You can cancel your Orange contract!

Brummie85

Hi everyone.

I (like most of you here) was hit with the unannounced price rise from Orange. I took my contract out in July 2012, so I fall within the window of contracts with the faulty clause.

I have seen the Tom Forth site, used the generic template hosted there to mail to the EO at Orange/EE. They eventually responded with this:

"Thank you for your email dated 30 August 2013 regarding the above account.

I am sorry you are unhappy with the recent price increase. As a company we are committed to offering the best value for service which is why we kept the increase to a minimum. The increase was a result of the rising costs to our business and in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI), which is a measure of inflation.

We are obliged, as are all UK operators, to abide by condition 9.6 of the Ofcom/EU Framework for EU Regulations. This conditions sets out what we must do if a change is of material detriment to a customer, which is to provide 30 days notice and allow a customer to terminate their contract free of charge. When the changes are not of material detriment the customer does not have the right to terminate their contract.

In this instance the increase of 3.3% is considered to be reasonable as it is in line with the RPI and is not of material detriment to our customers. As such we have provided our customer's with 30 days notice (as stated in our Terms and Conditions) but there is no obligation for the company to allow its customers to terminate their contract without charge.

Your comments regarding the change in terminology of our Terms and Conditions has been noted. Since the change took effect after the date your agreement began, you remain bound by terminology used in the Terms and Conditions provided to you at this time.

Should you still wish to disconnect, this can be arranged. Although, a charge of £247.96 for number (removed) currently applies. This will lower as you progress through the agreement. To proceed with the disconnection, please contact me on 0800 0790032 or at the above email address. Our office hours are 08:00 to 20:00, Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 18:00 each Saturday.

Please be assured our customer's views are important to us and your comments are fully acknowledged"

I replied with:

"Thank you for your reply to my email.

I am disappointed that Orange/EE are failing to recognise & honour the issue of the contract we both agreed to participate within the boundaries of.

The original contract agreement references an obsolete & defunct government body to determine a reasonable inflation index to justify price increases to customer contracts. To put this into some context, the "All Items Index Of Retail Prices" did not exist when the contract was entered into. The "Central Statistical Office" behind this figure is also long-gone, closing in 1996.

If this index & government organisation no longer exists, then please explain to me how Orange/EE is able to use them to determine if a price increase is detrimental or not.

The contract I signed makes no reference to RPI or inflation rates. Therefore using these to determine if a price increase is detrimental is not permissible. It simply was not included in the terms that I agreed to.

The updated terms for signup were issued in November 2012, months after this contract had been agreed. I have not received notification of this update or signed anything agreeing to it.

I was not given 30 days notice or the ability to cancel, despite Orange/EE trying to reference out of date information & enforce terms that are not included within the contract.

I would like to quote something from your reply:

"Since the change took effect after the date your agreement began, you remain bound by terminology used in the Terms and Conditions provided to you at this time."

If I am bound to the terminology of the original agreement, then so is Orange/EE. That is how a contract works. Changes to terminology & the results thereof must be agreed & understood by both parties. Orange/EE failed to justify the price increase, failed to notify & are failing to stick within the agreement.

I will continue to pay my bills under protest whilst this issue is being addressed. But please do not think that I am satisfied with or accepting your explanation & justification. Nor am I willing to pay any exit early fee. Orange/EE are in breach of the agreed contract & are refusing to honour the terms laid out.

I am prepared to take this further if required. If Orange/EE will not resolve this the next step is for me to contact CISAS to provide you with an opportunity to mediate this problem. If either of these options fail to produce a satisfactory outcome, I am prepared to take Orange/EE to a small claims court to seek compensation for the continuing failure to comply with the original contract.

I eagerly await your reply & would expect from you within 7 working days"



I am just wondering what I should sort of expect from them back. I feel that I have made it clear that the price increase was not my only point, the way in which they are trying to justify it is the more pressing issue.

I am concerned slightly though. I don't have the welcome letter or even my original contract around. So some advice on how to prove the terms have changed (even though they say so in their reply) would be appreciated. :beer:

RandomCurve

They will probably completely ignore what you have said and just repeat that they have complied with General condition 9.6. Or you may be treated with an explanation that the government body publishing the statistic does not alter the operation of the clause - I had both responses at various stages.

Let us know what comes back.


I think their reply says that the T&Cs have NOT changed "Since the change took effect after the date your agreement began, you remain bound by terminology used in the Terms and Conditions provided to you at this time"

I read that as the time you took out your contract, not the time they updated the T&Cs for new customers.

The fact that they will quote the new T&Cs when replying to your emails seems to make no difference. I would write and ask them to explain WHY they are referring to the new T&Cs when they write to you rather than the T&Cs you are on. You will then have clear evidence for any subsequent CISAS case.

May be worth also asking them that as Material detriment needs to be judged on each individual case what personal information of yours have they based their assessment on that it is not of material detriment to you? And confirming that your contract only refers to DETRIMENT - not material detriment

Narnar

Hi I'm new to this site. I was just looking into cancelling my orange account dated June 2012 and came across this. I don't really understand how it works and if I will be eligible. I took out a contract for £36 pm but in may this year I increased that to £41 for extra data as I was being charged each month. Would this still apply or would this be a new contract as I altered my existing one? Any help or Info would be much appreciated.

Brummie85

Hi Narnar.

In a nuthsell it depends on if you signed/agreed to the updated terms. If you moved to a new price plan...there is a chance that they could have sneaked you onto the newer/updated terms & conditions.

You would need to check & dispute if possible. If they have put you on the new terms without notification, then you may still have options. If they sent you the terms or you signed. Probably not. WIthout knowing what has occurred in your case I cannot say.

RandomCurve

A Mixed day!

Received Just over £250 from T-Mobile for their price rise fiasco and a cheque arrived for £50 for Orange misleading me re the price being fixed. So that is the good news.:)

The Bad news is that my son lost his Orange CISAS case


Will give details later.

RandomCurve

On the substantive points re RPI and the CSI v ONS the adjudicator ruled in Orange's favour:

The customer states that the CSO has not existed for the last 16 years and that the “All Items Index of Retail Prices” is a collection of statistics, RPI is “flawed” and that any increase should be based on CPI. As the terms and conditions have not been updated, the price increase clause is invalid and unenforceable.

g. The company rejects this interpretation and maintains that simply because the name of the government body has changed, the RPI rate is still published and the increase has been applied in line with this and it is therefore not excessive.

h. Having considered the parties submissions I find that clause 4.3.1 is not unenforceable. The change of name of the statistical office does not invalidate the clause and monthly RPI rates have continued to be published. I note the customer’s comments in relation to the move towards favouring CPI as a method of calculating inflation; however RPI continues to be an accepted method for determining inflation and is linked to interest rates. The company has based its price increase on the RPI rate and I therefore conclude that the price increase is not of detriment to the customer and is not excessive.

The adjudicator clearly had not read the arguments correctly as stating "the price increase is not of detriment to the customer " is wrong by definition - anything that causes me to pay more for the same thing must be of determent. But it is also irrelevant as the price rise clause is NOT subject to the detriment rule!

On the ONS v CSO - I think this is a dead duck so won't be pursuing on this basis.

It gets worse on the argument that thee price rise clause is unenforceable. The adjudicator mistakenly thought that I had the T&Cs because my 3rd party documentation had a link to "Terms & Conditions" What I never said in my case or defence (Doh!!) was that the link is to the 3rd parties T&Cs (basically around delivery dates - nothing to do with the Orange service). They also failed to spot that the KEY terms highlighted to me in the sales documentation NEVER included the price rise clause - this part is definitely off the Small Claims Court.

RandomCurve

The adjudicators decision re the OFT:


The customer further disputes the validity of the clause as the company breached OFT guidance clause 12.4 by failing to prove that it “clearly and adequately” brought the price increase clause to his attention. The clause is “buried” on page 5 of 12, it is not “bold, highlighted, bigger or different”. The company failed to provide a copy of the contract and that the monthly prices were “mis-leading”, as he was not informed that they were subject to change.

j. I have already determined above that the terms and conditions dated 15th February 2011 are those, which are applicable to this contract. When orders are placed online it is common for the customer, on placing the order, to be informed that the agreement is subject to terms and conditions and that the customer is required to confirm acceptance. I have not been provided with any details of the online ordering process but I note that the order confirmation provides a link to “terms and conditions”.

k. Clause 15 of the terms and conditions permit changes to the customer’s contract and this is highlighted in bold print. This clause also cross-references clause 4.3, which specifies in bold the circumstances in which the customer can terminate his contract because the company has changed its terms and this also cross-references clause 15.1.

l. I do not find that the above terms are unfair or complex and the provisions are in a plain and intelligible language and the titles have been placed in bold print. In these circumstances, I do not find that the company has breached the OFT guidance or UTCCRs.

Just reading "k2 of the decision is enough to show the complexity. Also the "headings" do not state "Right to increase prices" which would be a requirement of the UTCCRs. Ad I have already mentioned the link to the T&Cs mentioned has nothing to do with the Orange T&Cs.

So will be taking this one to the SCC.

DamePeggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

The Bad news is that my son lost his Orange CISAS case


Will give details later.

Sorry to hear your son’s result. That’s definitely disappointing, not least as it again shows an adjudicator with a bias towards the companies interpretation of the term, against the general principle that the interpretation of the consumer should prevail.

It also beggars belief that simply providing (or not) a set of Ts&Cs with price-rise clauses hidden under headings that don’t mention price-rises, with one referring back to another a few pages earlier, can reasonably be considered as ‘clearly and adequately’ bringing the terms to your attention.

I’ve been away on holiday and was delaying my partner’s CISAS claim and my SCC case until I got home. Let's hope the SCC isn't as much of a lottery as CISAS are proving to be (one win, two losses - albeit with both of those losses having quite serious issues with the way it was handled).

DamePeggy

Just to keep you updated, we've just submitted my partner's CISAS complaint (keeping it simple on the basis of the non-existent publication and failure to adequately bring the clause to her attention).

I have also emailed Orange / EE informing them of my intention to take them to the SCC (Pre-Action notification). If I don't hear back from them in two weeks I'll be off to the SCC immediately. I'm claiming for the refund of all payments since I informed them that I wanted to cancel until the end of the contract (in August).

RandomCurve

My son has just sent his rejection of the CISAS ruling to CISAS and stating he will pursue through the SCC (but only for the price rise being unenforceable due to not being Clearly and Adequately drawn to his attention). Decided not to pursue the CSO/ONS issue as it I am looking for clarity of the case so that the ruling can be published and thereby hopefully opening up the flood gates for 20 million other customers to follow suit (if he wins)!!!

Should I open up a new Forum on the "legality of Price Rise clauses in mobile phone contracts" or just keep posting on this one? I want to publish "step by step" the process, my letters and the responses.