Tmobile price increase

DGKC

Sorry if its been posted but a petition for everyone to sign......

New user so cant post link but take the obvious spaces out and hopefully it works...


https:// submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/ 39714

DGKC

Ive got fed up of being ignored on all fronts now.

My course of action is as follows. Cancelling direct debit and not using phone. Sending pre court action letter. I have copies of all emails sent, letters sent via recorded delivery, and recordings made of each phone call between me and TM. Happily take this to the small claims court. Cant see any judge in the land siding with TM on this one. Its an obvious case of big company bullying individual paying customers with unlawful tactics.

Can post my pre court letter if anyone wishes to follow this course of action.

Thanks

Guys_Dad

DGKC wrote: »

Ive got fed up of being ignored on all fronts now.

My course of action is as follows. Cancelling direct debit and not using phone. Sending pre court action letter. I have copies of all emails sent, letters sent via recorded delivery, and recordings made of each phone call between me and TM. Happily take this to the small claims court. Cant see any judge in the land siding with TM on this one. Its an obvious case of big company bullying individual paying customers with unlawful tactics.

Can post my pre court letter if anyone wishes to follow this course of action.

Thanks

This is a credit record suicide note.

Your credit record will show you are in default, popularly known as trashed. That has serious repercussions for years.
It will never get to court for you to win any thing. You can't initiate action, unless you are claiming the difference between 3.3 and 3.2% increase. The network will simply pass debt to debt collectors to chase.

Anyone contemplating following this advice - don't!!!!!

DGKC

They are not legally allowed to take any financial recovery action while the account is in dispute, and I feel this is the only way to get there attention as they are completely ignoring my amicable attempts.

guys dad.... companies think they can treat customers this way because people are so accommodating, I don't believe at all this is "credit record suicide" as you so dramatically put it.

Of course I can initiate action against them, all other lines of resolution have been exhausted so court is now the next step. I don't believe for a second TM will let it go so far.

I fought 3 a few years back re poor signal and won long before it got to court. I cancelled direct debit, refused to pay early termination fee and after kindly advising the debt recovery agents of the full circumstances they didn't want to know and no action was ever filed against me.

RandomCurve

I have just spoken with CISAS to get some clarity on the basis that I can bring a case to them for both Orange and TM. I began by trying to discuss the Orange case, but the first thing they said was that a price rise is a business decision and they can't look at that - I explained that that was the T-Mobile ruling not the Orange ruling! The fact that they jumped straight to the business decision point I think is an indication of just how many T-Mobile customers have complained and just how heavily CISAS have been leaned on!

Regarding the T-Mobile case I wanted to get some clarity as to if there was any case that can be put together regarding the price the rise, but basically I was told no - any price rise is a business decision and CISAS can not look at that. I gave a hypothetical example as follows:
The company T&Cs allow a price rise of 10%, but they increase the price by 15% -I.e. they have breached their own T&Cs, would CISAS look at a case like that - and you can guess the answer - CISAS can't look at this as it is a business decision!

They did however say that I am still welcome to send a case to them and they will review it and decide if the can accept it or not.

I will be sending a case (but I have to wait until 6th June (8 weeks). The basis for my compliant will be:

1. My contract only allows TM to refer to February RPI, any other month is outside of my T&Cs
2. I have suffered material detriment as the RPI used is 3.3% whilst wage inflation has been 1.1%
3. T-Mobile are have not complied with OFT unfair contracts guidance as below:
   1. 12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways.
   2. • Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within narrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. As such they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.
4. The issuing of a PAC code being an unsolicited good, and payment being taken
5. Breach of clause 4.5 re Genuine dispute and continuing to take payment.

I don't necessarily expect to win at CISAS, but it then clears the way for court action where hopefully rulings are more independent.

DGKC

Guys_Dad wrote: »

This is a credit record suicide note.

Your credit record will show you are in default, popularly known as trashed. That has serious repercussions for years.
It will never get to court for you to win any thing. You can't initiate action, unless you are claiming the difference between 3.3 and 3.2% increase. The network will simply pass debt to debt collectors to chase.

Anyone contemplating following this advice - don't!!!!!

Whats the alternative, carry on being ignored, allow them to refuse me my rights in the hope I get fed up? Pay an early termination fee which I lawfully am entitled not to as per their own T&C's.

DGKC

Just had a very vague phone conversation with CISAS. Initially there was a backlog with complaints and it could take sometime before I receive a response, when I challenged this for an idea of the likely time frame I was then told my case would be reviewed today.

Does anyone know how much these CISAS cases cost TM? The trouble here is as individuals I feel we will continue to be ignored, I am pushing ahead with my own individual court action and until a case has been decided upon TM seem to be using the delaying/ignoring tactic believing people will eventually get tired and give up. I genuinely don't believe they will risk taking this to court and be prepared to use the defense of TM took a "business risk" and be able to offer a plausible lawful explanation as to how this fits in with the T&C's whereby customers can IMMEDIATELY cancel with no ETF on an as yet released APR rate.

Unfortunately I dont believe there will be enough people who are willing to continue with this and will play right into the hands of TM, sadly I think the only way to win this is by your own individual case. Its clear by reading this post there are a handful of us who are serious about seeing this through to its conclusion.

And to clarify with regards to my earlier post re cancelling my direct debit, I am using the provided PAC code which was specifically requested with no ETF however TM have yet again ingnored that and sent it with an ETF so I am paying the account upto date but will refuse the ETF fee as previously stated to them and reiterate my rights to cancel as per 7.2.3.3.

Guys_Dad

DGKC wrote: »

Whats the alternative, carry on being ignored, allow them to refuse me my rights in the hope I get fed up? Pay an early termination fee which I lawfully am entitled not to as per their own T&C's.

I am not on the network's side.

However, you need to know how credit records work. Every month, any organisation that you have a running payment with sends to the credit agencies the state of their customers' accounts.

Normally, for up to date accounts, this indicates "up to date". However, if you cancel your DD, the account will show that you have an outstanding amount and, possibly, the length of time or number of payments missing.

Now that is not taking any action against you, just reporting fact.
Any future credit or contracts will see that there is a default on your account and will probably not be interested in why, just that you are a defaulter. This forum has had only recently a contributor who lost a mortgage offer as a result - I think the thread was "Vodafone ruined my life" or similar.

Then we come to court action. If you don't pay anything, then just what would your claim be based on? Increased costs that you have declined to pay??? No, if you want to go to the SCC, then you have to pay and sue for the amount over the allowed increase or cancel, get your PAC code and then sue for the termination fee, once you have paid it.

But cancelling a DD is, as I have explained, credit suicide. But, go ahead, it's your decision, but there are too many threads on here reinforcing my post for anyone else to follow your route.

RandomCurve

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Then we come to court action. If you don't pay anything, then just what would your claim be based on? Increased costs that you have declined to pay??? No, if you want to go to the SCC, then you have to pay and sue for the amount over the allowed increase or cancel, get your PAC code and then sue for the termination fee, once you have paid it.

My thoughts on SCC were to claim for all payments (not just the increased amount) made since I requested termination. If I win T-M will have to pay them - plus expenses and then can:

1. Continue to take future payments - in which case we have a monthly appointment at the SCC -which will cost T-M as I will need to take time of work (unpaid) and possibly stay in a hotel overnight to attend court; or
2. Can give me a penalty free cancellation.

I would be happy either way!

RandomCurve

I sent the following to ofcom last night, copying in the media, Ed Vaizeye MP and consumer associations. I also separately forwarded it to my local MP and have asked for a meeting with him to discuss this issue. Please feel free to send and or amend and send to Ofcom and YOUR MP.

Re: Opportunity for ofcom to engage in an open debate with consumers

Dear Graham,

In my email to you of 10th May in regards to ofcoms statement that EE have acted reasonably with regards to T-Mobiles recent price rise (for which you asked Lauren to respond on your behalf) the Ofcom response to the following question:

“Who did you commission to examine the terms and conditions?” was as follows:

“Ofcom is aware of the issues you have raised and we have looked at the terms and conditions in question. However, your complaint appears to relate to how the terms and conditions have been applied rather than the terms themselves”.

The above response expressly states that Ofcom have already “looked at the terms and conditions in question” (in isolation – not as they are applied) and has found them to be “reasonable” (I’m not sure what Ofcom (the REGULATOR) means by “reasonable” – I thought a term was either FAIR or UNFAIR), therefore you should be able to respond to my request for information below very quickly.



In relation to Clause 7.2.3.3 in version 59 of T-Mobiles T&Cs can you confirm the following for me (for the avoidance of doubt I am NOT asking you to comment on how the term has been applied):

1. What does Ofcom mean by “reasonable”?
   1. How does Ofcom define reasonable? Please explain in a manner that enables a consumer to determine if the T&C is fair or unfair when the definition is applied to a stand-alone T&C (i.e. without looking at how it has been applied), and without a need for the consumer to seek legal advice?
      1. Should your explanation to the above be that you can only consider if the T&C is reasonable by looking at how it has been applied – and you have already stated that ofcom does not do this – on what basis did ofcom determine that EEs T&Cs are reasonable?
2. Why does Ofcom use the term “reasonable” and not FAIR or UNFAIR?
   1. As regulator with a stated principal duty of “furthering the interests of citizens and consumers” Ofcom must be seeking to add as much clarity into contracts as possible and the clear legal definitions are “fair” and “unfair.”
3. What was the rationale used to decide that the EE clause on price rises and consumer rights to penalty free cancellation was considered “Reasonable”?
4. What is ofcoms view (as regulator and with your principle duty of “furthering the interests of citizens and consumers”) on if the EE clause on price rises and consumers rights to penalty free cancellation term is FAIR or UNFAIR?

Once again for the sake of clarity the questions above ARE NOT to do with how the clause was applied, but how the Clause was assessed, and how the conclusion was reached by ofcom.

The clause in question reads as follows:
7.2.3.3. The change that We gave You Written Notice of in
point 7.1.4 is:

(i) an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the retail price index (also calculated as a percentage) or any other statistical measure of inflation published by any government body authorised to publish measures of inflation from time to time, and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice; and
(ii) You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect.

My interpretation - WITHOUT referring to the application of the clause - is that the clause is UNREASONABLE - which to me means UNFAIR under the OFT guidance 12.4 and 19.3, as endorsed by OFCOM.

Page 58 of the OFT guidance, relating to price variation clauses, states:
12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways.
• Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within narrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. As such they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.
• Terms which permit increases linked to a relevant publishedprice index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable, as paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations indicates, subject to the same proviso.

This T&C CLEARLY falls foul of this rule as the timing of the price rise is NOT specified – either precisely or within narrow limits.

Whilst the customer knows that TM have to use a rate published BEFORE the date in which they write, there is no clarity as to how quickly TM have to inform the customer of the rate it is using – the term “as close as reasonably possible” could mean anything from 1 week to six months plus, depending on a legal argument on what is and is not “reasonable”, therefore the consumer has no possible basis for cancelling a contract without penalty, without resorting to legal argument.




In addition given that TMhas total control over all of the variables associated with the price rise:

• TM alone drew up the T&Cs –there was no customer negotiation;
• TM has the sole power to decide which months RPI to use;
• TM has the sole power to decide when to send its price rise letter; and
• TM has the sole power to decide the date a price rise is effective from.

there is no possible reason why TM would need to include the word “reasonably”. The lack of a narrow limit on the timing of the term can only ever be used to the customers’ detriment and to give TM the ability to choose an RPI which best suits its profit line, i.e. TM could wait for two/three/four months and then choose the highest RPI in that period to apply - This is clearly unfair under the OFT guidance 12.4 (as endorsed by Ofcom) as stated above.
Further to the above how did Ofcom conclude that the new TM term “…..as close as reasonably possible…” was a narrower and more precise time definition (as required by OFT guidance on unfair contracts terms 12.4) than the clause in T-Mobiles previous T&Cs (pre 30th October 2012) “…..for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice”? i.e. to me it appears that TM have moved further away from complying with OFT 12.4 not moved closer to complying with OFT 12.4.

The T&C is also not compliant with Page 86 of the OFT guidance (endorsed by Ofcom), relating to plain and intelligible language, which states:

19.3 It follows that what is required is that terms are intelligible to ordinary members of the public, not just lawyers. They need to have a proper understanding of them for sensible and practical purposes. It is not sufficient for terms to be clear and precise for legal purposes, except in contracts normally entered only on legal advice.

The lack of a clear qualifier as to how far in advance an RPI is published means that the customer has no way of knowing what RPI TM can or cannot use. The current qualifier “as close as reasonably possible” makes the time frame ambiguous and therefore an unintelligible clause until it is applied and fought over by lawyers – ordinary members of the public would not be able to agree “reasonably” with TM, without having to resort to third party (CISAS/Courts) for guidance. As Ofcom have already stated they do not consider how a term is applied, then the term as a stand-alone term has to be unfair. For this term to be FAIR as a stand-alone T&C the phrase “published before” needs a more specific quantifier i.e. “published in the month before we write to you”, or “published two months before we write to you”. Therefore this term is clearly ambiguous as a stand-alone T&C, and is not compliant with OFT guidance 19.3 (as endorsed by Ofcom).

I look forward to receiving your response in due course, and would especially appreciate if you (Graham) would respond directly to me – a consumer.

Please bear in mind that I am interested in the specific legal arguments ofcom considered in determining that the clause was fair as a stand-alone clause - NOT as the terms have been applied.

As this is my second attempt to obtain a clear answer from you on this matter, I trust you will not hide behind either general platitudes, or some wish-washy argument that Ofcom can’t publish its rationale, but rather will embrace the opportunity to engage in a debate with consumers as to how Ofcom – the regulator with a principal duty of “furthering the interests of citizens and consumers” - considers and balances the legal arguments as to the fairness of a term in a stand-alone situation.

I shall raise the issue with the Parliamentary Ombudsman via my MP, should you attempt to side step my questions (which only relate to the T&Cs and NOT how they have been applied) by not providing clear and direct responses.

Regards