Tmobile price increase

arturbdg

alcot33uk wrote: »

It's dull. Everyone bangs on about it every year.

What everyone bangs about every year is the fact that price increase is crap, what happened this year is that T-Mobile clearly did not followed their own T&C for Post October 2012 customers and for Pre October 2012 T&C are ambiguous and due to various facts which I will not get into the price increase was also applied incorrectly.

For me I don't care about the price increase - everyone did it at some point. I was with T-Mobile last year when the price increase was applied and still am with T-Mobile as I like their Internet usage policy, but now T-Mobile breached their terms which in turn allow the customers to leave without the penalty and that I will not put up with.

And for your comment that everyone brags about it - Orange once made a price increase incorrect and they (after a long struggle) allowed the customers to leave and also cancelled the increase as well. With that in mind yes it is worth taking time to read the small print and make sure that both sides follow up

anna2007

alcot33uk wrote: »

As I stated it is immoral, not illegal.

Last time I checked, breach of contract was a legal matter.

You really should read some of the thread, to gain an understanding of the issues which, although brought about by the price increase, have little to do with the price increase in itself.

anna2007

RandomCurve wrote: »

Has everyone seen the news re OFT getting a telling off?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2013/05/mps-brand-oft-ineffective-for-not-protecting-vulnerable

I will be writing to Graham at Ofcom later with a link to the story and copy in Margret Hodge and Ed Vaizeye (plus some journalists - plenty have covered the OFT story). Asking Graham if he thinks in light of this Ofcom should get a little more proactive in this dispute! And how it might reflect on Ofcom should TM customers actually be right!

Maybe worth others doing the same - the more that write the more notice it will get.

Sent the following to Ofcom's Graham earlier today, as a follow up to the complaint I sent him last Friday (copied to Margaret, Ed and 30 media contacts who ran the OFT story):

Dear Mr Howell,

I read with interest a news story published in the media earlier today, in which the OFT is heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee over its failings in relation to loan sharks and payday lenders.

I could not help but draw comparisons to my own experience of Ofcom, regarding my complaint against T-Mobile relating to their obvious breach of contract over the recent RPI price increase; their deadlock refusals for referral of customers' complaints to CISAS; their inappropriate and dishonest conduct towards their customers; the unfairness of the relevant contract term; and Ofcom's inaction and indifference in relation to these issues.

You will be aware that CISAS, after initially accepting customers' complaints relating to T-Mobile's contract terms, then deciding to refuse these on the grounds that the breach of contract stemmed from a "business decision", have now, since yesterday, performed yet another U-turn and are now accepting these complaints. It has to be said that the behaviour and actions of CISAS, T-Mobile and Ofcom regarding this issue has been strange at best, and bordering on farcical. I am unsure of how you can expect the Government or the consumer to have any confidence in Ofcom as Communications regulator when you are prepared to allow and endorse T-Mobile's conduct.

I await your response to my complaint sent on 24 May 2013.

Best Regards,

Guys_Dad

There is a precedent about breaking the t&c of a contract.

Merchant of Venice Act IV, scene 1, lines 164–396. Shows that a contract needs to be specific.

For Shylock, read T-Mobile.

ruflonger

Ofcom reference: 1-********

31 May 2013

Dear Ruflonger

Thank you for your email about the manner in which T-Mobile has applied its terms and conditions.

Although your own concerns were not specific, we are aware that some consumers have concerns with the RPI figure used by EE as the basis to calculate its recent price increases for T-Mobile customers. As you have mentioned, this issue appears to relate to how the terms and conditions have been applied rather than the terms themselves. As such, Ofcom would encourage consumers to escalate their complaint to the redress scheme, CISAS, which will assess their complaint and reach an impartial decision.

CISAS has confirmed that it will assess complaints relating to how terms and conditions have been applied. This is in addition to any claims raised about the procedures followed by the operator to introduce the price increase and customer service issues. CISAS can be contacted at:

CISAS
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street
London
EC4Y 1EU

Phone: 020 7520 3827
Email: info@cisas.org.uk
Website: https://www.cisas.org.uk

In terms of what constitutes material detriment, Ofcom has not defined this, although the requirement was intended to reflect current consumer protection in this area. That is, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, contract terms are unfair if, amongst other things, they create a “significant imbalance” in the consumer’s and supplier’s rights and obligations under the contract. With respect to price increases, the UTCCRs provide that terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable (i.e. not unfair), provided the method by which prices vary is explicitly described.

Finally, we are aware of consumer frustration over the issue of price increases during fixed-term contracts and are reviewing this practice. A consultation on this issue (which included proposals to allow consumers to exit their contract penalty-free in the event of any price rise), has now closed. We are considering responses to our consultation carefully and will announce our decision in due course.

I hope this information proves useful.


Yours sincerely


Consumer Contact Team

RandomCurve

ruflonger wrote: »

Ofcom reference: 1-********

31 May 2013

Dear Ruflonger

Thank you for your email about the manner in which T-Mobile has applied its terms and conditions. .........

In terms of what constitutes material detriment, Ofcom has not defined this, although the requirement was intended to reflect current consumer protection in this area. That is, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, contract terms are unfair if, amongst other things, they create a “significant imbalance” in the consumer’s and supplier’s rights and obligations under the contract. With respect to price increases, the UTCCRs provide that terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable (i.e. not unfair), provided the method by which prices vary is explicitly described. ...........

I hope this information proves useful.


Yours sincerely


Consumer Contact Team

Thank you - it is interesting that Ofcom you use the term "explicitly described" rather than "within narrow limits if not precisely" they seem to be using language which puts distance between OFT fair terms guidance (which Ofcom endorse) and the criteria they use. However "explicitly described" does suggest that the word "published" should be part of the T&C - so some hope for pre Oct 2012 customers?


Page58 of the OFT guidance, relating to price variation clauses, states:

12.4 A degree of flexibilityin pricing may be achieved fairly in the following ways.

• Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (withinnarrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed price. As suchthey are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and adequately drawn tothe consumer's attention.

anna2007

ruflonger wrote: »

With respect to price increases, the UTCCRs provide that terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable (i.e. not unfair), provided the method by which prices vary is explicitly described.

Consumer Contact Team

So by Ofcom's own admission, price increases linked to an unpublished RPI are likely to be unacceptable, i.e. unfair!!

Lifes_Grand_Plan

Hi folks,

Just checking in... i've been on holiday for a week so have caught up on the goings on. Things are seemingly looking up a little.

I too had a letter advising that T-Mobile have requested extra time to submit I got this letter I submitted some new evidence so have since had an e-mail to say if I definately want to submit the new evidence, it will restart the process. I'm not bothered about that, just takes more time and effort for T-Mobile = more cost.... and all so they could bill me more pennies per month... crazy!

Anyway keep up the good fight everyone

RandomCurve

Email below sent to Ofcom, Ed Vaizeye, Margret Hodge, my own MP, Mr Swantee :wave:, Journalists, and Consumer Groups.

I will write direct to the 3 MPs later this week to try and engage them more fully.


Dear Graham,

No doubt you are aware of the findings of the Public Accounts Committee on the effectiveness (ineffectiveness) of the OFT.

I was struck by the startling similarities between the criticism of the OFT and how, from a customer perspective, ofcom has operated in relation to the current T-Mobile scandal where T-Mobile are clearly imposing a price rise higher than allowed under its T&Cs and the subsequent bullying of customers, and the whole matter of “fixed contracts” actually containing hidden price rise clauses. I have cited examples at the end of my email of the behaviour of T-Mobile, which Ofcom has judged as “reasonable” and the behaviour of ofcom as compared to the criticism of the OFT.

The above said the purpose of this email is to reiterate my offer to engage in a debate with ofcom as per my email to you of 29th May (reply still not received), and further to offer my assistance to Ofcom so that it can investigate the on-going situation with the current T-Mobile (and Orange in limited cases) price rise.

As a consumer – one of 2 million – who is currently suffering under the bullying* tactics of T-Mobile in its frantic attempt to cover up the error it has made in applying the wrong RPI to its customers, I implore you to contact me and discuss what has actually been happening (extract from the report on the OFT “The report adds that the OFT "needs better intelligence so it can prevent consumer harm and it should apply tougher sanctions more swiftly when it is aware of poor practice") I am prepared to be part of that intelligence for ofcom, and I know of others that will too – contact me.
*Bullying - use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

I look forward to hearing from you soon so that I can assist ofcom (free of charge) in its role as regulator to ensure that you have all the necessary facts to investigate this matter proactively, effectively, and forcibly.

Regards


X

Cited OFT failings that currently - from a consumer perspective - could be applied to Ofcom.

1 - “but the OFT hasn't taken the tough action needed to protect consumers.”. "ineffective and timid in the extreme" in tackling the problem.

When CPs introduced midterm price hikes the ofcom “tough action” was……..to hold a consultation! Ofcom could just have easily ruled that unless a CP can PROVE that it had clearly and adequately drawn to the consumer's attention the price rise clause then it is unfair per OFT rules para 12.4 (that would be more comparable with what happened in the endowment policy and PPI mis-selling scandals). Even the BBC has broadcast evidence that CPs do not comply with this rule, but still ofcom hides behind a “consultation”.

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.

2 –[Margaret] Hodge says: "The Office of Fair Trading, the regulator of this sector, has been ineffective and timid in the extreme. It passively waits for complaints from consumers before acting.”

In many respects the OFT was actually better than ofcom at this. When I contacted you about T-Mobile using the wrong RPI in its May 9th price rise, rather than thinking – “they would have applied that to all 2 million customers we had better take a look” - ofcom simply pushed the matter under the carpet as follows “we can’t look at individual cases”.

3 - “Such disgraceful practices by the shabby end of the market cost borrowers an estimated £450million or more each year”

The disgraceful practices by the whole of the CP market with regard to hidden price rise clauses have probably cost customers several £100s of millions!

Background and examples of behaviour that CLEARLY demonstrate that T-Mobile has both increased its prices by a rate that triggers penalty free cancellation, and has since then acted in a most unreasonable manner to prevent customers exercise their rights.



The post Oct 2012 contract price rise term includes the phrase “….and published on a date as close as reasonably possible before the date on which We send You Written Notice” . Remember this is not an individual case, but is applicable to about 300,000 customers!

1. The price rise letter was received on 6th April stating “current RPI 3.3%”
2. The actual current RPI was published 19 days before on 19th March and was 3.2%
3. T-Mobile have always referenced their price rises to the February RPI rate and applied them from 9th May.
4. At first TM claimed to have used January RPI 3.3% – published on Feb 12th 54 days before the letter was received.
   1. Orange used the January rate and wrote to customers on March 4th!
5. On 16th April (10 days AFTER the letter was received) The March RPI was published 3.3%
6. From 16thApril suddenly TM claim that hay had “anticipated” the March rate and it is the March rate that applies – three things:
   1. 1. March rate was published 10 days AFTER they wrote to me and 300,000 other customers – not before they wrote, so why is TM insisting that they can use the March rate?
      2. If TM had anticipated the March rate why did they, between 6th and 16th April, insist they had not used an incorrect RPI because they were using the January RPI (and not just customer services but the executive office too) – do they not know what month they are basing such an important decision on?
      3. Can ofcom ask TM to provide a copy of the Board minute where Olaf Swantee sanctioned a department within EE to calculate the March RPI for use in its planned May 9th price rise (there is no way it could have taken this course without such a minute) - if TM actually provide you with one (they won’t) I will show you why it is a fake.
7. The mere fact that T-Mobile changed their explanation of which rate was used, must raise the suspicions of an alert and proactive regulator.
8. On asking for immediate cancellation, you are refused – in fact on the number you have to call NOBODY has the authority to cancel a contract penalty free – neither can they transfer you to someone who does
9. Under clause 4.4.5.1& 2 if you are in genuine dispute with TM you can write to them and withhold payment – I wrote – they continue to call on the Direct Debit –I am not the only customer they have done this to.
10. I made it clear that I wanted to terminate “penalty free” and need a PAC code
    1. T-Mobile issued a PAC code and took £246.98p from my account as an early termination charge – I never used the PAC code, and it was only ever requested on a penalty free basis – so a breach of the unsolicited goods and services act – again I am not the only customer they have done this to.
    2. TM have agreed to refund the £246.98, that was over a week ago – and still no refund
11. TM refuse to issue deadlock letters thus preventing customers going to CISAS immediately – obviously in the hope that if customers have to wait 8 weeks they will lose interest
12. TM “Lent” on CISAS so that cases it had already agreed to take as falling under its remit suddenly became outside of it remit –with this most ridiculous rationale from CISAS:
    1. 'This case should be withdrawn. The increase in RPI is a business decision which CISAS cannot consider. Further, CISAS cannot consider whether there has been a breach of contract as asserted, as this cannot be reviewed without also examining the price increase. The issues cannot be separated therefore the claim is outside the scope of the scheme.'
       As everything a company does is a business decision, then CISAS can rule on nothing – so why does it exist?
13. Ofcom should be asking “why is a contract taken out after 1st November 2012 (maximum 5 months before the price rise letter was sent – 3.5 in my case) having an annual inflation rate applied to it on May 9th?”
    1. Answer – TM are applying the price rise, but crediting back the increased amount until November, thereby circumventing any decision that ofcom may announce declaring price rise clauses invalid – Yet more sharp practice from the “dominant” player in the market!

I have evidence for all of the above and more – and remember it is 300,000 customers being bullied/conned/misled into not exercising their rights to cancel. And there are another 1.7milion customers on Pre Oct 2012 contracts who are also being treated in the same way who also appear to have a strong case for penalty free cancelation, or at any rate should be being protected from the disgraceful behaviour of T-Mobile in this matter!

RandomCurve

Originally Posted by ruflonger
With respect to price increases, the UTCCRs provide that terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable (i.e. not unfair), provided the method by which prices vary is explicitly described.

Consumer Contact Team

anna2007 wrote: »

So by Ofcom's own admission, price increases linked to an unpublished RPI are likely to be unacceptable, i.e. unfair!!

Will either of you write to Ofcom and ask why they stated to MSE that EE had behaved reasonably when they applied an unpublished rate, but at the same time are saying that an increase in RPI is likely to be acceptable if it relates to a "published" rate?