Tmobile price increase

aiutami

Congratulations to those who have been successful with their CISAS cases.

If possible could someone help me out. I put off sending in a CISAS application mainly because I became very confused with this whole process some time ago. I emailed and phoned T-Mobile with my intention to cancel without penalty due to ......... etc etc before the May 9th deadline. My next step would have been CISAS but like I said I am lost. It is not a case of being lazy as I have trawled through this thread but with all the information I cannot fathom out what i need to write to CISAS and what I need to include. If somebody who has been successful in having an application accepted could let me have a template and some pointers I would be very grateful.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Chimper

anna2007 wrote: »

When you receive the decision, there's a covering letter to say you have 6 weeks to either accept or reject it. If you accept, TM has 4 weeks to comply (as per d123's post above), and if you reject, you're then free to take the matter to court.

I haven't requested PAC codes at any stage, so when I email CISAS to accept the decision, I'm going to request that TM provides confirmation in their letter of apology that PAC and unlock codes will be provided, and that no mobile phone relating to my two contracts will be blocked by TM (thanks to Random Curve for this advice).

I'd be inclined to get the phones unlocked locally. Customers are complaining on Facebook/Twitter about the time T-Mobile are taking in getting codes - sometimes waiting months. No doubt T-Mobile will try and frustrate attempts to get them unlocked through themselves, especially if it wasn't in the original CISAS complaint.

As TM have 4 weeks to comply, and that a PAC is valid for 30 days, I don't suppose it would make any difference if you asked for the PAC by phone. This way you could get it immediately and not have to wait if TM decided to delay for the full 4 weeks.

d123

aiutami wrote: »

Congratulations to those who have been successful with their CISAS cases.

If possible could someone help me out. I put off sending in a CISAS application mainly because I became very confused with this whole process some time ago. I emailed and phoned T-Mobile with my intention to cancel without penalty due to ......... etc etc before the May 9th deadline. My next step would have been CISAS but like I said I am lost. It is not a case of being lazy as I have trawled through this thread but with all the information I cannot fathom out what i need to write to CISAS and what I need to include. If somebody who has been successful in having an application accepted could let me have a template and some pointers I would be very grateful.

Thank you in advance for your help.

If it helps, this was my reply to T-Mobile's defence in my case (which was successful).

Put it into your own words and use it if you wish.

d123

Chimper wrote: »

.

As TM have 4 weeks to comply, and that a PAC is valid for 30 days, I don't suppose it would make any difference if you asked for the PAC by phone. This way you could get it immediately and not have to wait if TM decided to delay for the full 4 weeks.

I wouldn't be surprised if those PAC numbers don't get processed pretty quickly by T-Mobile, in terms of the judgement we basically have free service from the 7th of April.

The longer they take to process the PAC, the longer we have that free service and I'm pretty sure T-Mobile wont want to allow that.

RandomCurve

Barnicle_Fiend wrote: »

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.

The letter says:
"Can I cancel my contract?
Yes. If you want to cancel your contract early, you'll need to pay any cancellation charges that may apply"

Not sue if the use of "may" lets them of the hook? Certainly worth a try that they have breached 9.6 (c). Ofcom rules also state that they MUST give 30 days notice, so combining above with the fact that the rate was not published you never received 30 days notice, and that the term is not enforceable as TM never clearly bought to your attention that the price rise clause existed (see earlier posts) by stringing it all together you may start o paint a picture - Oh and last years time line where they timing is the same but they used the higher Feb rate- trem is open to manipulation - i.e. unfair!

RandomCurve

daveuk1 wrote: »

To repeat one final time the point I have made previously, I think (and happily this is immaterial as I am not adjudicating) that the terms are clear. Specifically, "the month before the month in which we have you notice" is, in this case, March, as surely as night follows day. I grant you that T-Mobile caused confusion by sending out notice before the relevant RPI was known, which is staggeringly incompetent. But it doesn't, in my view, render the contract terms themselves ambiguous, albeit that this is a distinction people here don't seem to like and neither did it bother the adjudicator. That's fine, it's just my opinion.

What happened last year is an irrelevance. It has no bearing on whether TM are in breach this year.

But either way in one of the years they must be in breach. and as in each year they have used the higher rate, and by TMs own admission they can predict RPI with certainty, then the clause must be ambiguous by default as it can clearly be manipulated. Also the terms need to be understandable by the lay person so that fact that customers did not query that TM had used an RPI higher than allowed last year means that the reasonable interpretation is that the clause needs to have the word PUBLISHED inserted onto it to be fair?

Barnicle_Fiend

RandomCurve wrote: »

The letter says:
"Can I cancel my contract?
Yes. If you want to cancel your contract early, you'll need to pay any cancellation charges that may apply"

Not sue if the use of "may" lets them of the hook? Certainly worth a try that they have breached 9.6 (c). Ofcom rules also state that they MUST give 30 days notice, so combining above with the fact that the rate was not published you never received 30 days notice, and that the term is not enforceable as TM never clearly bought to your attention that the price rise clause existed (see earlier posts) by stringing it all together you may start o paint a picture - Oh and last years time line where they timing is the same but they used the higher Feb rate- trem is open to manipulation - i.e. unfair!

In my view there is a world of difference between:

Informing the customer of their ability to terminate the contract without penalty if they are unhappy with an imposed price hike.

and

Informing the customer that they can cancel at anytime if they pay any relevant cancelation fees.



The first relates to the situation and contains particular information the customer needs to make an informed decision (i.e. without penalty).

The second is simply a universal fact that all customers already know and applies all the time.

The difference is as stark in my view as "you may be charged if you call a foreign country" and "you will not be charged for making calls to Austria".

daveuk1

RandomCurve wrote: »

But either way in one of the years they must be in breach. and as in each year they have used the higher rate, and by TMs own admission they can predict RPI with certainty, then the clause must be ambiguous by default as it can clearly be manipulated. Also the terms need to be understandable by the lay person so that fact that customers did not query that TM had used an RPI higher than allowed last year means that the reasonable interpretation is that the clause needs to have the word PUBLISHED inserted onto it to be fair?

From what I recall from further up this thread, it sounds as though they were in breach last year and nobody picked it up.

I agree that the word "published" would add clarity (as it does to the post-Oct terms) but not that it is necessary to interpret the clause unambiguously. The terms can be understood by everyone. TM acted illogically though, which caused confusion and led people to believe the terms must mean something other than that which they clearly do.

Anyhow, CISAS and most here see it differently. As it's CISAS' view that counts, there's probably little point in continuing to debate it.

DamePeggy

I’m so pleased that some of you have been having your CISAS complaints upheld - it’s great to see them supporting the customers – let’s hope that Ofcom follow suit (althogh I won’t be holding my breath on that – have you seen the kind of people who sit on their board? Consumer focussed they aren’t). Hats off to all of you who have put in the effort to make this so.

I’ll fully understand if those who have put in so much good work feel like telling me to clear off, but could I make a little suggestion that could make this huge thread less of a victim of it’s own success.

There have been a number of excellent posts with specific instructions about key aspects of the process – like countering EE’s ‘ it’s a business decision’ argument, detailed replies to EE’s defence etc.

Finding these replies in this massive thread is no easy task. I wonder if a few of the main posters could point to the post numbers where they think the main bits of their advice can be found (I see that some have done so for some points in their replies already).

I note that the OP has posted again in the thread – perhaps s/he wouldn’t mind editing the original post to incldue these too perhaps. I tried to do this with my thread on my Orange comnplaint with CISAS (which is now progressing to the small claims court).

Once again, feel free to tell me to get lost, but I think it might help. Very well done and thanks for the excellent work!

anna2007

Chimper wrote: »

I'd be inclined to get the phones unlocked locally. Customers are complaining on Facebook/Twitter about the time T-Mobile are taking in getting codes - sometimes waiting months. No doubt T-Mobile will try and frustrate attempts to get them unlocked through themselves, especially if it wasn't in the original CISAS complaint.

As TM have 4 weeks to comply, and that a PAC is valid for 30 days, I don't suppose it would make any difference if you asked for the PAC by phone. This way you could get it immediately and not have to wait if TM decided to delay for the full 4 weeks.

Thanks Chimper, I'll leave the unlock codes out, one is a replacement sim-free phone anyway, and I'm not even sure yet if the other needs to be unlocked.

My only worry with requesting the PACs in the usual way is that the CS Advisor most likely won't have a clue re the CISAS decision and will hit my account with the termination charges. I've requested that they provide me with contact details of a TM rep who is aware of the decision and can provide with the PACs before the account's closed.

d123 is right, I can't see TM stalling - potentially, I could have had another 10 weeks of free service from TM (6 weeks to accept the decision and 30 days to use the PACs, plus however long it takes TM to comply with the decision), in addition to the 11 weeks to date, but to be honest, my desire to say good riddance to TM is stronger. I emailed my acceptance of the decision to CISAS last night.