found in EE's favour.

I'm doubly annoyed about this as he is accepting an argument that EE didn't actually provide in their defence, and so I didn't get the chance to challenge it.

The paragraph in their defence document I received from EE relating to this issue was truncated and made no mention of this concept. I expressly asked CISAS to either consider my complaint solely on the basis of what I'd received or, if they had a full copy, to send me the full wording so that I could response accordingly.

From EE's response to RandomCurve, it is clear that this is where the intentions of the parties defence actually appeared.

So you can imagine that finding that the adjudicator has used these specific wording in his judgement is hugely annoying.

I would very likely have made a defence like RandomCurve did in post #117 above. I certainly would have pointed out that it was my manifest understanding that EE had to produce a speific, named, document, and when I took out this contract I knew that this doc didn't exist.

Anyway, for what it's worth, here are the relevant parts of the decision for your info...



“e. The validity and application of clause 4.3.1 is therefore the key issue in dispute and in
particular the precise interpretation to be given to the clause. I note that the wording of
the clause is very specific. Reference is made to aparticular government department
and a particular publication. Since these no longerexist the customer submits that the
clause should therefore fail. It also refers to the“All Items Index of Retail Prices”
commonly known as the RPI or Retail Price Index. The customer invites a strict
interpretation of the wording.

f. However, I must have regard to the intention of the parties and the purpose of the
clause. The intention of the parties is to allow a get out for the customer if the company
imposes new detrimental terms during the fixed term contract. It allows the customer to
terminate the contract if the company increases its prices over the RPI. The precise
mechanics of which government office supplies the RPI or in what publication this
information is supplied in is not relevant.

g. Nor is the clause ambiguous or suffering from lack of clarity. On the plain reading of the
clause it is clearly making reference to the official government published Retail Price
Index or RPI. Apart from the reference to an historic source of the data the meaning of
the clause is clear. RPI data is now published by the Office of National Statistics and
what constitutes the RPI is understood by everyone without difficulty.

h. Having regard to the intention of the contracting parties, the purpose of the clause and
the fact that on its plain reading it is clear and unambiguous I find that the reference to a
defunct government office and an older publication does not invalidate clause 4.3.1. The
clause is still workable and understandable.”

powerful_Rogue

DamePeggy,

Really sorry to hear that. Thats a bit of a shocking result.

Really cant believed they sided with EE, agreeing that using a defunct department and defunct document is acceptable.

RandomCurve

DP

Sorry to hear that. I don't think this bodes well for my claim either - unless the adjudicator accepts that there is ambiguity over what the manifest intentions of the parties are.

Did you put in a claim for compensation regarding EE breaching its duty of care by misleading you by quoting the wrongs T&Cs? I have so even if I lose the right to cancellation I might possibly receive enough compensation (£50) to cover the rise.

I have two points that I am claiming against - the other being that EE did not bring the price rise clause clearly and adequately to my attention. I claimed the same in my T-Mobile claim, but as the adjudicator found in my favour on the first issue (wrong RPI rate used) they declined to consider any further arguments as they would not have added to what I was entitled to.
So potentially if I do lose on the reference to the CSO the adjudicator will then need to pass a judgement on the "mis-selling" claim. Now if I win that one that would open the flood gates to everyone!!!!

powerful_Rogue

DP,

Will you be taking this any further such as the small claims court?

I seriously cant understand how a company can quote a defunct government department and a defunct document on which to base its price rises and the adjudicator to find it acceptable. Why did EE change this section of their t&c's of it wsnt an issue.

DamePeggy

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

DP,

Will you be taking this any further such as the small claims court?

I seriously cant understand how a company can quote a defunct government department and a defunct document on which to base its price rises and the adjudicator to find it acceptable. Why did EE change this section of their t&c's of it wsnt an issue.

Yes I will probably be taking this to the SCC, but I'm not in any hurry as my contract has now ended anyway. I'm going to be really interested to see the adjudicator's response to RC's claim - just to see how he approaches the issue of the OFT regs that RC raised.

I'm still very annoyed, if not surprised, that the CISAS adjudictor found for EE by using a concept that I hadn't had the chance to address.



The CISAS system, however, means that once the decision has been made there's little you can do to get them to explain it - regardless of how perverse or partial the decision seems.

RandomCurve

DamePeggy wrote: »

Yes I will probably be taking this to the SCC, but I'm not in any hurry as my contract has now ended anyway. I'm going to be really interested to see the adjudicator's response to RC's claim - just to see how he approaches the issue of the OFT regs that RC raised.

I'm still very annoyed, if not surprised, that the CISAS adjudictor found for EE by using a concept that I hadn't had the chance to address.



The CISAS system, however, means that once the decision has been made there's little you can do to get them to explain it - regardless of how perverse or partial the decision seems.

Just put in my Sons calim and "beefed it up" as follows - so might be something else to use at SCC depending on the out come:


It should also be noted that the contract does not refer to the RPI, but to the” All Items Index of Retail Prices”, and whilst the CSO hasnot published any statistics the Office of National Statistical has. It is clear from that publication that the “All Items Index of Retail Prices” is not just one statistic, but a collection of statistics that include:

· The Consumer Price Index (CPI)

· The Retail Price Index (RPI)

· Harmonised price index

· House price Index, and

· Wage inflation index.

And the ambiguity that this causes is which statistic should be chosen? And who has the right to choose it? All of the statistics form part of the “All Items Index of Retail Prices”, and indeed the prominent statistic is the CPI which stood at 2.7% for the year ended January 2013. Therefore Orange has no right to claim that either:

The Central Statistical Office equates to the Office of National Statistics, nor that the All Prices Index of Retail Prices is equivalent to the RPI, because the All Prices Index of Retail Prices is a collection of statistics not just one.

The following link will take you to the ONS website where they explain the different indices, and if you then follow the link on that page to either the CPI or RPI it takes you to the CPI as this is the predominant inflation statistic.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/december-2012/sty-a-tale-of-many-price-indices.html

DamePeggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

DP

Did you put in a claim for compensation regarding EE breaching its duty of care by misleading you by quoting the wrongs T&Cs? I have so even if I lose the right to cancellation I might possibly receive enough compensation (£50) to cover the rise.

I did consider the breach of duty of care in this complaint, but wanted to keep it simple.

I did, however, raise it in my first CISAS complaint noting all of the following:

• That they’d repeatedly read me the wrong terms.
• That a manager would never call back when they’d promised to do so (repeatedly).
• That they’d also pointed me to the new (wrong) terms on their website and that their staff had no idea of the old terms existence.
• That they’d removed the old ones from their website – with all evidence that they were treating them as a special case.
• That they’d included demonstrably false claims in their CISAS defence.
• That they didn’t respond to my written request to cancel.
• That they’d closed their customer service email so I had to contact their CEO to get anywhere at all.

None of this, in CISAS’s view was sufficient to demonstrate a breech of duty of care. So, with the bar set so high to prove a breach, and as no one from EE had in the meantime come round and relieved themselves down the back of my telly, I didn’t think it worth the effort this time. I hope your complaint proves otherwise!

DamePeggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

It should also be noted that the contract does not refer to the RPI, but to the” All Items Index of Retail Prices”, and whilst the CSO hasnot published any statistics the Office of National Statistical has. It is clear from that publication that the “All Items Index of Retail Prices” is not just one statistic, but a collection of statistics that include...

I too will be making another CISAS complaint on behalf of my partner who has a more recent contract (so worth more to us to have a successful cancellation). I take on board all of your points raised in the list of the stats that the ONS publishes under the banner of ‘All Items’.

It also occurred to me that even if a strict interpretation of ‘The All Items Index of Retail Prices’ = RPI is accepted, there is also still grounds for ambiguity.

The RPI is a statistic drawn from a weighted measure of the change in prices of a ‘basket’ of goods and services., the specific make up of which is changed yearly. So there’s every reason to conclude that the RPI specifically of the CSO in the Monthly Digest (as long ago as 1996) is not the same statistic as the RPI from the ONS published in the Bulletin of Statistics. In this respect, the specific publication involved is indeed directly relevant.

For what it’s worth, I’ve also written back to CISAS asking how it could be fair that they have made their adjudication on the basis of an argument that wasn’t made in the version of EE’s defence that I received. Asking that given there is every indication that this argument was available to the adjudicator, but not to me, I should reasonably have the opportunity to respond to it.

DamePeggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

It should also be noted that the contract does not refer to the RPI, but to the” All Items Index of Retail Prices”, and whilst the CSO hasnot published any statistics the Office of National Statistical has.

You might also note that Googling 'All Items Index of Retail Prices' leads directly to a page on the ONS site, called 'Subtopic: Retail Prices Index' that deals with summaries of the CPI, not RPI.

Similarly putting the same term into the ONS website search itself comes up with documents dominated by the CPI.

Also in the 'Statistical Bulletin' that EE want to reference, the only measure there stated as an 'All Items Index of' anything is the CPI.

RandomCurve

DamePeggy wrote: »

Also in the 'Statistical Bulletin' that EE want to reference, the only measure there stated as an 'All Items Index of' anything is the CPI.

Thanks DP - based on the above we have resubmitted my sons claim by adding the following (hope we were not too late)

Orangealso makes reference to the Statistical bulletin and again if this is enteredinto a search engine the main statistic published here is the CPI which forJanuary 2013 was 2.7% - less than the 3.3% that Orange are applying. The ONShas declassified the RPI as a “National Statistic” because it is a flawed a statisticas per the following from the ONS Statistical bulletin:

(RPI) and RPIJ

In accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the Retail Prices Index and itsderivatives have been assessed against the Code of Practice for OfficialStatistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation asNational Statistics. The full assessment report can be found on the UKStatistics Authority website.

Pleas follow link:

Statistical Bulletin - Office for National Statisticswww.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317813.pdf

In summarythe 3 items stated in the clause are as follows:

1. The CSOhas not published any Statistics

a. Therefore any price rise is higher than anyfigure published by this body and my right to a penalty free termination istriggered

2. “AllItems Index of Retail Prices” is not just one statistic, but a collectionof statistics

a. It would be incorrect to translate this term asmeaning RPI as the term actually relates to a collection of statistics of whichRPI is just one

b. RPI has also been declassified as a Nationalstatistics which further adds to the argument that this clause cannot betranslated to mean the RPI

3. The Statisticalbulletin mainly refers to the CPI

a. The ONS statistical bulletin relates to the CPInot the RPI

Without prejudice to my claimthat any rate referenced that is not published by the CSO triggers my right toa penalty free cancellation, the nearest statistic that could be inferred intothe contract would be the CPI as this is the statistic that appears within ONSunder both the “All Items Index of Retail Prices” and the “Statistical Bulletin”.The annual CPI for January 2013 was 2.7% which is lower than The RPI figurethat Orange has applied which was 3.3%.