Tmobile price increase

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

d123 - did TM refer to the March RPI rate in the defence they made against your case?

Yes, in great detail.

16. Pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 on or about the 2-8 April 2013 the Respondent issued to the Claimant (together with all of its pay monthly customers) written notice (“the Written Notice”) advising of a 3.3% increase in price plan monthly charges that would take effect as from 10 May 2013. The Respondent submits that adequate Written Notice was provided to the Claimant for the purposes of Clause 7.1.4.

17. The Respondent denies that the price increase of 3.3% is an increase above the Retail Price Index (‘RPI’) (when calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which the Respondent issued the Claimant with the Written Notice.

18. The Respondent further denies that such increase in charges is an increase which entitles the Claimant to terminate the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.

19. As the Written Notice was issued in the month of April 2013 then the relevant month’s RPI figure for the purposes of Clause 7.2.3.3 of the Agreement is the RPI figure as published by the Office of National Statistics (“ONS”) representing March 2013; being the month before the month in which the Written Notice was issued. The March RPI figure, published by the ONS Statistics was 3.3%. By way of the Monthly Statistical Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) published by the ONS the following is stated:-
The RPI 12-month rate for March [2013] stood at 3.3%


The Bulletin is a lengthy document so has not annexed to this Defence but can be made available to CISAS upon request.

20. The following is a summary of the RPI figures issued by the ONS month by month for the period January 2013 to March 2013.
RPI Month
RPI Percentage
RPI Publication Date
December 2013
3.1%
15 January 2013
January 2013
3.3%
12 February 2013
February 2013
3.2%
19 March 2013
March 2013
3.3%
16 April 2013

21. As the increase in charges of 3.3% set out within the Written Notice is not higher than the RPI figure published for the month before the month in which the Written Notice was issued (March 2013) of 3.3% the Claimant, by way of Clause 7.2.3.3 or otherwise, is not entitled to cancel the Agreement without paying a cancellation charge.

22. The RPI figure of 3.2% published by the ONS on 19 March 2013 as referred to by the Claimant within his application relates to the RPI figure for February 2013. The RPI figure published by the ONS in a given month relates to the preceding month and not the actual month of publication. Therefore the figure referred to by the Claimant as published on 19 March 2013 is actually the RPI figure for February 2013 and not the RPI figure for March 2013. The Respondent is not seeking to rely upon the RPI figure for February 2013.

23. The Respondent apologises for any confusion one of its agents may have given to the Claimant in respect to the relevant RPI figure, however the Respondent submits that such incorrect information (for which it apologises if such was given) does not alter the Respondent position. The Respondent at all times was seeking to rely upon the RPI on March 2013 and not the January 2013 RPI figure.

24. The Respondent avers that published RPI figure for March 2013 is the correct figure to use when applying the strict interpretation of Clause 7.2.3.3. Clause 7.2.3.3 specifically refers to the ‘Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which we send You Written Notice. (emphasis added). It follows, in line with the strict interpretation of Clause 7.2.3.3, that the Written Notice being issued in April 2013 relates to RPI figure for March 2013. Whilst the March RPI figure was not issued until after the date of the Written Notice such does not affect the construction and interpretation of the Clause 7.2.3.3.

25. It is denied that the fact that March 2013 RPI figure had not been published at the time the Written Notice was given restricts the Claimant’s ability to give notice to cancel as pleaded or at all. Clause 7.2.2.3 provided that notice to cancel (no such right being admitted) was required to be given prior to the new charge taking effect. The new charge was to take effect on 10 May 2013. March 2013 RPI figure was published on 16 April 2013. The Claimant therefore still had ample opportunity if the relevant RPI rate gave grounds to cancel (none being admitted) to give notice before the new charge took effect.

In my case the T-Mobile defence was submitted by their Senior Legal Counsel, Carmel Codd.

d123

Something else I just noticed right at the end of their defence. Remember I said I was sure they had blocked my email address?

29. The Respondent submits that it has temporarily removed its email facility as way of contacting its customer service department. This has been removed for all of its customers and is not isolated to the Claimant.

It is nothing more than a coincidence that the Claimant’s email were ‘blocked’ at the time the Claimant was attempting to communicate with the Respondent via email however the Respondent submits that such emails were not blocked as a direct result of the ongoing dispute between the parties.

The Claimant could have contacted the Respondent by alternative methods including calling or using the social media sites including the Respondent’s Facebook and Twitter account.

So now you all know why emails weren't going through.

daveuk1

anna2007 wrote: »

The contract requires the customer to give notice to cancel before the price change comes into effect - if you haven't done this, I can't see CISAS or TM agreeing to retrospective cancellations (although worth a try!).

I think the only way this might happen is if Ofcom were to intervene - highly unlikely - but I've emailed them details of my CISAS decision, copied to the media, and requested that they now take action (not only for customers who gave notice to cancel, but also for the remainder who were unaware/ unsure of their cancellation rights).

I agree that regulatory intervention is likely to be the only route for others to successfully terminate but I think CISAS' adjudication effectively means that all bets are off because it shows that it is not only the contractual terms that are important. If they were interpreting the contract strictly, they would have rejected the claims. So it's worth analysing their reasoning to see if it can be used to form a wider case against T-Mobile, albeit unlikely.

Chimper

d123 wrote: »

Something else I just noticed right at the end of their defence. Remember I said I was sure they had blocked my email address?

29. The Respondent submits that it has temporarily removed its email facility as way of contacting its customer service department. This has been removed for all of its customers and is not isolated to the Claimant.

It is nothing more than a coincidence that the Claimant’s email were ‘blocked’ at the time the Claimant was attempting to communicate with the Respondent via email however the Respondent submits that such emails were not blocked as a direct result of the ongoing dispute between the parties.

The Claimant could have contacted the Respondent by alternative methods including calling or using the social media sites including the Respondent’s Facebook and Twitter account.

So now you all know why emails weren't going through.

But they blocked a number of users on Facebook (myself included), and I hear Tweets had been removed as well. In any case, using either of methods of communication would only result in them telling you that they don't deal with complaints, and you have to write in.

As far as phone calls are concerned, it's impossible to get any sense out of them, and you'd never get to speak to anyone with authority anyway. :mad:

d123

My CISAS adjudication decision reasons.

anna2007

d123 wrote: »

Yes, in great detail.

Great news, TM didn't refer to March RPI in my case (other than in the supporting documentation). So prediction theory of RPI rate didn't go down too well at CISAS

d123

anna2007 wrote: »

Great news, TM didn't refer to March RPI in my case (other than in the supporting documentation). So prediction theory of RPI rate didn't go down too well at CISAS

The adjudicator saw straight through that, part k, top of the second page.

Barnicle_Fiend

Well done guys!

For those that didn't cancel their contracts on time &/or haven't acted to date. Bear in mind that t-mobile breached Ofcom General Condition 9.6(c):

"(c) at the same time as giving the notice ...[of the price hike, the Communications Provider]... shall inform the Subscriber of its ability to terminate the contract without penalty if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the Subscriber."

In my view there is a reasonable argument that customers cancelling late were not made aware of their right to cancel & effectively misled into accepting the price hike.

magicuk

Obviously I've been following this thread with great interest and now CICAS are siding with us in regards to this recent price increase its even more interesting! now at the start of May I contacted t mobile to tell them I didn't agree with the increase and would like to cancel, they obv advised me I can't without charges, now when I spoke to the lady on the phone I told her I would like it to be documented on my account that I don't agree with the increased charges and left it as that (obv back then I was also following this thread where MSE were saying you may be able to cancel) now this is all coming to light that we could indeed cancel do I have to wright to CICAS or can I just call t mobile CS stating due to these points I would like to cancel and request my PAC code?

RandomCurve

Below sent to Ofcom and the media, consumer orgs and MPs


Dear Graham.

Oh dear. Despite offering to help Ofcom and supplying you with enough details to be proactive (I have sent you two emails without copying in the media offering you my full FREE assistance), it seems that your inactivity may now leave Ofcom on the back foot - defeat snatched from the jaws of victory????

You are probably aware by now that CISAS has found in favour of customers on both versions of the T-Mobile contract that T-Mobile have acted inappropriately in their attempt to introduce a mid term price hike and are allowing penalty free cancellation. Not sure what Ofcoms next move is seeing as you have already dismissed anybody who has informed Ofcom that something is wrong that it is an individual case - and have stated to the press that TM (EE) have acted reasonably.

So now we will find out what Ofcom is really made of:

1. Will you continue to hide away (thereby being perceived by the public as a stooge for the industry) and allow 2 million customers who could have cancelled their contracts -but did not due to TMs tactics and ofcoms complicity by stating that all was above board while customers still had a chance to cancel - be subject to an out of T&C price rise? Or
2. Will you actually do something to protect the consumer and force TM to write to EVERY customer affected by the "illegal" price rise to offer them a chance of a penalty free cancelation back dated to Mid April?

I guess you will be judged by your actions (or inaction)

I look forwarded to reading your response in the press shortly as well as your response to this email.

One good thing to come of this is that with the research I have put in I am convinced that rather than Ofcom "conducting a consultation" on mid tem price hikes you should have acted much more aggressively to disallow them (and STILL CAN - including back dating!), but I'll give you a chance to weather this storm first.

Regards


Steve